(Oudtestamentische Studiën 60) Csaba Balogh-The Stele of YHWH in Egypt_ The Prophecies of Isaiah 18–20 concerning Egypt and Kush-Brill (2011).pdf

The Stele of YHWH in Egypt

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

Editor

B. Becking Utrecht Editorial Board

H.G.M. Williamson Oxford

H.F. Van Rooy Potchefstroom

M. Vervenne Leuven

VOLUME 60

The titles published in this series are listed at www.brill.nl/ots

The Stele of YHWH in Egypt The Prophecies of Isaiah 18–20 concerning Egypt and Kush

By

Csaba Balogh

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2011

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Balogh, Csaba, 1975– The stele of YHWH in Egypt : the prophecies of Isaiah 18–20 concerning Egypt and Kush / by Csaba Balogh. p. cm. — (Oudtestamentische studiën, ISSN 0169-7226 = Old Testament studies ; v. 60) Revision of the author’s thesis—Theological University of the Reformed Churches, Kampen, Netherlands, 2009. Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. ISBN 978-90-04-21157-5 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T. Isaiah XVIII–XX—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Bible. O.T. Isaiah— Prophecies—Egypt. 3. Egypt in the Bible. 4. Bible. O.T. Isaiah—Prophecies—Ethiopia. 5. Ethiopia in the Bible. 6. Bible. O.T. Isaiah—Prophecies—Cushites. 7. Cushites— Prophecies. I. Title. II. Series. BS1515.6.E59B35 2011 224’.106—dc23 2011030295

ISSN: 0169-7226 ISBN: 978 90 04 21157 5 Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.

To Gyöngyi, Benjámin and Efraim

CONTENTS

Preface .................................................................................................. Abbreviations ......................................................................................

xi xiii

Chapter One Introduction ............................................................ 1.1 The Book of Isaiah as the Context of Isaiah 13–23 ....... 1.1.1 Historical Research on the Book of Isaiah and its Problems .............................................................. 1.1.2 Literary Research on the Book of Isaiah and its Problems ................................................................... 1.1.3 Theological Research on the Book of Isaiah and its Problems .............................................................. 1.2 Isaiah 13–23(24–27) as a Corpus ...................................... 1.3 Isaiah 18–20 in the Collection of Isaiah 13–23 .............. 1.3.1 The Prophecy in Isaiah 18 ..................................... 1.3.2 The Prophecy in Isaiah 19 ..................................... 1.3.3 The Prophecy in Isaiah 20 ..................................... 1.4 The Purpose and Outline of the Present Study ..............

1 2

Chapter Two Collections of Foreign Nation Prophecies as Context for Isaiah 13–23 .............................................................. 2.1 Preliminary Remarks ........................................................... 2.2 The Background of the Foreign Nation Prophecies ....... 2.3 The Biblical Prophecies Concerning Foreign Nations ... 2.4 Collections of Foreign Nation Prophecies in the Bible ....................................................................................... 2.4.1 Foreign Nation Prophecies in the Book of Amos ......................................................................... 2.4.2 Foreign Nation Prophecies in the Book of Jeremiah .................................................................... 2.4.3 Foreign Nation Prophecies in the Book of Ezekiel ....................................................................... 2.4.4 Foreign Nation Prophecies in the Book of Zephaniah ................................................................. 2.5 Conclusion ............................................................................

3 7 13 20 27 27 29 30 31

35 35 38 41 45 46 49 56 62 66

viii

contents

Chapter Three Reconstructing the Broken Stele of Yhwh: The Foreign Nation Prophecies of Isaiah 13–23 as Context for Isaiah 18–20 ............................................................................. 3.1 The Superscriptions and the Structure of Isaiah 13–23 ... 3.2 The Subdivisions in Isaiah 13–23 ...................................... 3.2.1 The Composition of Isaiah 13:1–14:27 ................ Isaiah 13:2–8 ............................................................ Isaiah 13:9–16, 17–22 ............................................. Isaiah 14:1–4a, 4b–21, 22–23 ................................ Isaiah 14:24–27 ........................................................ 3.2.2 The Composition of Isaiah 14:28–32 ................... 3.2.3 The Composition of Isaiah 15–16 ........................ Isaiah 15:1–16:5 ....................................................... Isaiah 16:6–12, 13–14 ............................................. 3.2.4 The Composition of Isaiah 17(–18) ..................... 3.2.5 The Composition of Isaiah 21:1–10 ..................... 3.2.6 The Composition of Isaiah 21:11–12 ................... 3.2.7 The Composition of Isaiah 21:13–17 ................... 3.2.8 The Composition of Isaiah 22 ............................... Isaiah 22:1–14 .......................................................... Isaiah 22:15–25 ........................................................ 3.2.9 The Composition of Isaiah 23 ............................... 3.3 Preliminary Conclusions to Isaiah 13–23 ........................ 3.4 Isaiah 13–23 as a Royal Stele of Yhwh ............................

69 69 74 75 76 79 83 89 92 96 96 98 100 103 107 109 111 111 117 121 130 133

Chapter Four Lands of Riddles: The Analysis of Isaiah 18 ..... 4.1 Translation with Text-Critical and Semantic Notes ....... 4.2 Exegetical Section ................................................................ 4.2.1 Verses 1–2b .............................................................. 4.2.2 Verses 2c–g ............................................................... 4.2.3 Verses 3–6 ................................................................. 4.2.4 Verse 7 ....................................................................... 4.2.5 Conclusion ................................................................ 4.3 Isaiah 18 in Context ............................................................ 4.3.1 Literary Issues in Isaiah 18 .................................... The Integrity of Isaiah 18 ....................................... Isaiah 18 and Its Context ....................................... The Intertextual Connections in Isaiah 18 .......... 4.3.2 Theological Perspectives in Isaiah 18 ................... 4.3.3 The Historical Background of Isaiah 18 ..............

139 140 161 161 166 170 176 177 178 178 178 182 185 187 193

contents

ix

4.4 Isaiah 18 and the Stele of Yhwh (Isaiah 13–23) ............ 4.5 Conclusion ............................................................................

200 202

Chapter Five From Chaos to Covenant: The Analysis of Isaiah 19 .......................................................................................... 5.1 Translation with Text-Critical and Semantic Notes ....... 5.2 Exegetical Section ................................................................ 5.2.1 Verses 1–4 ................................................................. 5.2.2 Verses 5–10 ............................................................... 5.2.3 Verses 11–15 ............................................................ 5.2.4 Verses 16–17 ............................................................ 5.2.5 Verse 18 ..................................................................... 5.2.6 Verses 19–22 ............................................................ 5.2.7 Verse 23 ..................................................................... 5.2.8 Verses 24–25 ............................................................ 5.2.9 Conclusion ................................................................ 5.3 Isaiah 19 in Context ............................................................ 5.3.1 Literary Issues in Isaiah 19 .................................... The Integrity of Isaiah 19 ....................................... The Intertextual Connections of Isaiah 19 .......... 5.3.2 Theological Perspectives in Isaiah 19 ................... Isaiah 19:1–15 .......................................................... Isaiah 19:16–25 ........................................................ 5.3.3 The Historical Background of Isaiah 19 .............. Isaiah 19:1–15 and History .................................... Isaiah 19:16–25 and History .................................. 5.4 Isaiah 19 and the Stele of Yhwh (Isaiah 13–23) ............ 5.5 Conclusion ............................................................................

205 206 234 234 240 244 250 251 257 263 266 269 270 270 271 277 279 279 283 290 291 296 302 304

Chapter Six Naked Truth: The Analysis of Isaiah 20 ................ 6.1 Translation with Text-Critical and Semantic Notes ....... 6.2 Exegetical Section ................................................................ 6.3 Isaiah 20 in Context ............................................................ 6.3.1 Literary Issues in Isaiah 20 .................................... 6.3.2 Theological Perspectives in Isaiah 20 ................... 6.3.3 The Historical Background of Isaiah 20 .............. 6.4 Isaiah 20 and the Stele of Yhwh (Isaiah 13–23) ............ 6.5 Conclusion ............................................................................

305 306 310 318 318 322 326 332 333

x

contents

Chapter Seven Conclusion ............................................................ 7.1 Isaiah 18–20 from a Literary Perspective ........................ 7.1.1 The Literary Integrity of Isaiah 18–20 ................. 7.1.2 The Prophecies of Isaiah 18–20 in their Literary Context ...................................................................... 7.2 Theological Concerns in Isaiah 18–20 ............................. 7.2.1 Theological Considerations from an Isaianic Perspective ................................................................ 7.2.2 Theological Considerations from the Perspective of FNPs ..................................................................... 7.3 Isaiah 18–20 from a Historical Perspective ..................... 7.4 Isaiah 18–20 and the Royal Stele of Yhwh (Isaiah 13–23) .......................................................................

335 335 335

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

353

Index of Authors ................................................................................ Index of Biblical References ............................................................. Index of Non-Biblical References ....................................................

371 377 390

337 341 341 344 346 348

PREFACE

This book is a revised version of my dissertation submitted to the Theological University of the Reformed Churches (liberated) in Kampen (The Netherlands), and openly defended in September 2009. The dissertation was prepared under the guidance of prof. Gert Kwakkel, whose wisdom and generosity in matters of both scholarship and human life considerably exceeded any limits and levels that I have ever anticipated. What the reader will eventually experience on the following pages as constructive side effects for the development of Old Testament scholarship may be considered an imprint of this intuitive supervision. I have also profited significantly from the comments of my co-supervisor, prof. Arie van der Kooij of Leiden University, whose kind interest in the subject of this monograph was shown by correspondences even after the process of promotion had already been officially closed. In all matters related to egyptology, I am indebted to the expertise of Dr. Jaap van Dijk from Groningen University, who was always willing to discuss the egyptological problems I have stumbled into and challenge my findings. I would also like to express my gratitude to the reading committee consisting of the distinguished professors H.G.L. Peels, P.H.R. van Houwelingen, F. van der Pol, and W.H. Rose. The remarks of the anonymous reviewers of the series Old Testament Studies—Oudtestamentische Studiën have led to several helpful clarifications during the final stages in the preparation of the manuscript. I am thankful for the support of prof. Bob Becking and the willingness of the editors of OTS to publish the current monograph in this prestigious series. I would like to thank Robert Olsen for correcting the English text of the manuscript. The author bears full responsibility for any remaining errors. This book is dedicated to my beloved family, my wife, Gyöngyi, and our sons, Benjámin and Efraim, for relentlessly reminding me not to lose sight of the details. Although they may not have been aware of it, I have constantly been enjoying their help to understand Isaiah 6:3. Far beyond all that I myself could have achieved in my struggles with the

xii

preface

exegesis of Isaiah, they made me realise how full this world is with the glory of God and see how close to me it shines. Csaba Balogh April 27, 2011 Kolozsvár / Cluj-Napoca / Klausenburg

The research for this book was made possible by Stichting Fundament—Iránytű. The preparations for publication were supported by Stichting Afbouw Kampen.

ABBREVIATIONS1

AÄ

A. Blasius, B.U. Schipper (eds), Apokalyptik und Ägypten: Eine kritische Analyse der relevanten Texte aus dem griechischrömischen Ägypten, Leuven 2002 ABC A.K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Locust Valley 1975 ABD D.N. Freedman (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary, vols 1–6, New York 1992 ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library AEL M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vols 1–3, Berkeley, CA 1971–80 ÄHG J. Assmann, Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete, Zürich 1975 ArEL E.W. Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, vols 1–8, London 1863–93 ASV American Standard Version AThD Abhandlungen zur Theologie und Dogmatik ATM Altes Testament und Moderne BAL R. Borger, Babylonisch-assyrische Lesestücke, Rome 1963 BBVO Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient BDB F. Brown et al., A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Oxford 1907 BES Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar BIS Biblical Interpretation Series BIWA R. Borger, Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals, Wiesbaden 1996 BJS Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego BL H. Bauer, P. Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes, Halle 1922 BoI J. Vermeylen (ed.), The Book of Isaiah—Le livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures unité et complexité de l’ouvrage (BEThL, 81), Leuven 1989 1 For abbreviations not found on this list, see S.M. Schwertner, Abkürzungsverzeichnis (TRE), Berlin 21994. Page numbers are used as follows: (a) in dictionaries: CAD 124 indicates page 124 of CAD; (b) in lexicons: LÄ 4.125 indicates page 125 from vol. 4 of LÄ; (c) in text editions: COS, 1.303 refers to page 303 from vol. 1 of COS (COS 1.23 indicates text nr. 23 from vol. 1).

xiv CAL CANE

abbreviations

The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (http://cal1.cn.huc.edu) J.M. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, vols 1–4, New York 1995 CBOT Coniectanea Biblica. Old Testament Series CDA J.A. Black et al., A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian, Wiesbaden 2000 CDD J.H. Johnson (ed.), The Demotic Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago 2001–(http:// oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/cdd) CdÉ Chronique d’Égypte CDG W. Leslau, Comparative Dictionary of Ge’ez, 1991 CDME R.O. Faulkner, A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, Oxford 1962 COS W.H. Hallo, K.L. Younger (eds), The Context of Scripture, vols 1–3, Leiden 1997–2002 CRBS Currents in Research: Biblical Studies CSD R. Payne Smith, J. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary: Founded upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith, Oxford 1903 CTN Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud D A.B. Davidson, Hebrew Syntax, Edinburgh 1901 DAW T.R. Kämmerer, D. Schwiderski, Deutsch-Akkadisches Wörterbuch, Münster 1998 DB J. Hastings (ed.), A Dictionary of the Bible, vols 1–5, Edinburgh 1919 DCH D.J.A. Clines (ed.), The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, Sheffield 1993– DDD K. van der Toorn et al. (eds), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden 21999 DJPA M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, Baltimore, MD 22002 DJBA M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods, Ramat-Gan 2002 DLU G. del Olmo Lete, J. Sanmartín, Dicctionario de la lengua ugarítica, vols 1–2, Barcelona 1996–2000 DNWSI J. Hoftijzer, K. Jongeling (eds), Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscripions, vols 1–2, Leiden 1995 DSA A. Tal, Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic, vols 1–2, Leiden 2000

abbreviations DTTM

xv

M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature, New York 1996 EA El-Amarna tablets EB T.K. Cheyne, J.S. Black (eds), Encyclopaedia Biblica, London 1899–1903 ÉB Études bibliques EQ Evangelical Quarterly EÜ Einheitsübersetzung FHN T. Eide (ed.), Fontes Historiae Nubiorum: Textual Sources for the History of the Middle Nile Region between the Eighth Century bc and the Sixth Century ad, vols 1–3, Bergen 1994 FNP Foreign Nation Prophecies FO Folia orientalia GAG W. von Soden, Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik, Rome 3 1995 GesB W. Gesenius, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, Leipzig 171921 GesThes W. Gesenius, Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguae Hebreae et Chaldaeae Veteris Testamenti, vols 1–3, Leipzig 1829–58 GGWJ Grundriss der Gesamtwissenschaft des Judentums GKC E. Kautsch (ed.), Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (tr. by A.E. Cowley), Oxford 21910 GM Göttinger Miszellen gn geographical name HAHE J. Renz, Handbuch der Althebräischen Epigraphik, Bd. 1–4, Darmstadt 1995–2003 HALOT L. Koehler et al. (eds), The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (tr. by M.E.J. Richardson et al.), vols 1–4, Leiden 1994–99 HBS Herders Biblische Studien HdO Handbuch der Orientalistik HSAT Die heiligen Schriften des Alten Testaments HSED V.E. Orel, O.V. Stolbova, Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary, Leiden 1995 HThKAT Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament HUB Hebrew University Bible, Jerusalem, 1965– IAKA R. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien, Osnabrück 1967

xvi INBK

abbreviations

H. Schaudig, Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros’ des Grossen samt den in ihrem Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften: Textausgabe und Grammatik, Münster 2001 ISK A. Fuchs, Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad, Göttingen 1994 ITP H. Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, King of Assyria, Jerusalem 1994 Int. Interpretation JM P. Joüon, T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, vols 1–2, Rome 1993 JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages JPS Jewish Publication Society JS Journal for Semitics / Tydskrif vir Semitistik JSS Journal of Semitic Studies JSSEA Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities JSSM Journal of Semitic Studies Monographs KEHAT Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament KHCAT Kurzer Handcommentar zum Alten Testament KHw W. Westendorf, Koptisches Handwörterbuch, Heidelberg 1965–77 KS F.E. König, Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache: Syntax, Bd. 2/2, Leipzig 1897 KV Korte Verklaring der Heilige Schrift L J.P. Lettinga, Grammatica van het Bijbels Hebreeuws, Leiden 9 1991 LS C. Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum, Hidlesheim 1982 MC Mesopotamian Civilisations MH Mishnaic Hebrew MVEOL Mededeelingen en verhandelingen van het VooraziatischEgyptisch Gezelschap ‘Ex oriente lux’ NASB New American Standard Bible NBD J.D. Douglas (ed.), New Bible Dictionary, 31996 NCW J. Levy, Neuhebräisches und chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim, Bd. 1–4, Leipzig 1876–89 NEAEHL E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vols 1–4, Jerusalem 1993 NIBC New International Biblical Commentary

abbreviations NICOT NIDOTTE

xvii

New International Commentary on the Old Testament A. VanGemeren (ed.), New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis, vols 1–5, Grand Rapids, MI 1997 NIV New International Version NJB New Jerusalem Bible NSKAT Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar / Altes Testament NRSV New Revised Standard Version OEANE E.M. Meyers, The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Archaeology in the Near East, New York 1997 pn personal name PNAE S. Parpola (ed.), The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Helsinki 1998– PPANE M. Nissinen (ed.), Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (WAW, 12), Atlanta, GA 2003 PPD C.R. Krahmalkov (ed.), Phoenician-Punic Dictionary, Leuven 2000 PW A.F. von Pauly, G. Wissowa (eds), Realencyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, Bd. 1–49, Stuttgart, 1894–1997 QH Qumranic Hebrew RIMA The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods RSV Revised Standard Version SAA State Archives of Assyria SAAB State Archives of Assyria Bulletin SAAS State Archives of Assyria Studies SBAAT Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände. Altes Testament SH(C)ANE Studies in the History (and Culture) of the Ancient Near East SI Summary Inscription (of Tiglath-pileser III) SOF Societas Orientalis Fennica SOTS.MS The Society for Old Testament Study Monograph Series TA Tel Aviv: Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University TCT Textual Criticism and the Translator TSSI J.C.L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, vols 1–3, Oxford 1971–82 T&T Tekst en Toelichting

xviii var. VL WÄS

abbreviations

variant R. Gryson (ed.), Esaias, vol. of Vetus Latina, Freiburg, 1987–97 A. Erman, H. Grapow, Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache, Bd. 1–4, Berlin 41982 WAW Writings from the Ancient World WBC Word Biblical Commentary WO B.K. Waltke, M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake, IN 1990

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

This is a study of Isa. 18–20, three chapters in the so-called Isaianic prophecies concerning foreign nations, Isa. 13–23(24–27).1 In addition to their textual proximity, there is at least one common element that ties these three chapters together. Isa. 18–20 deal with two neighbouring kingdoms of the Nile, Kush and Egypt. The two lands had strong political ties in the era of the prophet Isaiah, so it is not surprising that they are addressed here one after another. Through a detailed analysis of the three chapters I hope to contribute to a better understanding of the collection of prophecies on the nations in the book of Isaiah and, more generally, the wider phenomenon of prophecies concerning the foreign nations, so prevalent in the Hebrew Bible.2 Although sections of these three chapters have captured the attention of scholars of divergent interests, differing in focus and adopting diversified methodologies, a comprehensive study concentrating on Isa. 18–20 does not yet exist.3 Insofar as Isa. 18–20 is part of a collection of prophecies concerning various nations, the analysis of these chapters necessitates a survey of previous research on Isa. 13–23 as a whole. At the same time, the methodological divergences in the

1 For the diverging views concerning the delimitation and designation of this corpus, see §§1.2 and 2.1. 2 Two marginal interpretations may be noted here, but they shall not be taken into consideration any further in this study. In an article on Isa. 18, Winckler located the Kush of Isa. 18:1 not in Africa, as scholars usually do, but in southern Mesopotamia, connecting Isa. 18 with Gen. 10:8–12 and the Chaldaean embassy of Merodachbaladan from Isa. 39 (H. Winckler, Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen, Leipzig 1892, 146–56). Although ‫ כושׁ‬may occasionally refer to southern Mesopotamia, this investigation concurs with the widely adopted view that ‫ כושׁ‬mentioned in Isa. 18:1 is to be located in the Nile valley. A second opinion to be left out of discussion is König’s interpretation of Isa. 17:12–14 as a prophecy focusing on the fall of Egypt and thus thematically related to Isa. 18–20 (König, 197–98). König’s identification of the unnamed group of many nations in Isa. 17:12–14 with Egyptians does not rest on convincing arguments, and later interpreters pursue a different exegetical trace. 3 Isa. 18–20 are discussed in an article by A. Niccacci, ‘Isaiah xviii–xx from an Egyptological Perspective’, VT 48 (1998), 214–38. For other studies on different parts of Isa. 18–20, see §1.2 below and the Bibliography.

2

chapter one

background of studies devoted to Isa. 13–23 can barely be understood without a concise assessment of the larger frame of this collection, the book of Isaiah in its entirety.

1.1

The Book of Isaiah as the Context of Isaiah 13–23

The Hebrew prophets in general and particularly the book of Isaiah have received unparalleled attention from biblical scholars. The prophet Isaiah is in many respects the archetype of the individual artist. Classical reconstruction of Isaiah’s person and his audience suggest that his untimely words condensed into textual form were not well received by an age with convictions largely opposing his own. But for those looking back at his visions across the distant miles of time and thinking, his legacy has become one of the most productive traditions of the Bible. Isaiah’s words have fascinated a variety of readers from the most ancient tradents of the prophet’s writings, through various communities of post-exilic Judah, the Diaspora, the early Christians, to readers and scholars of our own time. Attempts to summarise current studies on the book of Isaiah have been quite numerous, just like the methods applied and the results achieved.4 It is here neither possible nor necessary to review them all in detail. A short overview of the most significant tendencies will, however, help to situate the present study in the field of biblical scholarship. The summary below will outline the various prevalent historical, literary and theological approaches to the study of this book.

4

For overviews on Isaiah-research since the 1980’s, see, for instance, A.G. Auld, ‘Poetry, Prophecy, Hermeneutic: Recent Studies in Isaiah’, SJTh 33 (1980), 567–81; R. Kilian, Jesaja 1–39 (EdF, 200), Darmstadt 1983; C. Hardmeier, ‘Jesajaforschung im Umbruch’, VF 31 (1986), 3–30; M.A. Sweeney, ‘The Book of Isaiah in Recent Research’, CRBS 1 (1993), 141–62; Idem, ‘Reevaluating Isaiah 1–39 in Recent Critical Research’, CRBS 4 (1996), 79–114; H.G.M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction, Oxford 1994, 1–18; M.E. Tate, ‘The Book of Isaiah in Recent Study’, in: J.W. Watts, P.R. House (eds), Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts (JSOT.S, 235), Sheffield 1996, 22–56; Berges, 11–46; U. Becker, ‘Jesajaforschung (Jes 1–39)’, ThR 64 (1999), 1–37, 117–52; P. Höffken, Jesaja: Der Stand der theologischen Diskussion, Darmstadt 2004.

introduction

3

1.1.1 Historical Research on the Book of Isaiah and Its Problems The problem that concerns us here is the nature of relationship between the text of Isaiah and the historical reality it supposedly represents. The superscription in Isa. 1:1 places the book in the context of the second half of the 8th century bc, the era of the kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. While reading Isaiah against this historical background was rather common until the 18th century (with the exception of a few voices questioning the proper place of Isa. 40–66), scholars became increasingly sceptical regarding this historicising superscription. After many long debates, the previous consensus concerning the historical background of the book came to be fragmented beyond recognition. At the same time, scholars recognised that written prophecies continued to play a crucial role in reading communities long after and often unrelated to any original historical context. For these reasons some interpreters questioned the legitimacy and indeed adequacy of a hermeneutical approach focusing merely on the (primary) historical situation underlying the text. Despite the subsequent marked shift of attention from historical issues to literary analysis in present-day scholarship, there is still a great deal of interest in the historical study of Isaiah. Most commentators consider it important to sketch the history of the late 8th century as a background against which the Isaianic prophecies can be understood.5 Moreover, historical questions play an extremely significant role when the literary composition of the book of Isaiah is analysed from a redaction critical perspective. Historical considerations are significant reference points when dating texts and editions to different periods. As De Jong has recently noted, the general Near Eastern phenomenon

5 H. Donner, Israel unter den Völkern: Die Stellung der klassischen Propheten des 8. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. zur Außenpolitik der Könige von Israel und Juda (VT.S, 11), Leiden 1964; P. Machinist, ‘Assyria and Its Image in the First Isaiah’, JAOS 103 (1983), 719–37; F. Gonçalves, L’expédition de Sennachérib en Palestine dans la littérature hébraïque ancienne (PIOL, 34), Louvain-la-Neuve 1986; S.A. Irvine, Isaiah, Ahaz, and the Syro-Ephraimitic Crisis (SBL.DS, 123), Atlanta, GA 1990; M.A. Sweeney, ‘Sargon’s Threat against Jerusalem in Isaiah 10.27–32’, Bib. 75 (1994), 457–70; A. Schoors, ‘Historical Information in Isaiah 1–39’, in: J. van Ruiten, M. Vervenne (eds), Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A.M. Beuken (BEThL, 132), Leuven 1997, 75–93; W.R. Gallagher, Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: New Studies (SHCANE, 18), Leiden 1999; M.J. de Jong, Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets: A Comparative Study of the Earliest Stages of the Isaiah Tradition and the Neo-Assyrian Prophecies (VT.S, 117), Leiden 2007.

4

chapter one

of prophecy has strong (albeit not always clear) connections with the historical realities in which it was born.6 Adopting a historical approach to the text of Isaiah is not free of problems, however. Prominent difficulties in discussions concerning the historical interpretation of Isaianic texts include the following: (a) Not every text contains historically verifiable information. Certain socially-critical passages, which frequently do not hold any historical clues regarding their date (e.g., Isa. 5:22–23; 10:1–2; 28:7–10), are thorns in the side of any accurate historical positioning of prophecies.7 (b) Despite significant discoveries in the field of archaeology, our knowledge of ancient history is still full of holes. The prophetic activity of Isaiah in the 8th century is usually discussed in relation to three or four major periods:8 (1) 734–732 bc, the threat of Aram and Israel (Isa. 7); (2) 723–720 bc, the fall of the Northern Kingdom;9 (3) 711 bc, the fall of Ashdod (Isa. 20); (4) 705–701 bc, the anti-Assyrian rebellion of Judah and its allies and the punitive campaign of Sennacherib (Isa. 36–37). Although the significance of prophetic activity increased during times of political crisis, there may have been other moments, insufficiently documented, but still experienced as critical. (c) Prophetic utterance may have been delivered before an event. Scholars of the 19th and early 20th centuries believed that prophesying was an essentially post-eventum activity. But Ezekiel’s unfulfilled

6

De Jong, Isaiah, 191–285. Some argue that social criticism may in fact be part of the Assyria-related dispute aiming to bring political opponents of the prophet Isaiah into discredit, and thus also related to the times of the uprising. Cf. De Jong, Isaiah, 124–25, 245–48; O. Backersten, Isaiah’s Political Message: An Appraisal of His Alleged Social Critique (FAT, 2.29), Tübingen 2008. Two objections may be brought to bear on this view. First, parallels from ancient Near Eastern prophecy suggest that prophets may have been concerned with justice in social administration without any direct relationship to issues of warfare or political alliances. Second, the wide-ranging functions of the leading personalities implied in this criticism (e.g., the priests in Isa. 28:7, or leaders of a lower rank, who are unlikely to have exerted direct influence on the decisions of higher political circles) suggest that the prophet’s statements cannot be reduced to rhetoric aimed at discrediting political opponents. 8 See, e.g., W. Dietrich, Jesaja und die Politik, Munich 1976; F. Huber, Jahwe, Juda und die anderen Völker beim Propheten Jesaja (BZAW, 137), Berlin 1976; J. Høgenhaven, Gott und Volk bei Jesaja: Eine Untersuchung zur biblischen Theologie, Leiden 1988; De Jong, Isaiah, 191–249. 9 Some also emphasise the impact of Sargon’s campaign against Gaza in 720 bc. Cf. Sweeney, ‘Sargon’s Threat’, 457–70; K.L. Younger, ‘Sargon’s Campaign against Jerusalem—A Further Note’, Bib. 77 (1996), 108–10; De Jong, Isaiah, 213–14. 7

introduction

5

prophecy on Tyre (Ezek. 29:18–20), as well as countless examples from non-biblical prophetic texts suggest that a variety of criteria must be considered when dating Isaianic texts and that the events mentioned in the prophecies cannot simply be related to actual historical facts.10 (d) It is difficult to locate the vague historical references in prophetic texts on a specific time scale. The siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 598 and 587 may have been experienced in a way similar to the Assyrian threat of 701. In the same manner, Egypt supported Judah on a number of occasions, creating potential historical parallels any of which could belong to the background underlying the prophecies. Therefore, the question which of these situations (if any) is implied by a prophetic text calls for an open-minded historical inquiry.11 (e) In some cases scholars have noted a tendency of placing texts written at a later date in an earlier historical situation. This is most evident in such narrative texts as Isa. 36–39, but other cases should also be seriously considered.12 For instance, while many exegetes believe that Isa. 7:1–17 was composed during or shortly after 733, a few argue that it actually derives from the (post-)exilic period.13 The connections between Isa. 36–39 and 7:1–17 are recognised on both sides of this debate, but the direction of influence remains in dispute and, consequently, their respective dating. (f ) It is possible that certain texts are modelled on earlier prototypes. For example, the Moab prophecy of Jer. 48 cites Isa. 15–16 several times in a new historical context.14 The question is how far such citations belong to the historical background of later compositions (or merely indicate later amendment of these original texts).

10 Compare for instance Kilian, 126–27, who assumed that Isa. 20:4–6 referred to the deportation by Esarhaddon in the 7th century, and considered Isa. 20 a posteventum text, with Duhm (148), who argued that Isa. 20 was a genuine prediction exactly because it never actually came to be fulfilled. 11 For the phenomenon of ‘telescoping’, that is the possibility that the primary historical background is overwritten by a secondary one, see Beuken, 27. 12 On this aspect see also E. Ben Zvi, ‘History and Prophetic Texts’, in: M.P. Graham et al. (eds), History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes (JSOT.S, 173), Sheffield 1993, 106–20. 13 Kaiser, 20; Kilian, 162, 203–4; U. Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch (FRLANT, 178), Göttingen 1997, 21–60. 14 Cs. Balogh, ‘Oude en nieuwe profetie: De rol van de profetische traditie in de volkenprofetieën’, in: G. Kwakkel (ed.), Wonderlijk gewoon: Profeten en profetie in het Oude Testament, Barneveld 2003, 120–24.

6

chapter one

(g) Texts that appear to be historically informative may in fact be stereotypical. Isa. 14:24–25 is sometimes related to the defeat of Assyria in 701 (cf. §3.2.1). Yet others consider the imagery too conventional (cf. Jer. 28:2–4) to allow any such far-reaching historical conclusions. (h) The boundaries between poetry and history are not always easy to draw. In a study on Isa. 10:28–32 Sweeney argued that this text reflects a campaign of Sargon II in 720 bc.15 He believed that the list of place names informs the historically oriented reader about the route of the Assyrians. Disregarding the possibility of a pre-eventum prediction and the historical probability of an Assyrian attack against Jerusalem in 720, the word plays in 10:28–32 unquestionably task the artistic sensibilities of the interpreting archaeologist.16 The literary language urges the reader to be extremely cautious when historicising poetic texts (cf. Mic. 1:10–15; Zeph. 2:4). (i) There is an ongoing scholarly debate regarding the historical value of names such as Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, or Edom. While Assyria is mostly taken to refer to the historical empire of the 8th–7th centuries,17 the pair Assyria and Egypt is often believed to stand for the Seleucid and Ptolemaic Empires. Likewise Babylon is assumed to serve as a chiffre for personified evil, and Edom is presumed to designate the late Nabatean kingdom. (j) Some studies inquiring into the historical realities behind sections of the book of Isaiah occasionally downplay textual complexities or entirely ignore them. They assume that biblical texts are not much different from other compositions of the Near East, where the phenomenon of Fortschreibung was supposed to be either unknown, or exceptionally rare.18 However, the composite literary character of the Isaianic prophecies certainly involves relocations, recontextualisations, insertions, augmentations and other scribal phenomenon that will undoubtedly influence any historical interpretation of individual texts.

15

Sweeney, ‘Sargon’s Threat’, 457–70. Cf. also De Jong, Isaiah, 213–14. E.g., ‫עברו מעברה‬, ‫מלון לנו‬, ‫חרדה הרמה‬, ‫עניה ענתות‬, ‫נדדה מדמנה‬. 17 Cf. De Jong, Isaiah, 42. 18 Cf. R.L. Schultz, ‘How Many Isaiah’s Were There and What Does It Matter? Prophetic Inspiration in Recent Evangelical Scholarship’, in: V. Bacote et al. (eds), Evangelicals and Scripture, Downers Grove, IL 2004, 168. 16

introduction

7

1.1.2 Literary Research on the Book of Isaiah and Its Problems At the turn of the 20th century it was usual to treat Isa. 1–66 as consisting of three more or less independent parts, as the works of three different authors, First, Second and Third Isaiah. The connection between the three major divisions of the book was explained in rather mechanical terms. At the same time, those prophecies of Isa. 1–39 which were presumed not to derive from the 8th century, were identified only in a negative way as non-Isaianic and dated to the exilic or post-exilic periods. The emergence of tradition criticism yielded a new view of Isaiah. Scholars began to recognise not only an Isaianic concern with ‘inauthentic’ words, but also connections and parallels between various parts of the book. This trend was later consolidated by the development of an Isaianic-school-theory, which was given its best formulation in the influential works of Mowinckel.19 Nevertheless, many exegetes identifying intertextual connections in Isaiah have increasingly found that the model of a prophetic circle inadequately explains the book’s development. Some have questioned whether any one part of the book can be easily isolated without harming the rest of it. By the end of the 20th century many agreed that no part of Isaiah could be fully explained on its own. The authors of Isa. 40–66 may be responsible for the present form, organisation and, to a certain extent, even the content of Isa. 1–39.20 Considering these developments, doubts whether Isa. 1–39 would have ever existed as an independent book have been repeatedly expressed.21 In the second half of the 20th century Isaiah studies display a gradual shift of attention from the person of the prophet to the book named after him. This change of perspectives coincided with developments in 19 S. Mowinckel, The Spirit and the Word: Prophecy and Tradition in Ancient Israel, Minneapolis, MN 2002, 61–63, 138. 20 For two earlier attempts, cf. L.J. Liebreich, ‘The Compilation of the Book of Isaiah’, JQR 46 (1955–56), 259–77; 47 (1956–57), 117–38; J. Becker, Isaias—der Prophet und sein Buch (SBS, 30), Stuttgart 1968. See further, e.g., P.R. Ackroyd, ‘Isaiah i–xii: Presentation of a Prophet’, in: J.A. Emerton et al. (eds), Congress Volume (VT.S, 29), Leiden 1978, 16–48; O.H. Steck, Bereitete Heimkehr: Jesaja 35 als redaktionelle Brücke zwischen dem Ersten und Zweiten Jesaja (SBS, 121), Stuttgart 1985; W.A.M. Beuken, ‘Jesaja 33 als Spiegeltext im Jesajabuch’, EThL 67 (1991), 5–35; Williamson, Book; Cs. Balogh, ‘Blind People, Blind God: The Composition of Isaiah 29,15–24’, ZAW 121 (2009), 48–69. 21 R. Rendtorff, ‘Zur Komposition des Buches Jesaja’, VT 34 (1984), 319; Sweeney, 41.

8

chapter one

the field of hermeneutics, where emphasis came to fall on the role of the reader rather than the author in constructing meaning. The subjective character of reader-centred interpretations overshadowed the interest of those seeking the old fashioned historical reality behind the book of Isaiah, and they unavoidably led to the fragmentation of research results. In early Isaiah scholarship the prophet and his own words were highly esteemed, but those responsible for the preservation and augmentation of the Isaianic tradition were regarded as mere epigones of a genius master. Mowinckel began to question the legitimacy of this approach, and with the attention shifted from the prophet to the book, the literary, methodological and theological concerns of these anonymous followers, responsible for the preservation of the book over the centuries, began to intrigue the interpreters more than ever before. The face of the uninspired epigone student faded and was replaced by the visage of the eloquent scribe with talents comparable to that of his spiritual teacher. Conventionally, a distinction is made between two types of literary approaches to the book of Isaiah, usually labelled as synchronic and diachronic. In the field of Isaiah studies, there is an entire subdivision of works approaching the book not merely as a whole but as a text written with a unified concept. In some cases this reading is characterised by the rejection of the historical development of the book. Other times it has a reduced awareness of or even total disinterest in the historical growth of the book. The arguments for this final form (or holistic) synchronic reading frequently derive from disillusionment concerning earlier diachronic approaches. It is assumed that Isaiah is ‘a unified work composed in the post exilic period’, dated to the 5th century bc.22 For Watts the reader is the 5th century Jew; for Conrad the reader is the one always in the present.23 By interpreting the text of Isaiah as an artwork void of authorial intentions (Conrad), or the vision as a modern theatre scene (Watts), biblical scholarship tends to become an art instead of a science, a type of discourse produced by artists rather than scholars, requiring unbounded imagination rather than knowledge of pertinent fact. 22

Miscall, 11; Watts, xxxii; E.W. Conrad, ‘Reading Isaiah and the Twelve as Prophetic Books’, in: C.C. Broyles, C.A. Evans (eds), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition (VT.S, 70), Leiden 1997, 3–17. 23 Cf. E.W. Conrad, Reading Isaiah, Minneapolis, MN 1991, 31.

introduction

9

Those who look for more in the book of Isaiah than pure artistic satisfaction may consider most of these studies inspiring but ultimately unconvincing (after all art need not convince anyone). The fact that these readings do not account for the complexities of the text would disappoint those who find no delight in easily passing over textual difficulties. There is more to the meaning of a text than its final form, and everyone who strives to understand something about the composition of the book of Isaiah will find this approach a hermeneutic blind alley. The diachronic literary analysis of Isaiah promises more, but its success depends on several factors. Following Wildberger and Vermeylen,24 two major trends may be distinguished. A first group of scholars assumes that the book is the product of different authors and groups of the post-exilic period. These communities of ‘transmission’ inherited several short sayings from the 8th century, which were expanded in subsequent redactional stages after the exile. This trend in criticism is highlighted by names such as O. Kaiser, R. Kilian and U. Becker. Its practice of dating presumably non-Isaianic words to (very) late periods parallels the older commentaries of Duhm and Marti. However, the degree to which recent scholars ascribe words to post-exilic scribes differs considerably.25 Only Becker gives a redaction critical overview of the entire process, attempting to bring various redactional stages in connection with each other. Kaiser and Kilian deal essentially with smaller textual units, without working out a consistent scheme for the development of the book. A second larger group of scholars assume that the present form of the book is the result of gradual growth (Fortschreibung), a process which may have begun with the prophet and continued after his

24

Wildberger, 1529–36; J. Vermeylen, ‘L’unité du livre d’Isaïe’, in: BoI, 17–26. For Kaiser the basic core is: Isa. 1*, the woes of 5:8ff, and a small part of Isa. 28–31 ( Jesaja 1–12, 19–27; Jesaja 13–39, 1–4). Later he also included 8:1–15*; 14:29–32*; 17:1–3 and 18:1–2* in this list. These independent prophecies were collected at the beginning of the 5th century and were influenced by the Deuteronomistic reception of Isaiah (Isa. 36–39). Sections were added to the book as late as the 2nd century bc. Kilian begins by describing Isaiah as a prophet of doom (Isa. 6) and attributes those texts to Isaiah which coincide with this image. From Isa. 13–23 he regards 17:1–6*; 22:1b–3, 12–14, 15–18 as Isaianic. He dates 7:1–17 to the post-exilic period, as a text modelled on 36–39 (Kilian, 162, 203–4). According to Becker, Isaiah was essentially a prophet of salvation. Complying with this view, the core of the Isaianic collection is supposed to have consisted of 6:1–8*; 8:1, 3–4*(16*); 17:1b–3; 18:1–2*; 20:3–4*; 28:1*, 3, 7b–10 (Botschaft, 286; ‘Jesajaforschung’, 131). 25

10

chapter one

death by reinterpreting the earlier prophecies. Exegetes believe that they can trace back a significant quantity of text belonging to this long post-Isaianic tradition to major moments from Jewish history in the days of Manasseh and Josiah (7th century), around the fall of Jerusalem (587 bc), the fall of Babylon (539 bc) and in the Persian and Hellenistic periods.26 Not all of those working with these assumptions agree on the role of Isa. 40–66 in the redaction of 1–39. While many believe that the entire book holds the key to understanding 1–39,27 some still prefer to treat Isa. 1–39 more or less independently from the rest of the book.28 An overall comparison of these different views exposes both strengths and weaknesses. It is, however, important to emphasise that the heterogeneous character of the literary approaches to the problems appearing in one part of these studies may not be applicable to the other. The list below claims to be neither generalising nor exhaustive. (a) In reading Isaiah as an ancient book, our reconstruction of the primary audiences’ hermeneutics remains to a large extent speculative, reason for which caution and self-control is required. When reading different studies arguing each for diverse literary connections between various parts of the book, it becomes doubtful whether all these (often contradictory) literary connections could be considered allusions. Without disregarding their importance, it seems that the pursuit of motifs or allusions often leads to results with little practical usefulness.

26 For the 7th century edition of Isaiah, cf. H. Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung (WMANT, 48), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1977; J. Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique: Isaïe, I–XXXV, miroir d’un demi-millénaire d’expérience religieuse en Israël, Paris 1977–78. Vermeylen’s wider goal is to reconstruct the development of the book from its beginnings to its final phase. 27 Cf. Williamson, Book, on 2:2–4; 5:25–29; 8:21–23a; 11:11–16; 12; Steck ascribed Isa. 11:11–16; 13:5–16; 24–27*; 30:18–26(?); 34:2–4; 51:1–8, 11–16; 52:3–6(?); 62:10–12 to the Hellenistic era (Heimkehr, 80); Rendtorff, ‘Komposition’, 295–320; K. Nielsen, There is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah (JSOT.S, 65), Sheffield 1989; Z. Kustár, ‘Durch seine Wunden sind wir geheilt’: Eine Untersuchung zur Metaphorik von Israels Krankheit und Heilung im Jesajabuch (BWANT, 154), Stuttgart 2002. 28 Vermeylen argues that Isa. 1–39 is framed according to the so-called ‘eschatological model’, just like the Greek version of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, namely judgment of Judah (1–12), of the nations (13–27), and the salvation of Israel (28–35), (Vermeylen, ‘L’unité’, 28–34). See further Chapter 2 below.

introduction

11

The significance of such discoveries for the composition of the book of Isaiah is rarely worked out in a consistent manner.29 (b) What is a book? Undoubtedly, connections exist between various parts of the book of Isaiah, yet it remains a question how far these connections should lead us to regard Isa. 1–66 as one book. After all, what do we mean by ‘book’? It is this ultimate question that Barton has made the subject of a short, but insightful and provocative inquiry.30 He partially based his conclusions on an earlier paper by Benjamin Sommer,31 who contested the practice of many literary critics in assuming a holistic approach to Isaiah to be congruent with the Jewish view of a book. Sommer argues that, in rabbinic exegesis, Isaiah functions ‘not as a book but as a collection of verses and pericopes’.32 In pointing out plots, concentric, chiastic, mirroring, antithetic, etc. structures, do we not impose a book model on the scroll of Isaiah that it actually never intended to represent? It is commonly agreed that our conception of an author differs significantly from the view of the ancients. Something similar appears to be the case concerning our vision of what a book was in antiquity. There is also some question regarding the manner in which we might imagine the reading process of that time. Did ancient readers indeed recognise the rich connections between different catchwords and metaphors that modern exegetes uncover, many of which can only be detected by reading backwards? (c) Although the relationship between the three divisions of Isaiah is evident, questions remain with respect to the book-like structure. (1) First, what kind of relationship ties the three (?) parts together? There are highly significant connections between Isaiah on the one 29 Cf. also H.G.M. Williamson, ‘Synchronic and Diachronic in Isaian Perspective’, in: J.C. de Moor (ed.), Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis (OTS, 34), Leiden 1995, 219–20; Berges, 16. 30 J. Barton, ‘What Is a Book? Modern Exegesis and the Literary Conventions of Ancient Israel’, in: J.C. de Moor (ed.), Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel (OTS, 40), Leiden 1998, 1–14. 31 B.D. Sommer, ‘The Scroll of Isaiah as Jewish Scripture, Or, Why Jews Don’t Read Books’, SBL Seminar Papers (1996), 225–42. 32 Apud Barton, ‘Book’, 4. Barton writes: ‘. . . rabbinic exegesis regards Isaiah as a “book” in the sense that there is a scroll called “Isaiah”, but not in the sense that Isaiah is a literary work with beginning, middle, and end, and internal coherence, as we expect in a “book” in our literary sense. By saying that there is a book called “Isaiah”, rabbinic commentators do not imply that it possesses unity of theme or closure in its literary form, only that there is a collection of verses and paragraphs written by Isaiah and gathered together in one place.’

12

chapter one

hand and other prophetic books, such as Amos, Micah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel on the other. Yet these connections are insufficient to treat them as one book.33 Does the mere proximity of Isa. 40–66 lend additional and sufficiently strong support to these chapters to conclude that they form a literary unit with the first part of the book, i.e. a unit with a defined structure and perspective? (2) Second, it is curious that superscriptions and other text-structuring division markers often related with editorial activity (e.g., ‫ )ביום ההוא‬are so richly represented in the first part of the book, but are almost entirely absent after Isa. 40. (3) Third, it appears that certain themes from First Isaiah are restated in the third part of the book only, while being absent in the second part.34 How does this relate to any view of the three parts as one book? (4) Fourth, the second and third part of Isaiah is also grown out of independent prophecies, much like Isa. 1–39. It is often on the level of independent prophecies that the connections with FirstIsaianic texts are established. This suggests that intertextual allusions are not necessarily the work of the final editors, but those rather function at the earlier level of individual prophecies. To conclude, the relationship between the three divisions of the book is evident, but what this exactly implies for the development of the book as a whole still needs further research, as a book model with a highly sophisticated structure would seem to gloss over the difficulties.35 (d) One method of dating texts frequently used in literary and redaction criticism involves evaluating vocabulary and its lexical parallels. (1) This analysis, however, implies certain premises concerning the date of one pericope which guides the conclusions regarding the related text. Such circumstances easily lead to far-reaching speculations. (2) Second, conclusions are often based on virtually neutral terminology or stereotypical material.36 (3) Third, one has to clarify the kind of textual dependence (if any) that lexical parallelism presup-

33

G.I. Davies, ‘The Destiny of the Nations in the Book of Isaiah’, in: BoI, 119. See, e.g., ‫הר ציון‬, ‫ צדקה‬/ ‫משׁפט‬. Cf. L. Boadt, ‘Re-Examining a Preexilic Redaction of Isaiah 1–39’, in: L. Boadt, M.S. Smith (eds), Imagery and Imagination in Biblical Literature: Essays in Honor of Aloysius Fitzgerald, F.S.C. (CBQ.MS, 32), Washington, D.C. 2001, 178–79. 35 Cf. D. Carr, ‘Reaching for Unity in Isaiah’, JSOT 57 (1993), 76–77. 36 E.g., ‫ ארץ‬in Isa. 14:26 and 18:3 is argued to imply post-exilic universalism. Others regard ‫ עצה‬in 14:26 as evidence of a late link with wisdom literature, considering the author a sage or a scribe. Cf. W. Werner, Studien zur alttestamentlichen Vorstellung vom Plan Yahwes (BZAW, 173), Berlin 1988. 34

introduction

13

poses. The results are often evaluated in terms of contemporariness without accounting for the possibility that the two texts may be separated by decades or centuries.37 If any relationship does in fact exist, the direction of influence needs to be determined.38 (4) Fourth, consistency is essential. While the lack of ‘Isaianic’ vocabulary is argued to account for the spurious nature of a text for some scholars, others suggest that the appearance of Isaianic elements is what indicates questionable origin.39 1.1.3 Theological Research on the Book of Isaiah and Its Problems The relationship between literary and theological issues is so strong that discussions of one aspect unavoidably implicate the other. In reconstructing the development of the book of Isaiah, scholars are strongly influenced by preconceptions concerning the theology of its authors and editors. The question whether Isaiah was a prophet of judgment only, or a prophet of salvation, or a combination of both is ultimately the vision that would define which particular passages would be attributed to whom in the long history of the Isaianic tradition. On the other hand, the reconstruction of the theological view of the prophet is based on the book of Isaiah, placing the exegete in a position where it becomes extremely difficult to avoid the real dangers of circular reasoning. (a) Isaiah as a prophet of doom. Isaiah—as most prophets of his era named in the Bible—is most generally recognised to have proclaimed messages of judgment. Indeed some authors, such as Kilian, describe 37 E.g., Werner’s discovery of the ‘plan of Yhwh’-motif in late texts of the Bible leads him to conclude that virtually every text containing this motif is contemporary and late. See also the observations of Hardmeier, ‘Jesajaforschung’, 14–16; H.G.M. Williamson, ‘In Search of a Pre-exilic Isaiah’, in: J. Day (ed.), In Search of Pre-exilic Israel (JSOT.S, 406), London 2004, 191–95. 38 From the relations between Isa. 10:5–11* and 36:18–20; 37:10–13, Becker concludes that Isa. 10 was influenced by Isa. 36–37 (Becker, Botschaft, 209; Idem, ‘Jesajaforschung’, 130). Cf. the opposing views on Isa. 7:1–17 and 36–39 in Becker, ‘Jesajaforschung’, 124; J. Barthel, Prophetenwort und Geschichte: Die Jesajaüberlieferung in Jes 6–8 und 28–31 (FAT, 19), Tübingen 1997, 63. 39 The lack of divine names assumed to be typical for Isaiah leads Wildberger to conclude that Isa. 14:4–23 is spurious (542). However, on Isa. 19 Kaiser says: ‘Die zahlreichen Rückgriffe auf andere Stelle unseres Buches zeugen nicht für Jesaja als ihren Autor, sondern die Arbeit eines in den Gedanken des Buches lebenden Frommen (83).’ Similarly also Kilian, 120.

14

chapter one

Isaiah as exclusively a prophet of doom. According to this opinion, Isaiah did not simply summon his people to repentance, but he predicted unavoidable judgement. This view of the prophet gives a consistent picture and provides a hermeneutic key that may help scholars to reconstruct a literary history of the book. Nevertheless, it remains a serious question whether this consistency complies with the activity of the real prophet Isaiah. Is it not too idealistic and one-sided to assume that regardless of internal (the prophetic mind, the prophet’s commission) and external factors (historical situations, identity of the audience, reception of the prophetic word), Isaiah proclaimed the same message of doom for more than four decades? In describing Isaiah exclusively as a prophet of judgment, the commission narrative in Isa. 6 often plays an important role. Yet how central is Isa. 6 for the theology of the whole book of Isaiah? Insofar as it is considered a retrospective summary, this may certainly give a rough picture of how the message of the prophet was ultimately received.40 At the same time, the paradigmatic elaboration of the theme of Isa. 6:9–10 in the story of Ahaz where the positive message of the prophet is observed with reluctance and obvious lack of enthusiasm, would seem to indicate that even this, on the first sight somewhat curious commission in 6:9–10, does not exclude fairly positive messages of exhortation (cf. Isa. 8:1–4). Furthermore, the commission narrative is concerned with the nation (‫ )עם‬as a whole, but a restricted circle in 8:11–18 is addressed with a completely different message. Finally, there is ambiguity in the closure of Isa. 6 itself. Regardless whether 6:13b is a later elaboration, this text predicts the future as one of salvation after judgment. Stepping beyond the evidence of the biblical text, we have a significant amount of external sources to conclude that the phenomenon of prophecy existed in Canaan as well as elsewhere in the Near East. The prophets in this context appear almost exclusively as prophets of salvation for the primary audience (mostly the king), and prophets of judgment so far as foreigners are concerned. Therefore, the fact that prophecy of salvation could have been delivered before the king or

40

Whether Isa. 6:9–10 is a commission or a retrospective conclusion of the prophet’s experience is a hotly debated issue. Hardmeier cuts a long discussion short arguing that it may have been retrospective, as the present recorded form of Isa. 6:9–10 is indeed a retrospective view of history (‘Jesajaforschung’, 23–24, 28).

introduction

15

otherwise by an 8th century prophet is beyond discussion. The only question is whether Isaiah, too, prophesied salvation. (b) Isaiah as a prophet of salvation. U. Becker and M.J. de Jong argue that Isaiah should not be seen as an exceptional figure but as one of many ancient Near Eastern prophets whose main concern was the well-being of the state and nation. He obviously uttered prophecies of salvation in front of the king and the people threatened by foreigners (Isa. 8:1–4; 17:1–3). Indeed, he was a prophet of salvation rather than doom.41 Becker maintains that the historical narratives describing the prophet as announcing deliverance are closer to reality than the image of the messenger of doom, which was likely reconstructed from the book after 587 bc as an adaptation of an earlier picture of Isaiah.42 While it is convincing to argue that salvation prophecy forms a constitutive part of the Isaianic message, Becker and De Jong (two scholars who make this argument) cannot overcome important difficulties stemming from critical prophecies.43 Becker’s late dating of critical prophecies, such as Isa. 30:1–5 or 31:1–3,44 is problematic (cf. 4.3.2). The late dating of prophecies of doom often lacks convincing exegetical support and leads to some arbitrary conclusions.45 Placing Isaiah alongside other prophets of the Near East hardly requires any justification. Yet it is clear that we not only find critical potential in the Near Eastern prophecy itself,46 but this corpus also convinces us that the critical views may have been uttered by the same

41

In contrast to Becker, De Jong does not claim that Isaiah was merely a prophet of salvation. Isaiah uttered threatening oracles against specific groups, such as political and religious leaders (De Jong, Isaiah, 50). Yet Isaiah always supported ‘the state’ and never predicted that Judah with all its inhabitants would collapse in a political cataclysm. 42 Becker, Botschaft; see also M. Köckert et al., ‘Das Problem des historischen Jesaja’, in: I. Fischer et al. (eds), Prophetie in Israel (ATM, 11), Berlin 2001, 117–18; cf. De Jong, ‘Isaiah’, 44–45, 80–81. 43 Cf. W. Dietrich, ‘Jesaja—ein Heilsprophet?’, ThR 64 (1999), 324–37; Barthel in Köckert et al., ‘Problem’, 125–36; Williamson, ‘Pre-exilic Isaiah’, 198. 44 Becker, Botschaft, 245–63; cf., however, De Jong, Isaiah, 92–97. 45 E.g., Becker regards Isa. 6:1–8 as Isaianic, but in order to fit his scheme, he drops 6:5abb (‘the people of unclean lips’), which might be regarded as a critical remark by a prophet of doom (Becker, Botschaft, 88–89). Furthermore, as Barthel also noted, it is unlikely from a critical point of view that a call narrative such as Isa. 6 could come to an end in v. 8, without presenting the actual commission to the prophet (Barthel in Köckert et al., ‘Problem’, 128). 46 Cf. M. Nissinen, ‘Das kritische Potential in der altorientalischen Prophetie’, in: M. Köckert, M. Nissinen (eds), Propheten in Mari, Assyrien und Israel (FRLANT, 201), Göttingen 2003, 1–33; De Jong, Isaiah, 272, 312.

16

chapter one

prophets, who otherwise predicted salvation and were addressed to the same audience who, on other occasions, were given proclamations of deliverance.47 In fact, the ambiguity of the prophetic message is implied in Mic. 3:5, for instance, where Micah accuses some of his contemporaries of leading the nation of Yhwh astray by proclaiming peace to those feeding them and war against those who do not. The contrast of ‫ שׁלום‬and ‫ מלחמה‬in this text is exactly what prophecy of salvation and prophecy of doom is about (cf. Jer. 28:9). De Jong’s thesis that Isaiah was primarily concerned with the wellbeing of the Judaean state is too vague to explain the exclusion of certain texts from the Isaianic repertoire, especially those critical of the king (Ahaz) as well as the people of Judah.48 The definition of what ‘well-being’ is can be anything but objective. For Isaiah’s opponents, the Judaean leaders, including their supportive prophets (who were part of the same system as Isaiah),49 promoting the well-being of the state meant being free from Assyria and being free from burdensome tribute expenses.50 Irrespective of whether these conflicts between Isaiah and the Judaean leaders (and their prophets) should be regarded as ideologically motivated, the mere existence of these conflicts underlines just how subjective the issue of the well-being of the state is. De Jong pays insufficient attention to the strong, almost exclusively royal focus and royal ideology of the Assyrian prophecies in comparison to the Isaianic material which was not preserved in royal archives and which displays a broader interest in the life of Judah in general.51 He rightly observes that ‘prophets were part of a system, 47 Esarhaddon’s treaty warns against prophets (ragimmu), ecstatics (muḫ ḫ û), or inquirers of the divine word (mār šāʾilu amāt ili) who incite rebellion against the king (SAA 2 6:116–17; PPANE 102). This may refer to the same prophets that otherwise predicted the success of his reign. The ambiguity of the message and its reception are related (cf. PPANE 1:13–28). Cf. De Jong, Isaiah, 312: ‘The same prophetic voice that encouraged and legitimised the king, could also formulate demands on him, or even choose the side of his adversaries.’ 48 See his concise analysis of selected texts in De Jong, Isaiah, 53–170. 49 Cf. Isa. 28:7b–10 (attributed to Isaiah also by De Jong, Isaiah, 239, 243–45). 50 I believe that the unpreserved prophecies supporting the anti-Assyrian policy of Judah would provide a better parallel to the New-Assyrian prophecies than Isaiah’s texts. The collapse of Judah may explain why it was the Isaianic critical prophecies and not the anti-Assyrian and pro-rebellion messages of his adversaries which were passed on to later generations. But it is difficult to explain why critical words would have been composed and placed in the mouth of Isaiah after 587, if he had always strived for the consolation of his nation. 51 See De Jong, Isaiah, 354–56, discussing some differences between the Judaean and Assyrian societies.

introduction

17

which means that they spoke and acted for the benefit of social and cosmic stability’.52 But in my view, this prophetic function does not exclude directing criticism against the system. Such criticism is indeed not the prediction of irrevocable doom (not an ex eventu prophecy), as it was sometimes assumed.53 By criticising Judah, Jerusalem or its king, Isaiah was protecting the society to which he belonged ‘by revealing a threatening disaster’ that he wished to avoid and, as such, he ‘was only doing his job’.54 Later editors of the book of Isaiah were undisturbed not only by a prophet who proclaimed salvation (as Becker noted) but also by an Isaiah who pronounced both doom and salvation (Isa. 38:1, 5). In the time of these authors (7th–6th century bc) this seems to have been a rather normal phenomenon, which raises the question how far this ambiguity is irreconcilable with an 8th century prophetic figure like Isaiah?55 Finally, the Assyrian campaign of 701 bc is generally believed to have had disastrous effects on Judah.56 If that is true, it makes it even historically probable that these events deeply influenced the Isaianic tradition, far beyond what Becker and De Jong are ready to admit.

52

De Jong, Isaiah, 313. Rightly questioned by R.G. Kratz, ‘Das Neue in der Prophetie des Alten Testaments’, in: I. Fischer et al. (eds), Prophetie in Israel (ATM, 11), Münster 2001, 19, 21, and De Jong, Isaiah, 329–30. 54 De Jong, Isaiah, 312. Curiously and somewhat confusingly (with respect to the principal thesis of his book), a similar interpretation is given also by De Jong on the prophecy of Mic. 3:12, cited by Jer. 26:18: ‘of you Zion will be ploughed as a field’. De Jong notes about this text that ‘in announcing disaster the prophet did not stand in opposition to the establishment, but served the interest of king and state’ (Isaiah, 344). While this example underlines that the fulfilment of the prophetic pronouncement of doom is conditional, it was rather supposed to threaten the leaders and urge them to change their policy, yet, at the same time, Mic. 3:12 is also a clear case of a prophecy of judgment which predicts the collapse of the state (Zion) and its inhabitants. De Jong overstated the role of Isaiah as a prophet supporting the establishment because he started his analysis in obvious opposition to a one-sided description of Isaiah by some scholars as a figure free of the system, a lonely fighter, and a representative of a ‘unique’ form of prophesying (cf. De Jong, Isaiah, 25–28, 328). 55 Based on extra-biblical evidence, De Jong correctly questioned the either/or approach to the issue of judgment and salvation. However, he goes too far in concluding that ‘the categories of Heilsprophetie and Unheilsprophetie are better abandoned from descriptions of prophecy in the ancient Near East’ (Isaiah, 313). The categories prophet of judgment or salvation may be abandoned (the one need not be played off against the other), but not the prophecy of judgment and salvation as global designation for the content of utterances. 56 Cf. also De Jong, Isaiah, 224–32. 53

18

chapter one

(c) The ambivalence in Isaiah’s message. The strong albeit one-sided arguments regarding the above-mentioned theological views of the historical Isaiah should be taken seriously. Basically two models have been proposed to deal with the dichotomy of salvation and judgment by the 8th-century Isaiah.57 First, some argue that prophecy of salvation must be regarded as implicit criticism, as Gegenwartskritik. This means that ambiguity is in fact only apparent and not real, and the image of Isaiah as a prophet of judgment can be maintained.58 It is doubtful, however, that texts like Isa. 8:1–4 were meant to be read as implicit criticism. Moreover, salvation prophecy in its Near Eastern form often lacks any critical element. Therefore, scholars more often explain the ambiguity with the help of a chronological scheme, assuming that the prophetic message was adapted to the historical situation, the reception of the audience or changing attitudes toward Assyria.59 Høgenhaven argued that 722 bc, the year when Israel fell, decisively changed the mind of Isaiah. The former prophet of salvation became a messenger of judgment.60 De Jong emphasises the role of the audience by maintaining that Isaiah uttered promises of salvation for his people and king when the welfare of the state was threatened by external enemies (e.g., in Isa. 10:5–15) but also messages of judgment against the leaders and royal advisors whose policy posed a threat to the wellbeing of the nation.61 Even if the ambivalence of the Isaianic theology cannot be solved so simply,62 it is important to take it into account in each individual case. Becker’s tendency to exclude ambivalence by arguing that such an approach makes our reconstruction dependant on the prophet rather

57

Cf. Becker, Botschaft, 11–12; Köckert in Köckert et al., ‘Problem’, 107–11. So, e.g., H.-J. Hermisson, ‘Zukunftserwartung und Gegenwartskritik in der Verkündigung Jesajas’, EvTh 33 (1973), 54–77. Cf also Barth, Jesaja-Worte, who found support for this in Isa. 1:21–26, the Denkschrift, and 28:14ff. 59 W. Dietrich, Jesaja und die Politik, Munich 1976; G. Fohrer, ‘Wandlungen Jesajas’, in: Idem, Studien zur alttestamentlichen Texten und Themen (BZAW, 155), Berlin 1981, 11–23. 60 Høgenhaven, Gott, Leiden 1988, 111. 61 See already Barthel in Köckert et al., ‘Problem’, 132. 62 It is problematic to distinguish clearly between criticism against the leaders (which De Jong considers authentic prophecies) and criticism against the king and the ordinary Judaeans supporting the leaders (which he considers post-587 insertions). Words addressed against the leaders were obviously also directed against their supporters. Nevertheless, Isa. 8:11–18 suggests that the prophet differentiates between various audience groups. 58

introduction

19

than the book63 does not take full account of the complex nature of the book as a source and the extra-biblical evidence. As already noted above, diviners (in general) in the Near East delivered both positive and negative messages, depending on the occasion. Indeed, they were expected to tell what had been revealed to them from time to time. If Becker’s description of Assyrian texts as prophecies issued on specific occasions (Gelegenheitsprophetien)64 can be applied to Isaiah as well, our view of ambiguity in the message of this prophet undergoes a significant change.65 Therefore, Isaiah’s pronouncements must be analysed carefully while considering complex internal and external factors. (d) A final remark concerns the theological factor in the book’s editing process. In dealing with intertextual connections between various passages, it is common to reconstruct their date based on parallels associated with theological ideas. This is again a problematic point. (1) As reports indicate, the pre-exilic era was not free of conflicts between different groups and opposing voices (e.g., pro- and anti-Assyrian views). The question is therefore whether reconstructed editorial layers often appearing to be contradictory automatically imply differences in date, as often assumed. May it not be possible that anti-Assyrian prophecies derive from prophets contemporary with Isaiah and were included later into the Isaianic collection?66 (2) How far do similar theological views imply a common date for parallel passages? Does the motif of the plan against the entire earth (‫ )כל־הארץ‬in Isa. 14:26 point to common authorship with the similarly focused Isa. 13, dated in the post-exilic period?67 Strikingly, the foreign nation prophecies of Jeremiah contain additional salvation prophecies (46:26; 48:47; 49:6, 39) that strongly resemble the original text yet derive from different eras.68 A closer example from Isaiah is the divine name ‫קדושׁ ישׂראל‬ appearing in the 8th century bc, as well as in later texts. (3) As noted, Isa. 36–39 suggests that not long after Isaiah died he was received as a 63

Becker, Botschaft, 11. Becker in Köckert et al., ‘Problem’, 118. 65 Note also Barthel in Köckert et al., ‘Problem’, 132. 66 E.g., Becker questions whether the Völkerkampf-motif (Isa. 8:9–10; 17:12–14) is conceivable in the 7th century (‘Jesajaforschung’, 128–29). However, considering various groups in Judah, including those related to the cult, from where this motif is supposed to emerge, his objections sound artificial. 67 For this rather common way of arguing, cf., e.g., B.M. Zapff, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie—Jes 13 und die Komposition des Jesajabuches: Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Redaktionsgeschichte des Jesajabuches (FzB, 74), Würzburg 1995, 292. 68 Only Jer. 49:39 appears in the presumably older tradition of the LXX. 64

20

chapter one

prophet who had delivered anti-Assyrian prophecies. The question is not only the extent to which this later interpretation may correspond to the ‘real’ Isaiah, but also whether the apparently conflicting Isaiahtraditions should be interpreted in terms of dialogue or debate between more or less contemporary groups militating for different ideologies,69 or rather as a recontextualisation of earlier judgment messages that under other circumstances may have even been interpreted as implicit promises of salvation.70

1.2

Isaiah 13–23(24–27) as a Corpus

After presenting dominant tendencies, results, problems and perspectives of previous scholarly inquiries into the book of Isaiah, I shall focus now on research conducted on the literary, theological and historical setting of one segment of this book, namely Isa. 13–23. It is commonly agreed that the structure of the book of Isaiah— for the sake of compatibility with early critical research on the book I refer to Isa. 1–39 only—is very complex. Mowinckel observes ‘eine sehr große Planlosigkeit’ in the composition of Isa. 1–35.71 Karl Marti’s description of the book as ‘eine kleine Bibliothek prophetischer Schriften’ (xvii) sounds less desperate but hardly more promising. Attempts to simplify this complex structure to an assumed three level stratification (judgment of Israel, judgment of other nations and salvation of Israel) are widespread72 and often argued by drawing par69 Cf. Davies, ‘Destiny’, 98–99: ‘. . . on this matter [namely the nations in Isaiah] there are harsh contradictions between “positive” and “negative” passages, and the book is more like a billboard on which different political parties or religious groups daub their slogans one on the top of the other . . .’. Berges also writes: ‘Das Jesajabuch in seiner Endgestalt ist ein „eingefrorener Dialog“ zwischen verschiedenen jüdischen Gruppen in nachexilischer Zeit, die um die Bedeutung des Zion für sich und die Völker kämpfen.’ (Berges, 47). 70 This latter possibility is implied by Jer. 26:18–19 assuming that piety can turn prophecies of judgment into prophecies of salvation. Cf. Isa. 6:11–13 that leaves the door open for post-disaster salvation prophecies. For two examples in this sense, cf. Cs. Balogh, ‘ “He Filled Zion with Justice and Righteousness”: The Composition of Isaiah 33’, Bib. 89 (2008), 478–79; Idem, ‘Blind People, Blind God: The Composition of Isaiah 29,15–24’, ZAW 121 (2009), 48–69. 71 S. Mowinckel, ‘Die Komposition des Jesajabuches. Kap. 1–39’, AcOr 11 (1933), 269–70. 72 E.g., J. Vermeylen, ‘L’unité du livre d’Isaïe’, in: BoI, 32–33; Zapff, Prophetie, 301–2; O. Kaiser, Der Gott des Alten Testaments: Theologie des Alten Testaments. Teil 3: Jahwes Gerechtigkeit, Göttingen 2003, 82.

introduction

21

allels with other prophets (LXX Jeremiah, Ezekiel). However, the convenience of this model remains questionable.73 On the one hand, the book contains significant speeches concerning judgment against Judah not only in Isa. 1–12, but also in 13–23 and elsewhere. On the other hand, pronouncements of salvation are scattered throughout the book, including Isa. 1–12 and 13–23, not only in the section following Isa. 23. Neither Isa. 24–35(36–39) nor 28–35(36–39) can be treated as the expected third part, let alone as a salvation prophecy. At best these could be labelled as miscellaneous material. Wildberger’s proposal that the nation prophecies of Isa. 13–23 were included between Isa. 12 and 24 (28) for no other reason than to have them occupy a middle position similar to the one occupied by analogous prophecies in the collections of Jeremiah (LXX), Ezekiel, or Zephaniah74 does not convince very many structure oriented readers. In contrast to older views taking Isa. 24–27 as an independent booklet within the Isaianic collection, recent scholars tend to regard Isa. 13–27 as a single literary unit.75 The lexical relationship between Isa. 13 and 24 is believed to underline this unity.76 As discussed below, however, we encounter several editorial concepts in the present organisation of the book of Isaiah. The main concern of 13–23 is nations in general. Given that subcollections in 13–23 begin with a ‫משׂא‬-heading, it goes without saying that 13–23 can form a unit within itself, as do the ‫הוי‬ prophecies in 28–33.77 From this perspective the collection would not be harmed by being analysed separately from 24–27. On a further editorial level it is possible to speak of some kind of unity between 24–27 and 13–23. There is a certain degree of discernible intentionality involved in placing 24–27 after 13–23, hence establishing 13–23 as the context in which 24–27 should be interpreted. The ending of the first collection in Isa. 12 with a song is here possibly editorially paralleled by the songs of Isa. 25–27.78

73 Cf. O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Tübingen 31964, 410; P.-M. Bogaert, ‘L’organisation des grands recueils prophétiques’, in: BoI, 147–53. 74 Wildberger, 1562. 75 Berges, 139; Seitz, 118–19; Beuken, 21. 76 Vermeylen, ‘L’unité’, 30–31; Seitz, 118; Berges, 143–44. 77 Cf. G. Stansell, ‘Isaiah 28–33: Blest Be the Tie that Binds (Isaiah Together)’, in: R.F. Melugin, M.A. Sweeney (eds), New Visions of Isaiah (JSOT.S, 214), Sheffield 1996, 68–103; Balogh, ‘Zion’, 478–79. 78 The psalm of Hezekiah in Isa. 38:9–20 could be the third closing song of deliverance in the section 28–39. Note the key term ‫ ישׁע‬in 25:9; 38:20 and ‫ ישׁועה‬in 12:2, 3; 25:9; 26:1, 18, all playing on the name of the author, Isaiah.

22

chapter one

Isa. 13–23 was obviously designed to be a collection of certain types of prophecies. But what kind of collection is this? Is the designation of ‘prophecies concerning foreign nations’ suitable for this section of the book? If Isa. 13–23 was supposed to form a collection, how can we explain the divergences in the superscriptions inside this corpus? While Isa. 13–23 is often considered to be a collection of foreign nation prophecies comparable to similar pericopes in other prophetic books, some have questioned the suitability of this designation because certain texts, like Isa. 22, do not address foreign nations in the way other prophecies do. Kaiser tried to solve this difficulty by assuming that the insertion of Isa. 22 in its present position was a later development in the formation of the book. It was the work of a proto-apocalyptic author, who regarded Isa. 13–23 as the description of the universal judgment that the whole world will undergo.79 Wildberger, on the other hand, assumed that, among prophecies on the foreign nations, Isa. 22 presented Judah as one among those nations, following the theology of Amos 1–2 in which the prophecies against nations are closely connected with those against Israel.80 However, several other sections of Isa. 13–23 are also aimed at Judaeans rather than foreigners.81 Therefore in the study of the book of Isaiah the relationship between Judah and other nations, as well as the logic behind the collection 13–23 will remain major issues in need of further clarification. Discussions concerned with the formation of Isa. 13–23 unavoidably stumble upon the problem of editorial headings. The frequently appearing ‫משׂא‬-superscription is recognised as an important connecting motif in 13–23. However, a closer look reveals that the ‫משׂא‬superscriptions take on at least three different forms. The most common is ‫ משׂא‬+ geographical name, as in Isa. 13:1; 15:1; 17:1; 19:1; 23:1, but 21:1, 11, 13; 22:1 are obviously not of this type, and even more distantly removed is 14:28. Furthermore, many individual prophecies either possess a different superscription (20:1) or none at all (14:24; 17:12; 18:1; 22:15).

79

Kaiser, 119. Wildberger, 809; cf. also P.R. Raabe, ‘Why Prophetic Oracles Against the Nations’, in: A.B. Beck et al. (eds), Fortunate the Eyes that See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday, Grand Rapids, MI 1995, 239. 81 Hayes & Irvine, 221; Ohmann, 60; Berges, 139. 80

introduction

23

In effect, it is possible to distinguish two models explaining the formation of Isa. 13–23. While some exegetes view 13–23 as composed of several text-blocks, others maintain that this corpus has grown from a basic core of Isaianic texts due to the continuous addition of new material. These two approaches are occasionally combined. Considering the differences in the superscriptions, Duhm delimited two collections inside Isa. 13–23, 14:28–20:6 (excluding 17:12–18:7) and 21–22+30:6–7, connected by a later redactor, and supplemented with the prophecies on Babylon (13:1–14:23) and Tyre (23). The same editor may have been responsible for attaching the ‫משׂא‬-inscriptions ahead of the prophecies outside 21–22. At an even later stage, 14:24–27 and 17:12–18:7 were inserted in the free space that the editor found at this location. The process was complete by around the 1st century bc.82 A similar distinction between two subcollections (21–22 and 15–20.23) is promulgated by Sweeney, but he dates the corpus much earlier. Isa. 21–22 is derived from the 8th century, while he claims that 15–20.23 comes from the Josianic era, when the book appeared for the first time.83 In his study devoted to Isa. 13–23, Jenkins argued that its final form is the result of a well-defined editorial arrangement. The collection contains prophecies from various periods, but it is not a ragbag of varied material. The unity of the collection is expressed by the superscriptions as well as by grouping of the oracles. Jenkins distinguishes between a collection remonstrating against the neighbouring nations of Philistia, Moab and Damascus (Isa. 14:28–17:11) and another aimed at the great powers: Kush, Egypt and Babylon (Isa. 18–21). He believes that both of these smaller collections open with an oracle affirming the security of Zion (14:32; 18:7), and conclude with the description of an assault against Zion (17:12–14; 22:1–14). He excludes 13:1–14:23 and 23 from this scheme, while regarding 14:24–27 as a prelude to the prophecies concerning the nations.84 Moving beyond the limits of diachronic analysis, Berges’ investigation into Isa. 13–23 is started with an emphatic claim for a unified reading of 13–27. He divides the prophecies on the nations in two:

82

Duhm, 12–13. Sweeney, 215. 84 A.K. Jenkins, ‘The Hand Stretched Out over All the Nations’: A Study of the Presentation of the Isaiah Tradition in Is. 13–23 (Ph.D. diss.), London 1985; Idem, ‘The Development of the Isaiah Tradition in Isaiah 13–23’, in: BoI, 237–51. 83

24

chapter one

13–19 and 21–27. The section in the middle is the unusual text of the symbolic act of Isaiah in Isa. 20. He points to five ‫משׂא‬-superscriptions before Isa. 20, and another five following it,85 and notices that 19:16–25 ended with six ‫ ביום ההוא‬expressions, just as 25:9–27:13 also contained six such formulas. Both collections begin with a prophecy on Babylon. Unfortunately, the reader is not informed why other ‫ ביום ההוא‬formulas (17:4, 7, 9; 20:6; 22:8, 12, 20, 25; 23:15) were not counted in this structuring, nor how the—in his interpretation—anti-Babylonian prophecy in Isa. 24 fits in the ‘disciplined chaotic’ (Berges’ term) structure of two sections beginning with one Babylon-oracle each. Diachronically speaking, Berges argues for a core collection of Isaianic utterances enriched successively with other foreign nation prophecies after 539.86 The present redaction goes back to the Persian era. Eventual insertions of prophecies from the Hellenistic period are not excluded, but those did not alter the overall structure of the composition. Berges identifies several major editorial revisions: (1) The Babylonisierung (Babylon oriented redaction) and (2) the Zionisierung (Zion oriented redaction) of the prophecies on the nations which layers show significant connections with later parts of Isaiah, as well as with other prophetic books (like Zechariah). (3) Berges notes the somewhat unique tone of Isa. 19:16–25, which, in contrast to Zion-centric passages, adopts a position in favour of separate Yhwh-nations. (4) A subsequent redaction shifted the focus, viewing the wicked and the just in the perspective of the kingship of Yhwh in Zion. This theory of the successive expansion of earlier material is rooted in the studies of earlier scholars. Mowinckel explained the development of 13–23 in relation to its larger context, Isa. 1–39. Part A (Isa. 6:1–9:6) and part B (Isa. 1) of the book of First Isaiah were expanded in the pre-exilic period by a third block C (Isa. 2ff.), which also included authentic Isaianic prophecies which now appear in 13–23, such as 14:28–32; 17; 18; 20; 22. Because most of the prophecies on the nations were originally located in ‘the middle’ of this C section, and because other prophetic books also follow this pattern, the later editors placed the foreign nation prophecies here, distilling a new collection, Isa. 13–23.87 85

Berges, 141–45; cf. also Höffken, Jesaja, 123; Beuken, 19, 23–24, 40–41. Berges, 145. The primary collection, warning Manasseh against anti-Assyrian alliances, included 14:28–32*; 17*; 18*; 19*; 20*; 22* (149). 87 Mowinckel, ‘Komposition’, 278. 86

introduction

25

Fohrer identified an original Isaianic collection (14:24–27, 28–32; 17:1–6; 18; 20; 22:1–14, 15–19) supplemented later by prophecies of various nature. The original collection was organised geographically, but this model was distorted by other prophecies introduced in this collection in the 5th century bc, when the ‫משׂא‬-headings were composed.88 Wildberger distinguishes between authentic prophecies and other texts which appeared in a separate collection prior to being included in the Isaianic corpus. At some stage during the exile, these originally independent prophecies were related to Isaiah and supplemented by Isaiah’s texts on the nations. The selection of the prophecies to be included in the newly forming book was rather accidental.89 According to Wildberger, the redactional process did not end with a first edition. The date assigned to Isa. 19:16–25 suggests that it went on long after the exilic era. The view that Isa. 13–23 is formed as a constantly developing collection of prophetic words also underlies Vermeylen’s discussion of the book’s transmission and redaction. He argues for a primary collection of Isaianic utterances that were continuously expanded from the 7th century bc to the Hellenistic period.90 Zapff basically follows Vermeylen with some modifications.91 The earliest form of the book with its superscription in 14:28*92 contained, in his view, prophecies warning against anti-Assyrian alliances. In this edition, Isa. 22 was directly followed by 28–31. Isa. 14–22* was not a 88

Fohrer, 1.177. Wildberger, 1559–62. 90 Vermeylen, 1.346–47: (1) Isaianic: 14:24–25a, 28–32*; 17:1–3*, 4–6*; 18:1–2, 4; 22:1b–3, 7, 12–14, 15–18. (2) around 678: 14:26; 17:12–14a; 23:1–4; (3) Josianic: 22:19–23; (4) Deuteronomistic: 17:9–10a; 19:1–4, 11–15; 20:3; 22:4, 8–11; (5) early 5th century: 13:1–22; 24:1–13, 18b–20 added together with other universalistic passages: 15:1–8; 16:1, 3–4a, 6–12; 18:3, 5–6; 19:5–10; 21:1–9*; 21:11–12a, 13–15; 22:5–6; 23:13, 15–16* (including the systematic addition of the ‫משׂא‬-superscriptions); (6) the pious and the wicked redaction: 14:3–4a, 22–23 (and the inclusion of the earlier 14:4b–21); 14:27, 30; 15:9; 16:2, 13–14; 17:2b, 3b, 7–8, 14b; 19:16–17; 21:2b, 10, 12b, 16–17; 22:24–25; 23:15*, 17–18. (7) Hellenistic period: 14:1–2a?; 16:4b–5; 17:10b–11 (anti-Samaritan); 18:7; 19:18–25. This Fortschreibung-model is adopted with some modifications by Clements, 4–7: Isaianic nucleus: 14:28–32, 17:1–6; 18:1–6; 20:1–6. 91 Zapff, Prophetie, 286–99: (1) Isaianic: 14:28–29, 31; 17:1–3; 20*; 22*; (2) 7th century: 14:24–25a; (3) shortly before 587: 15–16*; 19*; 22:8b–11; (4) late exilic: 13:1a, 17–22a; 14:25b–27; 21:1–10; possibly 23* (‫משׂא‬-superscriptions composed); (5) postexilic: 14:4b–21 (originally independent); 18 (?, cf. 296); (6) universalistic redaction: 13:1b–16; (7) individual additions: 19:18–25. 92 The original form of 14:28 was ‫( בשׁנת־מות המלך אחז‬Prophetie, 286, 289). 89

26

chapter one

collection against foreign nations. The judgment on the nations was part of Isaiah’s vision regarding the impending doom of Judah. As for Isa. 18, which is not included among Isaianic prophecies, Zapff adopts the two blocks model of Jenkins, who distinguished between prophecies against the neighbours and the great powers. Zapff argues that, at a later stage, 14:25b–27 with its allusions to the former parts of the book divided this early book of Isaiah into two parts: a former section against Judah and a latter against the world. The original scope of the collection, warning against anti-Assyrian alliances, was reinterpreted as an anthology concerning the nations in general. This collection beginning with Isa. 13 ended either with 21 (continued in 22; 28–31) or 23. Zapff hesitates on the role of Isa. 18, 21, 23 and to a certain extant Isa. 20, and faces problems in explaining the different superscriptions of 21:1, 11, 13; 22:1. In most of these studies, the theological function of individual prophecies and their primary historical setting is less debated. In case of the Isaianic core, the widely held opinion is that these prophecies were spoken out in the context of anti-Assyrian alliances in the late 8th century bc. The nations addressed were enrolled in the uprising against Assyria. As an advisor of the king in international affairs, Isaiah’s prophecies served as warnings against rebellion.93 However, opinions concerning the theological function and historical setting of subsequent collections and expansions of these prophecies differ significantly. To sum up, the research on Isa. 13–23 yields two important conclusions. First, there is wide consensus with respect to the existence of an Isaianic core of prophecies concerning neighbouring nations and powers, sometimes including Judah during the 8th century bc. Second, it is also widely agreed that Isa. 13–23 includes texts from later periods. This suggests that primary passages continued to function in later contexts with the authoritativeness and appeal that they had originally enjoyed. Moreover, the fact that these prophecies were collected

93

Cf. Clements, 4–7; Sweeney, 216; Zapff, Prophetie, 286; Berges, 149; etc. A few studies argue that prophecies on the nations have preserved little if any historically valuable information and should be seen as theological productions of a later age, as a search for a new post-exilic Israelite identity (e.g., Ch. Fischer, Die Fremdvölkersprüche bei Amos und Jesaja [BBB, 136], Berlin 2002). This approach has found little resonance among scholars, however.

introduction

27

and received a proper place inside the book of Isaiah means that, for later communities reading Isaiah, this secondary context and meaning was of utmost importance. Therefore, to consider that the reconstruction of a presumed original form of prophecies exhausts the entire function of Isa. 13–23 and the entire book of Isaiah does not do justice to the present form, position and sequence of those prophecies.

1.3

Isaiah 18–20 in the Collection of Isaiah 13–23

As the overview above makes clear, the three chapters of Isa. 18–20 figure among those that have induced the most wide-ranging disagreements in the study of Isa. 13–23. Below, I shall reflect briefly on specific problems related to them in particular. 1.3.1 The Prophecy in Isaiah 18 Isa. 18 is considered an extremely obscure prophecy in the Isaianic collection. Although scholars generally agree that it deals with the nation of Kush, settled on lands south of Egypt, its ambiguous metaphors, vague references and encrypted message have given rise to contradictory interpretations. The second half of the 8th century was a transitional era in the history of the Near East. In Egypt, this era was marked by the emergence of the 25th Dynasty, with rulers originating from the land of Kush, a territory formerly under Egyptian authority. In Assyria, Tiglath-pileser III needed vast material and human resources to keep his ever growing empire running. The small nations of the Levant gradually became the victims of a seemingly insatiable Assyrian appetite. In the view of these developments, the only possibility for survival and maintenance of national independence was the formation of alliances with other nations threatened by Assyria. Egypt and Kush, which were the chief supporters of anti-Assyrian movements, were also expected to provide the resources required to hold back the Assyrian war machine. Isa. 18 is most often assumed to be one of Isaiah’s prophecies stating his views on these coalitions. From a historical point of view, four different dates have been assigned to Isa. 18. Some believe that the messengers of Isa. 18:2 can be identified with the embassy of Hoshea, king of Israel, sent to So,

28

chapter one

king of Egypt.94 Others date Isa. 18 to 720 bc, when Egypt offered help for the revolting Philistines of Gaza.95 Some others connect the prophecy to the revolt of Ashdod in 713–711 bc.96 A fourth group of scholars believe that the preparations for Sennacherib’s attack in 701 inspired this prophecy.97 The literary research dealing with Isa. 18 focuses on two problems. The first is concerned with textual integrity. Most scholars are sceptical about the authenticity of vv. 3 and 798 or even vv. 3–799 and consider them late additions.100 The second problem involves the place of Isa. 18 in the collection of 13–23. Exegetes notice the absence of a ‫משׂא‬-heading in 18:1, typical of most prophecies. To make sense of this lacuna, Isa. 18 is occasionally regarded as a literary unit with 17:1–14.101 Others believe that the lack of a superscription betrays the late insertion of Isa. 18 into a collection that already possessed such superscriptions. Isa. 18:1–7 is then either considered a unit within itself, or it is connected to 17:12–14.102 Still others assume that Isa. 18 appears at a crucial point in the prophecies on the nations, at the start of a subcollection within 13–23, which explains its peculiar form.103 From a theological point of view, Isa. 18 is part of the prophecies concerning the nations. Many believe that these types of prophecies contain important information regarding the political views of the prophet Isaiah, but opinions differ on significant details in the text, for instance whether it proclaims the fall of Assyria or rather the Kushite alliance, as well as the theological function of Isa. 18 among 13–23.104

94

In 728 or 724 bc; cf. Marti, 151; König, 198; Sweeney, 257. Hayes & Irvine, 253, 258; Niccacci, ‘Isaiah xviii–xx’, 226. 96 Procksch, 237; Fohrer, 1.221–22; H.W. Hoffmann, Die Intention der Verkündigung Jesajas (BZAW, 136), Berlin 1974, 65; Clements, 163; Oswalt, 360; J.J.M. Roberts, ‘Isaiah’s Egyptian and Nubian Oracles’, in: B.E. Kelle, M.B. Moore (eds), Israel’s Prophets and Israel’s Past: Essays on the Relationship of Prophetic Texts and Israelite history in Honor of J.H. Hayes, Edinburgh 2006, 205. 97 Donner, Israel, 123–24; Wildberger, 690; De Jong, Isaiah, 238. 98 Wildberger, 681, 696–97. 99 Kaiser, Gott, 120; Becker, Botschaft, 276; De Jong, Isaiah, 148–49. 100 Kilian, 118, and Zapff, Prophetie, 296, regard the entire prophecy as late. 101 Sweeney, 254. 102 Kaiser, 75; Zapff, Prophetie, 296. 103 Fischer, 136; Jenkins, ‘Isaiah Tradition’, 239. 104 Anti-Assyrian: Delitzsch, 352; Duhm, 138; Gray, 308; Procksch, 242; Kissane, 207; Young, 1.477; Donner, Israel, 126; Blenkinsopp, 311. Anti-Kushite: Fohrer, 1.206; Wildberger, 690; Kaiser, 78; Clements, 165; Dietrich, Politik, 129. 95

introduction

29

1.3.2 The Prophecy in Isaiah 19 The prophecy on Egypt in Isa. 19 is headed by a ‫משׂא‬-superscription. Nevertheless, the prophecy is often analysed as consisting of two distinctive sections divided into the judgment of vv. 1–15 and the salvation proclaimed in 16–25. The division has been regarded so significant that several essays deal with vv. 16–25 independently from vv. 1–15.105 Even others treat Isa. 19 not merely as an editorial unit but as an original unit written by the same author.106 Although the text of this prophecy is reasonably clear, there are important details that require further elucidation and that have therefore led to different historical, literary and theological conclusions. From a historical perspective, most scholars are convinced that Isa. 19 is at least partially based on a concrete historical situation.107 The description of Egypt as a land of chaos overtaken by a tough master (vv. 1–4) is supposed to correspond to the situation of the late 8th century.108 A different view is taken by those who date Isa. 19:1–15 to the 7th century109 or the Persian or Hellenistic era.110 Even more doubtful is the 8th century background of vv. 16–25, as such dating is almost universally rejected. Apart from a few voices still maintaining Isaianic provenance111 and those arguing for a background in the 7th century,112 vv. 16–25 are generally believed to derive from the Persian113 or Hellenistic period.114 The original coherence of Isa. 19 is debated even among those assuming an 8th century derivation. Isa. 19:1–15 is composed of three blocks of speeches, vv. 1–4, 5–10, 11–15. Of these three passages, it is

105 See the studies of Feuillet, Vogels, Deissler, Schenker, Krašovec, Wodecki, and Kustár mentioned in the Bibliography. 106 Cf. Delitzsch, 240; Ridderbos, 137–38; Young, 2.48; Oswalt, 247; Ohmann, 75–77; Hayes & Irvine, 263; Niccacci, ‘Isaiah xviii–xx’, 214–38. 107 Gray, 320; Wildberger, 704; Hayes & Irvine, 258–63. 108 Procksch, 246; Fischer, 140; Kissane, 210; Wildberger, 707–8; Hayes & Irvine, 258; Sweeney, 271, 275; Schoors, 118; Niccacci, ‘Isaiah xviii–xx’, 226. 109 Cheyne, 114. 110 Duhm, 140–41; Fohrer, 1.226; Kaiser, 82; Höffken, 144; Kilian, 120. 111 Hayes & Irvine, 262; Niccacci, ‘Isaiah xviii–xx’, 214; Roberts, ‘Oracles’, 206. 112 H. Gressmann, Der Messias, Göttingen 1929, 208; Sweeney, 270, 272. 113 J.F.A. Sawyer, ‘ “Blessed Be My People, Egypt (Isaiah 19.25)”: The Context and Meaning of a Remarkable Passage’, in: J.D. Martin, Ph.R. Davies (eds), A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of William McKane (JSOT.S, 42), Sheffield 1986, 59; Berges, 166–67. 114 Kaiser, 86; Höffken, 159.

30

chapter one

argued that vv. 5–10 disturbs the description of the political turmoil pervading vv. 1–4 and 11–15, which originally may have formed a coherent unit.115 Scholars also disagree on the unity of 19:16–25. This passage is often viewed as the product of gradual growth.116 The literary relationship between 19:1–15 and 19:16–25 is said to be based on a prophecy of judgment that was extended by prophecies of salvation. Isa. 19:16–25 has been especially popular among exegetes because of its astonishing theological view of non-Israelite nations. Many have discussed how this theology relates to other passages of the Old Testament, but less attention has been given to 19:16–25 as a part of the prophecies concerned with foreign nations. Berges observes a striking difference between the universalism of Isa. 19:16–25 and other descriptions of the future of the nations. He concludes that vv. 16–25 form a unique editorial layer in the book of Isaiah.117 Despite the obvious lack of attention devoted to, Isa. 19:1–15, this section is, theologically speaking, no less significant. One of its key motifs, the plan of Yhwh, is a theme pervading the entire collection of 13–23. The relationship between the Isaianic views of Egypt in Isa. 30–31 and Isa. 19 is another important theme to consider when addressing the question of its origin. 1.3.3

The Prophecy in Isaiah 20

Strictly speaking, Isa. 20 is not a prophetic text but a narrative. Its prophetic character is provided by three elements: its present position in a prophetic book, its description of a symbolic action and the prophetic oracle cited in vv. 3–6. The prophecy is often dated to the period mentioned in v. 1, namely the time of the revolt of Ashdod against Assyria in 713–711 bc, although some voices detect traces of post-Isaianic origin.118

115 T.K. Cheyne, ‘The Nineteenth Chapter of Isaiah’, ZAW 13 (1893), 127–28; Marti, 155; Procksch, 244; Vermeylen, 1.322; Wildberger, 703–4. 116 Cf. Procksch, 249; Fohrer, 1.211; Kaiser, 86; Schoors, 121; Kilian, 123; Sweeney, 270–71; Höffken, 146; Blenkinsopp, 318; etc. 117 Berges, 164–71. 118 See for the latter Kaiser, 96–97; Vermeylen, 1.324–25; Sweeney, 272; J. Blenkinsopp, ‘The Prophetic Biography of Isaiah’, in: E. Blum (ed.), Mincha. Festgabe für Rolf Rendtorff zum 75. Geburtstag, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2000, 13–26.

introduction

31

The coherence of this passage is not always taken for granted. The difficult phraseology of Isa. 20:1–2 has led some scholars to assume that one of these verses is the work of a later glossator, and different parts of vv. 4–6 are occasionally ascribed to this unnamed author.119 Even the exact identity of the addressees has raised some questions. A few exegetes maintain that originally Isa. 20 addressed Philistia and was transformed into an anti-Judaean text only at a later stage.120 It is also a significant question why the salvation prophecy in Isa. 19 is followed again by a text predicting the fall and deportation of Egypt and Kush. Kilian’s answer is that Isa. 20 was included in the collection at a date earlier than the salvation prophecy of 19:18–25.121 Nevertheless, the problem still remains: why was Isa. 19:18–25 not included after Isa. 20, i.e. after the text dealing with the collapse of the Nilotic kingdoms? The anti-Egyptian theological stance of Isa. 20 overlaps with Isa. 30 and 31, but it is intriguing to investigate whether the function and theological intention of the prophecy can be sufficiently explained against the 8th century background, or other alternatives need also to be considered.

1.4 The Purpose and Outline of the Present Study As the preceding overview shows, any attempt to solve the problem of the formation of Isa. 13–23 must focus first of all on the function of the individual prophecies of this pericope in their original setting, so far as this background can be reconstructed from a literary, theological and historical point of view. However, the analysis of the original setting of the individual prophecies in Isa. 13–23 hardly exhausts the whole meaning of these texts. There is more to the text than the reconstructed original meaning. So far as these individual prophecies were collected and placed in a new context, it deserves our full attention to see in what sense this literary recontextualisation plays a further role in defining the meaning of the constitutive passages of Isa. 13–23.

119 120 121

Becker, Botschaft, 277; De Jong, Isaiah, 150–51. Procksch, 258; Donner, Israel, 115; Kaiser, 95; Clements, 173–74. Kilian, 127.

32

chapter one

Although thematically related, the texts of Isa. 18–20 reach beyond the delimitation provided by the ‫משׂא‬-superscriptions. Because these superscriptions give essential details in understanding the formation of the corpus of 13–23, Isa. 18–20 offers a particularly helpful crosssection for the study of the formation of Isa. 13–23. Moreover, due to the alteration of judgment, salvation, judgment (Isa. 19–20), as well as the relationship of Isa. 18–20 with other Egypt-related texts beyond Isa. 13–23, chapters 18–20 may be supportive in finding the location and theological function of the prophecies on the nations in the entire book of Isaiah. The primary purpose of the present study is to answer this question: What is the role of Isa. 18–20 in the formation of Isa. 13–23? How can a better understanding of the development of Isa. 18–20 from its original to its present form help to decipher the composition and function of Isa. 13–23? In view of this, the problems to be discussed may be subdivided into literary, theological and historical matters: a. Literary questions. What can we say about the literary integrity of the prophecies of these three chapters? How do these prophecies relate to their context? What can we say about authorship in different stages of the formation of these texts? b. Theological questions. What is the theological concern of the individual prophecies? Is the sense of earlier prophecies modified by possible later additions and, if so, in which ways? How does the present literary context play a role in forming the meaning of the prophecies? What is their relationship to the views expressed in other Egypt-related prophecies of the book and the prophecies concerning the nations? c. Historical questions. What is the historical background of the prophecies in their earliest form? As far as it can be reconstructed, what is the historical background of those responsible for the collection(s) in which Isa. 18–20 appear? This study is divided into two main parts. Chapters 2 and 3 give an overview of the wider literary and theological context of the prophecies on the nations in Isa. 18–20 and explore them on two levels. First, Chapter 2 discusses other collections of foreign nation prophecies in the Bible similar to Isa. 13–23 and examines them as a source of analogies and partial answers with regard to the formation and theology

introduction

33

of Isa. 13–23. Second, Chapter 3 offers a concise analysis of the individual prophecies in Isa. 13–17 and 21–23. The problem addressed here is how the individual prophecies and subcollections of Isa. 13–17; 21–23 facilitate our understanding of the development of this collection. Chapters 4–6 give a detailed study of Isa. 18–20. Each chapter evaluates the Isaianic texts from literary, theological and historical perspectives. A concluding Chapter 7 reviews the principle results of this inquiry.

CHAPTER TWO

COLLECTIONS OF FOREIGN NATION PROPHECIES AS CONTEXT FOR ISAIAH 13–23

The anthology of Isa. 13–23 is usually labelled a collection of prophecies concerning (foreign) nations. Such collections play a very significant role in the composition of several prophetic books. Therefore a critical examination of these anthologies of foreign nation prophecies may shed light on the formation of Isa. 13–23. After preliminary remarks with regard to terminological issues concerning texts comparable to Isa. 13–23, I shall devote brief attention to the general theological characteristics of foreign nation prophecies in the Hebrew Bible in relation to their ancient Near Eastern context. The final part of this chapter will focus on literary collections of biblical foreign nation prophecies resembling Isa. 13–23.

2.1 Preliminary Remarks Prophecies of the Old Testament are often concerned with nations other than Israel and Judah. Such texts attested to a larger or smaller extent in every prophetic book with the exception of Hosea1 were in some cases collected into larger corpuses,2 but they may also appear outside such collections.3 Some prophetic books are entirely devoted to this topic (Nah., Hab., Obad.). The importance of the theme of foreign nations is well-illustrated in Jeremiah’s description in Jer. 1:5 as 1 Utterances with similar concerns also appear outside the prophetic books (cf. Ps. 2; 60; 89:20, 23–24). It is difficult to see if there is any difference between texts included in ‫ נביאים אחרונים‬and those appearing elsewhere (cf., e.g., Isa. 18:7 and Mic. 2:1–4 with Ps. 86:9; Isa. 18:7 with Ps. 68:32). It is not always easy to draw boundaries between prophecy and cultic poetry. Similar texts were preserved with their historical context in 2 Kgs 3:16–19; 19:20–34 (|Isa. 37:21–35). For further discussion of these texts, see J.H. Hayes, The Oracles against the Nations in the Old Testament: Their Usage and Theological Importance (Ph.D. diss.), Princeton, NJ 1964, 122–53. 2 Isa. 13–23; Jer. 46–51; Ezek. 25–32; Amos 1–2; Zeph. 2:4(1)–15. 3 Cf. Isa. 7:5–8; 8:4, 9–10; 10:5–34*; 25:10–12; 30:31; 33:1–12; 34; 47; Jer. 9:24–25; 12:14–17; 43:8–13; Ezek. 21:28–32; 35; 38–39.

36

chapter two

‘a prophet to the nations’ (‫)נביא לגוים‬. This description of Jeremiah is obviously not intended to distinguish him from other messengers of God (as a prophet to the nations par excellence), but it is meant to relate him to his book, in which nations are prominently represented. As Jer. 28:8 makes clear, foreign nations were a traditional theme of prophetic messages. Because Israel and Judah were constantly involved in cultural, political and economic contacts with their neighbours, this prophetic interest is readily understandable. At first sight, such compositions may not seem to be very diverse. Yet when we search for a definition of foreign nation prophecy or for a description of their formal characteristics, it soon becomes clear that these texts are by far not as uniform as their commonly-used designation might suggest. Some of these compositions deal exclusively with the fate of a foreign nation,4 while others are included in a text which is directly addressed to Judah.5 Some prophecies address particular nations by name,6 others refer to ‫ גויים‬or ‫עמים‬.7 In fact, some scholars disagree whether prophecies addressing ‫ גויים‬or ‫ עמים‬in general should be included among the texts under discussion. For instance, Fechter defined foreign nation prophecies as ‘die Art von Texten (. . .) deren inhaltlicher Schwerpunkt das Geschick konkreter, nicht-israelitischer Völker ist und die vorwiegend in größeren Komplexen als Sammlungen begegnen.’8 However, prophecies addressed to nations in general or to more than one nation were also included in collections of foreign nation prophecies (cf. Isa. 17:12–14). Fechter’s criteria apparently do not coincide with the principles of the editors of prophetic books. The fact that prophecies concerning nations may appear individually casts additional doubt on the practical usefulness of Fechter’s definition. It is neither broad enough to include all the relevant texts, nor precise enough to explain why it excludes others. One of the criteria that scholars mention with regard to the delimitation of these texts is that foreign nation prophecies should either address one or more nations in a direct way, i.e. using the second

4

E.g., Isa. 19:1–15; 21:1–10; 23; Jer. 46:1–12; 46:13–24, 25–26; 49:23–27; etc. E.g., Joel 2:20 in 2:18–27; Joel 4:19 in 4:18–21; Mic. 4:11–12 in 4:8–14; Mic. 5:4–5, 14 in 5:1–8, 14; Hag. 2:22 in 2:20–23; Zech. 2:13 in 2:5–17; etc. 6 Cf. Ezek. 25:8–14; Joel 3:4–8; 4:19; Zeph. 2:8–10. 7 Cf. Isa. 17:12–14; Joel 4:1–3, 9–17; Hag. 2:22. 8 F. Fechter, Bewältigung der Katastrophe: Untersuchungen zu ausgewählten Fremdvölkersprüchen im Ezechielbuch (BZAW, 208), Berlin 1992, 2. 5

collections of foreign nation prophecies

37

person form, or they should be concerned with the present or future fate of foreign people.9 This means that texts like Amos 3:9; 6:2; 9:7; Isa. 5:26–30; Jer. 2:16; Hab. 1:5–11 can be excluded. In most cases, however, the fate of Judah or Israel is so strongly interwoven with the fate of the foreigners that it is difficult if not impossible to trace the boundaries between texts concerned with Israel and texts dealing with other nations.10 Isa. 45:1–13 contains a prophecy addressed to the foreign king, Cyrus, the anointed one of Yhwh. This oracle is rarely considered a prophecy concerned with foreign nations, yet there is hardly any significant formal difference that distinguishes Isa. 45:1–13 from Isa. 14:4–23, Ezek. 28:1–10, or 32, texts addressed to foreign kings and included among foreign nation prophecies. Compared to Isa. 45:1–13 Isa. 14:4–23 may be considered an inverted royal oracle, or at least in some sense related to this genre. In fact, prophecies concerning foreign nations run parallel to prophecies addressed to Israel and Judah. This means that foreign nation prophecies do not constitute a distinctive genre inside prophetic literature.11 In some cases, they only differ from prophecies addressed to Judah and Israel by the fact that they have another addressee.12 In English language scholarship, these ‘types’ of prophecies are frequently known as ‘oracles against the nations’, ‘prophecies against foreign nations’, ‘foreign nation oracles’. This terminological variation is also reflected in German as ‘Fremdvölkersprüche’, ‘Völkerorakeln’, ‘Fremdvölkerweissagungen’, ‘Heidenorakeln’.13 The applied terminology should meet the following requirements: (a) These prophecies contain not only judgment speeches, but also promises of salvation, even if some of those may come from a secondary stage of

9

Fechter, Bewältigung, 1 n. 3; B. Huwyler, Jeremia und die Völker: Untersuchungen zu den Völkersprüchen in Jeremia 46–49 (FAT, 20), Tübingen 1997, 2. 10 Note for instance texts in which the fate of a nation is supposed to be determined by Israel, appearing as an agent of Yhwh in his dealings with the nation in question. Cf. 2 Kgs 3:16–19; Isa. 11:14; 14:1–4; cf. also Ps. 2; 110. 11 Cf. Hayes, Nations, 301; Fechter, Bewältigung, 2. The term Gattung is adopted by Y. Hoffmann, The Prophecies against Foreign Nations, Tel-Aviv 1977; Idem, ‘From Oracle to Prophecy: The Growth, Crystallization and Disintegration of a Biblical Gattung’, JNWSL 10 (1982), 75. 12 Compare Jer. 51:41–43 with Jer. 6:22–24. 13 P. Höffken, Untersuchungen zu den Begründungselementen der Völkerorakel des Alten Testaments (Ph.D. diss.), Bonn 1977, 387–88 n. 3; Huwyler, Jeremia, 1–2.

38

chapter two

text formation.14 (b) Since not all of these prophecies comply with the features of oracular literature (though some of them may), it is better to use the name ‘prophecy’ instead of ‘oracle’, unless reference is being made to specific texts conforming to the latter category.15 The term adopted in this study is ‘foreign nation prophecies’, henceforth abbreviated as FNPs.

2.2

The Background of the Foreign Nation Prophecies

In general, prophecy has long been recognised as an important practice in the ancient world, and FNPs constitute one of the forms that it may take. The wider Near Eastern background of the FNP is documented in the biblical story of Balaam, the Aramaic prophet hired by Balak, king of Moab, to curse Israel before entering Canaan (Num. 23:7). Balaam’s mantic-magic prophecies and activities against a foreign nation, Israel, may be related to the FNPs of the ‘classical’ prophets. Beyond the Balaam-story, two other significant archives, the Mari texts from the 18th century bc and the texts from the royal library of the Assyrian kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal from Nineveh in the 7th century bc, confirm that FNPs appear with relative frequency outside the Bible. These extra-biblical sources not only offer a glimpse into the process of text formation from the oral stages to the written and edited form of the text, but they also provide significant information on the historical background of these prophecies, which may help us to understand biblical FNPs where such information is often lacking. The prophecies from Mari are indirectly addressed to king Zimrilim in the form of letters sent from various cities under or outside his authority.16 Occasionally, these prophecies are presented as oracular answers to inquiries (PPANE 9:29–50; 24:8–18; 38:24–39), but some were uttered without specific questions addressed to the gods, either in a cultic setting (PPANE 18) or otherwise (PPANE 18:1–14). Strikingly, 14 Cf. also J.B. Geyer, ‘Another Look at the Oracles about the Nations in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to A.C. Hagedorn’, VT 59 (2009), 82. 15 Cf. Fechter, Bewältigung, 2–3; Huwyler, Jeremia, 2. 16 For a detailed discussion, see Höffken, Begründungselementen, 340–63. In the analysis below, I have mainly used the text and translation in the edition of M. Nissinnen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (WAW, 12), Atlanta, GA 2003 (PPANE).

collections of foreign nation prophecies

39

while FNPs were probably also uttered in the presence of the king, several texts were presented in the absence of the actual addressee, Zimri-lim. Many of these letters were sent from one of the towns by the king’s officials. Some oracles were publicly pronounced, others were only addressed to the royal official responsible for delivering the letter. Often, they were not only uttered in the absence of the primary addressee, Zimri-lim, but in the absence of the enemy as well. The enemy is sometimes addressed in the second person form (PPANE 10:17–20; 17:15–17; 19:6–18), on other occasions in the third person (PPANE 4:32–43; 5; 7:11–19; 20:11–16; 38:9–39). The enemy of Zimrilim is often addressed through its king (PPANE 19:15–18), but a few prophecies also mention the enemy nation (PPANE 10:17–20; 19:8–10; 38:32–39). The FNPs of Mari function as salvation oracles for Zimri-lim in times of war. Generally the king is the focus of these prophecies, which is understandable given that these tablets come from royal archives. Considering their form and relating them to biblical prophecies, it is also remarkable that proclamations regarding the destruction of the foreign nations were recorded on the same tablet with other prophecies dealing with various aspects of Zimri-lim’s personal, social or administrative life (PPANE 4). Furthermore, some tablets contain collections of oracles concerning the same nation but uttered by different prophets (PPANE 19). The Assyrian prophecies of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal resemble the Mari texts in many respects.17 They are similarly focused on the Assyrian king. They also represent foreign nations or kings as enemies. At the same time, however, the prophecies addressing Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal have much more to say on theological issues, such as the relationship between the king and the deity, a motif rather infrequent, though not totally absent in the Mari prophecies (PPANE 17:31–34). Assyrian prophetic texts also differ from the letters of Mari in the sense that they tell us less about the social context of the prophecies. References to this context appear mainly in historical inscriptions recording 17 For Assyrian prophecies, see the above-mentioned PPANE as well as S. Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies (SAA, 9), Helsinki 1997; M. Nissinen, References to Prophecy in Neo-Assyrian Sources (SAAS, 7), Helsinki 1998; M. Weippert, ‘ “König, fürchte dich nicht!” Assyrische Prophetie im 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr.’, Or. 71 (2002) 1–54; M.J. de Jong, Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets: A Comparative Study of the Earliest Stages of the Isaiah Tradition and the Neo-Assyrian Prophecies (VT.S, 117), Leiden 2007.

40

chapter two

the campaigns of the king (PPANE 100 iii 4–7; 101; cf. also PPANE 137 A 11–17). Likewise, it is striking that in PPANE 85 Esarhaddon is mentioned in the third person. The message regarding the defeat and destruction of Melid, Cimmer and Ellipi is addressed in a second person form to the Assyrians (marʾē māt Aššur), but according to the colophon, the oracle was read aloud before the king (PPANE 85 ii 32). The Assyrian texts are usually much longer and adopt a language full of metaphors and comparisons only sporadically attested in the Mari prophecies. In Nineveh, these oracles were often gathered into collections of pronouncements of several prophets, given on various occasions (PPANE 68–77; 78–83). A remarkable collection is PPANE 93, which bears the superscription dibbī ša Elamāyi, ‘words concerning the Elamites’ and contains individual, thematically-coherent oracular utterances. To exemplify types of prophecies that are not cast into the form of a messenger speech common in Mari and the New Assyrian archives, note should be made of the so-called execration texts from Egypt. Besides pronouncing on the fate of a given nation, Balaam, the biblical figure referred to above, also performs ritual acts in order to influence the fate of the enemy nation. Such types of rituals appear frequently in Egypt in the context of war between Egypt and its enemies.18 Pots and figurines inscribed with the names of nations under Egyptian authority or nations threatening Egypt’s sovereignty were broken, symbolising the fate of those foreign nations. Since Israelite prophecy is presented in Deut. 18:9–22 as a substitute for all kinds of mantic practices, including execration, curse, witchcraft, and magic,19 these Egyptian texts may have some value in studying biblical FNPs. However, contrary to the suggestion of some scholars,20 the relationship between Israelite FNPs and execration and manticism is rather superficial. 18 G. Posener, Princes et pays d’Asie et de Nubie: Textes hiératiques sur des figurines d’envoûtement du Moyen Empire, Bruxelles 1940; Hayes, Nations, 83–86. 19 Note also Joseph, Moses and Daniel, the Israelite prophet-like figures, each surpassing in his way the skills of foreign magicians, proclaiming not only the superiority of Yhwh above other gods but also the pre-eminence of Israel’s prophets above other diviners. Cf. also Isa. 19:11–15; 47:12–14. 20 Cf. A. Bentzen, ‘The Ritual Background of Amos i 2–ii 16’, in: P.A.H. de Boer (ed.), Oudtestamentische Studiën, vol. 8, Leiden 1950, 85–99. For a critical review of Bentzen’s arguments, see J. Barton, Amos’s Oracles against the Nations: A Study of Amos 1.3–2.5 (SOTS.MS, 6), Cambridge 1980, 12–14.

collections of foreign nation prophecies

41

With regard to ancient Near Eastern FNPs, it may be concluded that the addressed foreigners always appear as enemies of war or potential threats to the security of a country and its king. Furthermore, these oracles have a specific historical setting within which they functioned as a means of consolidating the empire and its king under threat.21

2.3 The Biblical Prophecies Concerning Foreign Nations The Near Eastern background of FNPs forms an adequate starting point for the analysis of thematically related prophecies from the Old Testament. The ancient prophecies from Mari and Assyria provide an interpretive pattern which may prove to be helpful in analysing biblical prophecies. On the other hand, comparing the biblical material with Near Eastern prophecies reveals the direction in which the biblical tradition moves away from the common cultural background, enabling the reader to appreciate the peculiarities. Scholars of biblical FNPs have shown a wide array of interests, and any attempt to survey the history of this scholarship should be aware of this diversity.22 There are many studies focusing on individual FNPs without significant reflections on the character of these texts connecting them to other FNPs. Furthermore, inquiries into collections of FNPs are often restricted to one particular book. In most cases research has been governed by literary critical or historical interests. To the extent that investigation concentrated on the theological particularities of FNPs in relation to other themes of prophetic literature, it was often assumed that these texts functioned primarily as salvation oracles for the Israelite community. In early critical scholarship, FNPs, like other salvation oracles, were thought to express the narrow-minded nationalism of specific prophetic groups, thus distinguishing them from the utterances of classical prophets.

21 De Jong, Isaiah, 264–66, 275–78. Similarly, we also find prophecies concerning foreigners in Greek literature, though these are more distant relatives of the biblical FNPs. See A.C. Hagedorn, ‘Looking at Foreigners in Biblical and Greek Prophecy’, VT 57 (2007), 432–48. 22 For discussions of previous research on the FNPs, see Hayes, Nations, 14–38; Höffken, Begründungselementen, 12–36; D.L. Christensen, Prophecy and War in Ancient Israel: Studies in the Oracles against the Nations in Old Testament Prophecy, Berkeley 1989, 1–9.

42

chapter two

Consequently, these texts were often considered inauthentic and late.23 Others attempted to prove quite the contrary, that FNP was the most ancient form of prophecy and that it proclaimed salvation for Israel and Judah.24 However, such generalising categorization oversimplifies the pluriformity of these texts. Their complexity led Reventlow to regard the prophets as essentially cultic functionaries proclaiming both salvation and judgment whose pronouncements were aimed at both Israel and other nations. He denied any difference between FNPs and other prophecies addressed to Israel, and he believed that both forms of prophesying were rooted in Israel’s covenant festival.25 The second half of the 20th century has given rise to several dissertations and monographs addressing the subject in general.26 The interests and methods of these studies differ in a few respects. According to Hayes, FNPs were impregnated by the holy war ideology of Israel. Moreover, he searches for real life backgrounds at the royal court, in the foreign political relations of Israel and Judah (including treaties with foreigners), or public services of lamentation.27 Hayes included FNPs in 2 Kings, Lamentations and Psalms, which are outside the prophetic corpus, into this latter group. Yet he concludes that even these prophecies, which were delivered on occasions of national lament, are nevertheless also related to a foreign enemy.28 Thus for Hayes two situations emerge to which these prophecies can be connected: the context of war or imminent threat from an enemy (e.g., 2 Kgs 19:20–24) and instances when royal oracles were given (e.g., Ps. 2). Hayes also tries to trace the development of the FNPs from the war oracle stage in the pre-classical period, through judgment prophecy in the pre-exilic and exilic prophetic books, to eschatological and apocalyptical judgment scenes in post-exilic prophetic literature in which no mention is made

23 F. Schwally, ‘Die Reden des Buches Jeremia gegen die Heiden: XXV. XLVI–LI untersucht’, ZAW 8 (1888), 177–216. 24 So Gunkel and Gressmann (cited in Hayes, Nations, 21–24, 26–27). 25 H.G. Reventlow, Das Amt des Propheten bei Amos, Göttingen 1962, 65. 26 C. Schmerl, Die Völkerorakel in den Prophetenbüchern des Alten Testaments, Würzburg 1939; Hayes, Nations; B. Margulis, Studies in the Oracles against the Nations (Ph.D. diss.), Brandeis University, MA 1966; Christensen, Prophecy; Höffken, Begründungselementen; Hoffmann, Nations. 27 Cf. Hayes, Nations, 39–170; Idem, ‘The Usage of Oracles against Foreign Nations in Ancient Israel’, JBL 87 (1968), 81–92. 28 Hayes, Nations, 124, 128.

collections of foreign nation prophecies

43

of any nations as ‘concrete, historical actualities but [as] the powers of the world to which reference is made in general terms.’29 Mapping out the development of FNPs was the task that Christensen set for himself in his study on this topic. His thesis is in many respects similar to the one argued by Hayes. He observes a historical development in FNPs from war oracle to oracles of salvation in the early post-exilic era. Christensen maintains that Amos 1–2 and Jer. 46–51 form two poles in this history of transformations. Amos 1–2 signals the conversion of war oracle to judgement speech against the nations of the idealised Davidic empire, while Jer. 46–51 attests to the transformation of judgment speech aimed at the national foes of Yhwh to the preservation of the people in exile and their restoration in Zion.30 Hoffmann’s work on the FNPs also envisages the development of this corpus. He expends a great deal of effort pointing out the common characteristics of FNPs. Taking Amos as a starting point, he traces six common characteristics in FNPs.31 Hoffmann assumes that Amos 1–2 derives from the 8th-century prophet and maintains accordingly that, in their earliest form, FNPs (which he called doom prophecies against foreign nations) contained all these six characteristics.32 Other FNPs of later origin may include only a few of these features. Hoffmann denies that these texts could be related to the cult, but he nevertheless detects close connections with oracles uttered before battles. He believes the function of the FNPs as salvation oracles addressing Israel was a late exilic development. In the post-exilic period the names of Edom, Babylon and to some extent the name of Moab tend to lose their qualities as specific ethnic designations and become a chiffre for evil in general.33 A radically different view is taken by J.B. Geyer, who argues that ‘the oracles [FNPs] were not intended to be read in a historical context

29

Hayes, Nations, 300. Christensen, Prophecy, 15. 31 (1) The prophecy is concerned with one distinctly named foreign nation; (2) it proclaims calamity for that nation; (3) it speaks about a historical (not eschatological) calamity; (4) the causes of the calamity are explained; (5) there is no hint to the deliverance of Israel; (6) the future is presented as irreversible and not as a warning (Hoffmann, Nations, i; Idem, ‘Oracle’, 77–78). 32 He also includes Isa. 14:3–23, 28–32; 15–16; 19:1–15; 21:1–10, 13–17; 23; 47; Jer. 46–51; Ezek. 25–32; Nah. 2:4–3:19 (Hoffmann, Nations, ii). 33 Hoffmann, Nations, iv. 30

44

chapter two

though they may have been thought relevant to (changing) historical circumstances.’34 He emphasises the prominence of mythological motifs and lamentation, as well as the importance of the liturgical setting of these FNPs, especially the significance of the Day of Atonement and the New Year festival.35 He maintains that the FNPs ‘show signs that they are related to the tradition of the cosmic battle between the deity and the forces of chaos. The “nations” are an aspect of this order (or disorder) and are to be brought into line in the same way as aberrant Israel, whose faults were corrected through the ritual of the Day of Purgation.’36 Gayer puts forward the daring suggestion that ‘we have been mistaken in thinking that ON-IJE [the FNPs in Isa.–Ezek.] are prophetic utterances, unless perhaps they emanate from cult prophets. Although ON-IJE now stand within prophetic books, they do so without any real ascription as to when they were uttered, on what occasion or to what purpose.’37 Instead of prophetic involvement, Geyer attributes a more significant role to other cultic functionaries, like the high priest. The purpose and methods of Höffken are different. His approach is thematic rather than phenomenological. His goal is to analyse the reasons and motivations for judgment in the FNPs. In undertaking this task, he differentiates between (1) reasons related to Israel / Judah,38 (2) speeches of arrogance, (3) universal (general) motivations, and (4) motivations pertinent to foreign nations. Using this categorisation, Höffken endeavours to define a temporal scheme for the motifs deriving from earlier or later periods. In his view, thematic variation testifies to a divergent historical background underlying the FNPs. Some functioned in the context of military-political affairs, while others were rooted in the cult.39 These works focusing on FNPs in general are valuable contributions to our knowledge about the common forms, themes and traditions in the background of these prophecies. However, like form criticism, their strength is at the same time their weakness. A glimpse into detailed lit-

34 J.B. Geyer, Mythology and Lament: Studies in the Oracles about the Nations, Hants 2004, 5. 35 Geyer, Mythology, 5, 117–47; Idem, ‘Another Look’, 83. 36 Geyer, ‘Another Look’, 83. 37 Geyer, ‘Another Look’, 86. 38 (a) military and political threat against Israel / Judah; (b) the motifs of invective, mockery, or malicious delight in the fate of Israel / Judah. 39 Höffken, Begründungselementen.

collections of foreign nation prophecies

45

erary critical investigations in comparison with the works mentioned above makes clear that the extensive analysis of these general studies precluded any deeper literary analysis of the examined texts and glossed over the particularities of individual literary compositions. Moreover, as Beentjes has noted, these studies give little attention to the settings of the FNPs in the context of particular books.40 One must agree therefore with Huwyler’s questioning of there being any further merit in pursuing research on FNPs along this broadly-set path.41 Though it is important not to lose sight of the general framework, more attention needs to be given to the specifics of individual books and individual prophecies, and to the FNPs as literary compositions meant to be heard and read in situations other than their original Sitz im Leben.

2.4 Collections of Foreign Nation Prophecies in the Bible 42 The formation and literary structuring of prophetic books, in particular the logic behind this structuring, is one of the most hotly debated topics in present-day research into prophecy. These discussions repeatedly mention the central importance of the large collections comprising Isa. 13–23; Jer. 46–51; Ezek. 25–32; Amos 1–2; and Zeph. 2:4–15 has been pointed out repeatedly.43 As it has often been emphasised, the fact that these prophecies have been assembled into five different prophetic books is not a coincidental development but the result of editorial planning. In view of the formation of Isa. 13–23 to be analysed later, I shall briefly discuss problems related to (a) the individual collections of FNPs, (b) the books as the wider context of these prophecies, and (c) the literary ties of the FNPs beyond the book in which they appear. The principal questions can be formulated as follows:

40 P.C. Beentjes, ‘Oracles against the Nations: A Central Issue in the “Latter Prophets” ’, Bijdr. 50 (1989), 205. 41 Huwyler, Jeremia, 34. 42 Although FNPs also appear outside these collections, those texts are less relevant in view of the primary purpose of this study as formulated in §1.4. 43 J. Vermeylen, ‘L’unité du livre d’Isaïe’, in: BoI, 28–34; P.-M. Bogaert, ‘L’organisation des grands recueils prophétiques’, in: BoI, 147–53; Beentjes, ‘Central Issue’, 203–9.

46

chapter two

a. What was the reason for collecting these FNPs? What characteristics bind the individual texts together? Is the collection a static corpus of pre-existing utterances gathered with a consistent editorial view, or can we find evidence of re-organisation and amendment based on various editorial criteria? b. What is the concept guiding the further assembly of these collections in the series of prophetic books? c. How far does the editorial elaboration behind the collections follow a concept paralleled by other prophetic books and how far are these collections book specific? 2.4.1

Foreign Nation Prophecies in the Book of Amos

(a) As we have seen in §2.3, many scholars consider the FNPs in Amos 1:3–2:5 to be the oldest literary condensation of its type. This pericope enumerates seven nations in the neighbourhood of Israel. The focus and arrangement of this section suggest that its scope is to place Israel in the context of its neighbours. All prophecies in Amos 1:3–2:5 are set according to a more or less common literary pattern, filled with different content to suit each individual nation. There are, nevertheless, three oracles that slightly differ from the others in their form and, to a greater degree, in their scope. This is one of the reasons why these three prophecies are often considered to be later additions to an earlier corpus consisting of four prophecies on neighbouring nations and one on Israel in 2:6–16*.44 (b) In the present form of the book of Amos, the collection of FNPs opens the book. The prophecies against Israel in Amos 3–6, the central core of the book, are strongly related to the prophecies against other nations. After denouncing these nations, the prophet suddenly turns to reproving Israel in similar ways (2:6–16). Words against enemy nations may have sounded familiar to the prophet’s audience. Nevertheless, the decisive point is the moment when the prophet turns

44 The disputed prophecies are those concerning Tyre, Edom and Judah. Cf. H.W. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 2: Joel und Amos (BK, 14/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969, 170– 71; Barton, Oracles, 22–24; B. Gosse, ‘Le recueil d’oracles contra les nations du livre d’Amos et l’histoire deutéronomique’, VT 38 (1988), 22–40; J. Jeremias, Der Prophet Amos (ATD, 24/2), Göttingen 1995, 10–11.

collections of foreign nation prophecies

47

to Israel with a message of judgment comparable to the utterances against the foreigners not knowing Yhwh.45 However, the fact that this formally-related Israel prophecy in Amos 2:6–16 appears now to conclude the FNPs does not mean that Amos 2:6–16 was composed as a closure for Amos 1:3–2:5 from the very beginning. Arguments derived from the text of the prophecy as well as from the book suggest that the opposite was in fact the case.46 It is therefore more probable that the FNPs of the book of Amos were secondarily inserted here to form the introduction to the prophecies against Israel in 2:6–16, or perhaps even to the entire corpus of judgments on Israel in Amos 3–6. This means that Amos 2:6–16 is actually older than the FNPs, and that the FNPs were deliberately composed for their present context. This history of composition may partially explain formal dissimilarities, such as, for instance, why 2:6–16 does not actually have an ending similar to the FNPs of Amos 1–2.47 Formal criteria and diverging content and theology in three prophecies have led exegetes to conclude that, at one stage, Amos’ FNPs consisted of four oracles introducing a fifth prophecy on Israel in 2:6– 16. Some scholars argued that these five formally related texts in the introductory section are editorially paralleled by the visions reported in Amos 7–9*, likewise containing five formally related visions. The introductory prophecies in Amos 1–2 probably allude to these visions when affirming the impossibility of averting punishment through prophetic intercessory prayer (as it happens in Amos 7–9).48

45 On this ‘surprise technique’, see Barton, Oracles, 3–7; Jeremias, Amos, 8. A similar technique is used in Amos 3:3–6, 8 and 5:18–20. 46 Cf. Jeremias, Amos, 8; A.S. van der Woude, Amos-Obadja-Jona (T&T), Kampen 1997, 25. The numerical sayings of the FNPs (‘for three transgressions of GN, and for four . . .’) acquire their real meaning in the prophecy against Israel. In the FNPs, there is one wrongdoing mentioned in case of every nation, while the prophecy against Israel mentions not four (so Jeremias and Van der Woude), but 4 + 3 = 7 sins (some of which may be synonymous re-iterations, but note Amos 2:7cd). Amos 2:14–16 also describes seven forms of punishment (3 + 3 + 1) that will affect the nation. 47 The prophecy on Israel in Amos 2:6–8, 14–16 with its seven transgressions may also be a summary of the prophets own message scattered throughout Amos 3–6 (cf. also Jeremias, Amos, 21). It is frequently argued that such summaries precede the collection of the Isaianic prophecies in Isa. 1. 48 Cf. Wolff, Amos, 184; J. Jeremias, ‘Völkersprüche und Visionsberichte im Amosbuch’, in: Volkmar Fritz et al. (eds), Prophet und Prophetenbuch: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 65. Geburtstag (BZAW, 185), Berlin 1989, 82–97; Idem, Amos, xix, 8–9. The vision reports are consequently interrupted by a narrative and several oracular sayings. But Jeremias considers their present location secondary.

48

chapter two

It thus appears that, at a certain stage in the history of the book of Amos, five formally similar prophecies may have formed the first part of the scroll and five similar visions closed the collection of Amos 3–6, the central core of the book containing the speeches of Amos against Israel. The process of the formation of the book did not stop here, however. By expanding the FNPs to include seven nations, the parallel with the visions of Am 7–9 was abandoned in favour of a different editorial concept. The collection of five visions has likewise lost its original structure due to the insertion of explanatory oracles and narratives.49 The prophecy against Israel is the culmination of the FNPs. Israel, the people singled out by Yhwh from among all nations, has become like one of the foreigners, on account of which it will share their fate. This idea behind the structuring of the FNPs and prophecies on Israel in Amos 1–2 finds its explicit formulation elsewhere in the book, notably in the programmatic text of Amos 3:2, as well as in 6:2 and 9:7. Amos 3:(1b)2 is likely an editorial text, while 6:2 and 9:7 are most certainly such texts, as they reflect on the formation of the collection of Amos-prophecies.50 Organising the seven FNPs according to the idea that ‘Israel has come to resemble other nations’ may have been the work of the author(s) behind Amos 3:2; 6:2; 9:7, possibly linked to the Deuteronomists.51 The present arrangement of the book was evident at least by 539 bc, but its threefold organisation (Amos 1–2* / 3–6* / 7–9*) may have already been known in the pre-exilic era,52 possibly not long after 721 bc, when following the deportation of Israel and the fall of Samaria it had become clear that Israel was nothing more than one nation

49 The enlargement of the FNPs to seven textual units (distorting the parallels with Amos 7–9) could be the work of the same editors who inserted the Amos narrative in Amos 7. The editorial conception governing the later texts of Amos 1–2 is often attributed to the Deuteronomists (cf. Wolff, Amos, 137–38, 184–85; Gosse, ‘L’histoire deutéronomique’, 22–40), as is also the narrative of Am 7. 50 E.g., Wolf, Amos, 212–13; Jeremias, Amos, 85, 89; S.M. Paul, Amos (Hermeneia), Minneapolis, MN 1991, 100–1. For the literary connections between Amos 1–2 and 3:2, see Barton, Oracles, 36. 51 Cf. Jeremias, Amos, 32 n. 10. 52 The question is whether Amos’ ‘Israel’ is a historical reference to the Northern Kingdom after 721 or whether it has a theological meaning (i.e. it also includes Judah), as it does in exilic and later literature. The name of Judah appears only sparingly (cf. Amos 1:1; 2:4–5; 7:12).

collections of foreign nation prophecies

49

among many, occupying no more than one single line of cuneiform text on a victory stele of Sargon II. (c) As for Amos 1:2–2:5 in relation to other FNPs, one may note several common concepts, such as the symbolic use of the number seven, the geographical ordering of the nations neighbouring Israel and the literary growth of the collection of FNPs. Likewise, the prophecies in Amos have close formal similarities, which can also be recognised to a lesser extent in the FNPs in Jer. and Ezek. At the same time, it is a unique feature of this collection that the FNPs of Amos appear as an introduction to the prophecies addressed to Israel. Both the relation to the Amosian prophecies against Israel and the resemblances with the visions reported by Amos underline the fact that these FNPs are book specific, i.e. intended to be read and heard in the context of the entire book of Amos. 2.4.2 Foreign Nation Prophecies in the Book of Jeremiah It is commonly believed that the threefold structures of Isaiah, the Greek edition of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Zephaniah all follow a socalled eschatological editorial scheme with texts-blocks containing prophecies against Israel, prophecies against other nations and prophecies of salvation for Israel.53 However, persistent application of this hypothesis often requires such radical concessions that its ultimate usefulness must be questioned.54 In Jeremiah, the problems related to the edition of the book and the place of the FNPs in it are complicated by the two different textual traditions of the LXX and MT.55 The divergence between MT and LXX is 53 E.g., K.-F. Pohlmann, Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezekiel) (ATD, 22/1), Göttingen 1996, 19, 33; J. Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel (Interpretation), Louisville, TN 1990, 107; Idem, A History of Prophecy in Israel, Louisville, TN 21992, 168; O. Kaiser, Der Gott des Alten Testaments: Theologie des Alten Testaments. Teil 3: Jahwes Gerechtigkeit, Göttingen 2003, 82. 54 Cf. O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Tübingen 31964, 410; Bogaert, ‘L’organisation’, 147–53. 55 On Jer. 46–51, cf. B. Huwyler, Jeremia; G. Fischer, ‘Jer. 25 und die Fremdvölkersprüche: Unterschiede zwischen hebräischem und griechischem Text’, Bib. 72 (1991), 474–99; J.D.W. Watts, ‘Text and Redaction in Jeremiah’s Oracles against the Nations’, CBQ 54 (1992), 432–47; B. Gosse, ‘La place primitive de recueil d’Oracles contre les Nations dans le livre de Jérémie’, BN 74 (1994), 28–30; C.J. Sharp, ‘ “Take Another Scroll and Write”: A Study of the LXX and the MT of Jeremiah’s Oracles against Egypt and Babylon’, VT 47 (1997), 487–509; H.G.L. Peels, ‘ “Drinken zùlt gij!” Plaats en betekenis van de volkenprofetieën in Jeremia 46–51’, ThRef 44 (2001), 205–20;

50

chapter two

considerable at every level. First, the MT contains passages in the FNP section that are absent from LXX, a discrepancy that is also noticeable in other parts of the book of Jeremiah. Second, the order of the nations in the collection of FNPs differs considerably in the two editions. This is a typical feature of the Jeremianic FNPs, not attested elsewhere in this book. Third, the FNPs in the Greek version of Jeremiah are placed in the ‘middle’ of the book (following Jer. 25:13), while MT has them in ‘final’ position, closing the book of Jeremiah. (a) Similarly to Amos, the collection of FNPs in Jeremiah appears to be the product of literary growth. This is not only evidenced by verses that are present in the MT and absent from the LXX (e.g. Jer. 48:45–47), but also by more general considerations.56 In most prophecies (Jer. 46–49), the rod in Yhwh’s hand raised in judgment against the nations is Babylon (Jer. 27). But most scholars maintain that the anti-Babylonian prophecies in Jer. 50–51 reflect another perspective on history which is commonly assumed to derive from a different source.57 Beside Jer. 50–51, the authenticity of the Elam prophecy (Jer. 49:34–39) has also been questioned, but with less success.58 Jer. 46:1–49:35 also contains material ascribed to various post-Jeremianic editorial traditions, but in most of these scholars have found an authentic core.59 In analysing the literary formation of the collection Jer. 46–51, it is helpful to look at the system of superscriptions for the prophecies, noting the differences and similarities between the LXX and the MT. As the table below illustrates, Jer. 46–51 contains basically three types of superscriptions: (1) the shortest type is the ‫ל‬-type heading, supplied with historical data in Jer. 46:2. The ‫ל‬-type heading is attested elsewhere in Jer. 23:9 (concerning the false prophets). (2) The second type of heading, appearing three times in this collection, is the ‫אשׁר היה דבר־יהוה‬-type (recurring only in Jer. 1:2 and 14:1). (3) The ‫הדבר אשׁר דבר יהוה‬-type is attested twice in the MT of Jer. 46–51

M. Haran, ‘The Place of the Prophecies against the Nations in the Book of Jeremiah’, in: S.M. Paul, E. Ben-David (eds), Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of E. Tov, Leiden 2003, 699–706. 56 K. Seybold, Der Prophet Jeremia: Leben und Werk, Stuttgart 1992, 120–28. 57 E.g., R.P. Carroll, Jeremiah, London 1986, 815–16; Seybold, Jeremia, 121. 58 Cf. H.G.L. Peels, ‘God’s Throne in Elam: The Historical Background and Literary Context of Jeremiah 49:34–39’, in: J.C. de Moor, H.F. van Rooij (eds), Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets (OTS, 44), Leiden 2000, 216–29. 59 See, for instance, Seybold, Jeremia, 127–28; Huwyler, Jeremia, 267.

collections of foreign nation prophecies Text (Jer) 46:1 MT 26:1 LXX 46:2 MT 26:2 LXX 46:13 MT 26:13 LXX 47:1 MT 29:1 LXX 48:1 MT 31:1 LXX 49:1 MT 30:17 LXX 49:7 MT 30:1 LXX 49:23 MT 30:29 LXX 49:28 MT 30:23 LXX 49:34 MT 25:14 (20) LXX 50:1 MT 27:1 LXX

51

Heading

‫אשׁר היה דבר־יהוה אל־ירמיהו הנביא על־הגוים‬ -60

‫ למצרים‬+ h(istorical) d(ata) τῇ Αἰγύπτῳ + hd

‫ הדבר אשׁר דבר יהוה אל־ירמיהו הנביא‬+ hd ἃ ἐλάλησεν κύριος ἐν χειρὶ Ιερεμιου + hd

‫ אשׁר היה דבר־יהוה אל־ירמיהו הנביא אל־פלשׁתים‬+ hd ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀλλοφύλους

‫למואב‬ τῇ Μωαβ

‫לבני עמון‬ τοῖς υἱοῖς Αμμων

‫לאדום‬ τῇ Ιδουμαίᾳ

‫לדמשׂק‬ τῇ ∆αμασκῷ

‫לקדר ולממלכות חצור‬ τῇ Κηδαρ βασιλίσσῃ τῆς αὐλῆς

‫ אשׁר היה דבר־יהוה אל־ירמיהו הנביא אל־עילם‬+ hd [ἃ ἐπροφήτευσεν Ιερεμιας ἐπὶ τὰ ἔθνη] τὰ Αιλαμ (+ hd) ‫הדבר אשׁר דבר יהוה אל־בבל אל־ארץ כשׂדים‬ ‫ביד ירמיהו הנביא‬ λόγος κυρίου ὃν ἐλάλησεν ἐπὶ Βαβυλῶνα

(this superscription appears only in this pericope in the Bible). The type (1) heading occurs consistently in the LXX version of Jeremiah. The Greek form of type (2) differs in all three cases, even in passages outside Jer. 46–51. Type (3) may be the same in both MT and LXX renditions of Jer. 46:13, but they differ again in Jer. 50:1. These correspondences and divergences between the LXX and the MT may suggest that the most frequent ‫ל‬-type heading belongs to an earlier stage of the book of Jeremiah, while the other two are likely later, especially superscription type (2). In addition to conclusions drawn from differences in superscriptions and headings, the development of Jer. 46–51 is evidenced by other texts as well. Jer. 25:13 refers to a scroll containing prophecies ‫( על־כל־הגוים‬cf. Jer. 46:2), and 36:2 mentions a book (‫)מגלת־ספר‬ dated to the same year, i.e. the fourth year of Jehoiachim (605 bc),

60

Due to the different order of prophecies, LXX lacks this heading.

52

chapter two

and having similar content (‫)על־ישׂראל ועל־יהודה ועל־כל־הגוים‬.61 This scroll contains warnings to Israel, Judah, and other nations but does not include prophecies against Babylon and Elam, which have superscription indicating that they derive from a different date.62 The epilogue in Jer. 51:59–64 regards the Babylonian prophecies as a distinctive book (‫)ספר‬. If Babylon and Elam are removed from this 605 bc edition of ‫ספר על־כל־הגוים‬, we are left with a collection of seven prophecies. With the exception of the cumbersome introductory line of the Philistine oracle, this collection is composed of prophecies with the ‫ל‬-type heading, as shown in the table above. As it often is the case in the Bible, the number seven represents totality. The idea behind this symbolic number might be disclosed in Jer. 25:11, a verse considered to be strongly related to the FNPs: this entire earth (‫ ;כל־הארץ הזאת‬cf. 25:29)63 will become desolate and ruined, and the nations will serve Babylon for seventy (another symbolic number!) years. In Jer. 25, the nations from the north (referring to the Babylonian army) appear as the representatives of Yhwh. Israel amidst the neighbouring nations (‫ ;כל־הגוים האלה סביב‬Jer. 25:9) will not be treated differently from them. Through Nebuchadnezzar and his army, Yhwh will extend and exert his dominion among all nations, in all directions. This collection of seven prophecies was expanded later with an utterance against Elam positioning the seat of Yhwh amidst a nation on the far eastern horizon (49:38). The internal organization of the prophecies in LXX and MT is different. Most scholars view the two versions as alternative readings, one more original than the other.64 Watts, however, maintained that LXX and MT need not be contrasted as competitive readings, but each one must be evaluated in its own right.65 To investigate the differences in the internal ordering of the prophecies in MT and LXX, we need to

61 This date coincides with the first year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (Jer. 25:1). This is not insignificant, as he will become the protagonist of Jer. 46–49. 62 Jer. 36:2 and 45 connects the prophecies against Israel, Judah and the nations to the person of Baruch, while Jer. 50–51 are related to Seraiah (51:59). For Seraiah as a ‘second’ Baruch (his brother?), see Carroll, Jeremiah, 749; Seybold, Jeremia, 35. In LXX, Babylon does not appear on the list of the nations to drink from the cup of wrath (MT Jer. 25:18–26; LXX 32:4–12). 63 ‫ הארץ‬may have a double meaning in 25:11: ‘country’ and ‘world’. 64 Carroll, Jeremiah, 759; W.L. Holladay, Jeremiah, vol. 2, Philadelphia, PA 1989, 313; Haran, ‘Place’, 702. 65 Watts, ‘Text’, 432–47.

collections of foreign nation prophecies

53

look again at the superscriptions. In the headings of the FNP collections, we find four different historical dates:66

Country

MT

LXX

Date

Elam Egypt Babylon Philistia

49:34 46:2 51:60 47:1

25:20 26:2 28:60 29:1

598 bc 605 bc 594 bc ‘before the pharaoh smote Gaza’ (605 bc?)67

It is striking that these four dated prophecies appear at the beginning of the FNPs in LXX. As noted above, these superscriptions diverge from other headings, and the MT and LXX differ from each other exactly with regard to these discrepant superscriptions. The order of the prophecies in LXX is not chronological, but it is probably based on formal criteria: prophecies with dating superscriptions come first, followed by texts with a ‫ל‬-type heading. The order of the prophecies in MT more closely follows the list of the nations in Jer. 25:18–26. The organisation of the prophecies in the MT is apparently based on chronological criteria. In accordance with Jer. 25:1 and 36:2, it may be assumed that the undated prophecies were all delivered in the same year as the Egypt-prophecy (605 bc).68 The order of the undated prophecies also differs in the two versions, but the theological significance of this latter difference remains uncertain.69

66

Jer. 49:28 (LXX 30:23) contains no dating formula. The prophecy was dated variously to 609, 605, 601. For adopting 605 as the most likely date, see H.J. Katzenstein, ‘ “Before the pharaoh conquered Gaza” (Jeremiah xlvii 1)’, VT 33 (1983), 249–51; Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 314. The historical reference to the Pharaoh is lacking in LXX. 68 Peels argued that some prophecies correspond to events predating those mentioned in 46:2 (‘Volkenprofetieën’, 207 n. 7). However, chronological ordering does not necessarily mean a chronology based on the actual historical background of the prophecies (unlike e.g., Seybold, Jeremia, 122 believes), but a chronology assumed by the editors to fit the background of the oracles. And this assumed chronology is explicitly mentioned in Jer. 25:1; 36:2 and 46:1, all of which are editorial texts. Given this conception of the redactors, the texts may be considered chronologically organised. Also note that the editorial conclusion in 51:59 dates the anti-Babylonian prophecy to 594, while some verses refer to the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem (50:28; 51:11). 69 MT order: Moab, Ammon, Edom, Damascus, Kedar; LXX order: Edom, Ammon, Kedar, Damascus, Moab. The Moab oracle, the final text in the LXX order, is followed in MT by an editorial verse (absent in LXX): ‫( עד־הנה משׁפט מואב‬Jer. 48:47; cf. also 67

54

chapter two

(b) The different order in which the nations are mentioned and the place of the FNPs in the book as a whole have led some to believe that Jer. 46–51 was only added to the rest of the book of Jeremiah at a late stage, circulating previously as an independent anonymous collection.70 Watts is probably right when he suggests that the different organisation of the prophecies does attest to a once independent collection of FNPs that happened to find its way into both textual traditions. The divergences reflect differing views belonging to two separate editorial traditions (MT/LXX). Nevertheless, it is remarkable that Jer. 25:1 and 36:2 mention prophecies addressed to Israel and Judah in the same collection with the prophecies aimed at other nations. Moreover and as previously mentioned, the system of superscriptions in the FNPs is well suited to the book of Jeremiah, reinforcing the view that the FNP collection never circulated as an independent book detached from the other prophecies of Jeremiah. What theological concerns do the two textual traditions serve in placing the collection of FNPs at different locations in the book? The key evidence in this regard is provided by Jer. 25:29 (LXX 32:29): if Jerusalem, Yhwh’s own city, is about to be brought down by a disaster, how could the nations go unpunished? Indeed, they will not, for a sword will devour all the other nations as well. In other words, the prophecies regarding the punishment of other nations are extensions of those addressed to Judah. Jeremiah does not have a three level structure (judgment of Israel, judgment of other nations, salvation of Israel), but a two level structure: judgment of Israel and judgement of other nations. These two levels are evident in the form attested by MT; Jer. 1–45 describes the judgment passed on Judah, its execution encompassing the entire 40 year period in which Jeremiah was active, from 627 (Jer. 1:1) to 587 bc, the fall of Jerusalem. This book is connected to the person of Baruch (Jer. 36; 45). The book on Judah ends with a vision on the fall of Egypt (Jer. 44:29–30), the nation that appears in Jer. 46 as the first among the foreign nations to be denounced in Jer. 46–51.

Jer. 51:64, also missing from LXX). If this can be regarded as the end of a collection of prophecies there is some support for making the Moab text the final one in the collection as it is in LXX. However, this phrase only denotes the end of the Moab prophecy and not an entire collection. 70 See the discussion in Holladay, Jeremiah, 313; Watts, ‘Text’, 432–34.

collections of foreign nation prophecies

55

I believe that it is not the location of the collection of FNPs in the two traditions of the book of Jeremiah which poses the real problem. The FNPs have always belonged to the book, and their different locations in MT and LXX do not represent any counter evidence to this view. Their different locations do alter, however, the extent to which the judgment prophecies apply to Judah and especially the role of chapters 26–45 in this respect. While MT makes both Jer. 2–2471 and 26–45 part of the judgment prophecies that Jeremiah pronounces against Judah (supposedly written down by Baruch),72 LXX follows a different lead. It is striking that many chapters in Jer. 26–45 appear with a heading which dates them according to a particular year of the king. I have argued above that the differences in dating indicated by the superscriptions of the FNPs in Jer. 46–51 may explain the present organisation of the two text blocks in the Greek version of the FNPs: one block with dated headings and another one without such superscriptions. Is it possible that the location of Jer. 26–45 in LXX might also be explained by a similarly formal concept? It is noteworthy that Jer. 26–45 mainly contains narratives concerning the prophet Jeremiah, i.e. texts formally different from the prophetic utterances of Jer. 2–24.73 In making editorial decisions, the Greek authors were seemingly more reliant on literary factors (form and genre) than content. The concern of MT, on the other hand, is rather thematic and gives comparatively less attention to literary matters and formal similarities. (c) The primary collection of the FNPs in Jeremiah (dated to 605 bc) is similar to Amos 1–2 in some respects.74 It contains prophecies against the nations neighbouring Israel. It enumerates seven nations,

71 Jer. 1, in which the prophet is concerned with both Judah and other nations, should probably be seen as the introduction to the entire book, including the FNPs (cf. Seybold, Jeremia, 121). 72 The scroll with many similar words (‫ )דברים רבים כהמה‬added to the book burned by Jehoiakim (Jer. 36:32) may indirectly allude to such a concept. For the significance of Jer. 36 in the history of Jeremiah, see Y. Hoffman, ‘Aetiology, Redaction and Historicity in Jeremiah xxxvi’, VT 46 (1996), 185–89; Sharp, ‘Another Scroll’, 507–8. Sharp’s view that Jer. 36 indirectly supports the authoritativeness of the shorter tradition in LXX is doubtful (cf. Jer. 36:23!). 73 Jer. 26–45 is treated as a distinctive unit in Jeremiah research (cf. Duhm’s biography source and Mowinckel’s source B in Seybold, Jeremia, 20–21). 74 Jer. 49:1–6 and Amos 1:14–15 indirectly allude to the relationship between Amos and Jeremiah. Jer. 25:30–38, the epilogue of the FNPs in the LXX, is also particularly close to Amos 1:2, the starting point of the FNPs of Amos.

56

chapter two

regarding them as the totality of all people, and suggests that the entire encircling world will become subservient to Nebuchadnezzar, the servant of Yhwh. A further expansion adds the idea of Yhwh’s world dominion (Jer. 49:38). The theology of the MT version of Jeremiah places the judgment on Babylon in the final position and is not without parallels. The same idea frames Isa. 1–12 and 28–33, both proclaiming judgment on Judah and Israel by way of a foreign nation ultimately subdued by Yhwh. The superscriptions are, however, rather book specific, and the same holds true for many particular expressions in the individual prophecies. The motivation for the judgment on nations in Jer. 25:29 is also particular to this book. 2.4.3

Foreign Nation Prophecies in the Book of Ezekiel

In its present form Ezek. 25–32 contains prophecies on seven foreign nations: Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre, Sidon, and Egypt. In this final version, the prophecies against Tyre and Egypt are considerably longer than the others. According to the editorial headings, the two are composed of seven editorial subunits each, and the two reflect a similar literary structure.75 (a) The nations can be divided into two groups: neighbouring small countries (Ezek. 25–28: Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre, Sidon) and Egypt (Ezek. 29–32). This differentiation is underlined in the theological construction of the collection: the small nations appear as rejoicing at the fall of Judah (Ammon, Moab, Tyre), or even actively taking part in its destruction (Edom, Philistia). But Egypt is the unreliable supporter of Judah. The prophecies on the neighbouring nations are organised following a geographical concept (from east turning southwards). In spite of some variations, the degree of uniformity in the title lines of the prophecies of Ezek. 25–32 is impressive. Using the formulas, ‫ ויהי דבר־יהוה אלי לאמר‬and ‫ כה אמר אדני יהוה‬to introduce

75 On the FNPs of Ezekiel, see H. van Dijk, Ezekiel’s Prophecy on Tyre (Ez. 26,1– 28,19): A New Approach (BiOr, 20), Rome 1968; L. Boadt, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt: A Literary and Philological Study of Ezekiel 29–32 (BiOr, 37), Rome 1980; Fechter, Bewältigung; M. Alonso Corral, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre: Historical Reality and Motivations (BiOr, 46), Rome 2002; V. Premstaller, Fremdvölkersprüche des Ezechielbuches (FzB, 104), Würzburg 2005.

collections of foreign nation prophecies Text

Nation

25:1 25:3 25:8 25:12 25:15 26:1 26:7 26:15 26:19 27:1 28:1 28:11 28:20 29:1 29:17 30:1 30:20 31:1 32:1 32:17

Main heading Ammon Moab Edom Philistia Tyre Tyre Tyre Tyre Tyre Tyre Tyre Sidon Egypt Egypt Egypt Egypt Egypt Egypt Egypt

57

Heading

‫ויהי דבר־יהוה אלי לאמר‬ ‫כה אמר אדני יהוה‬ ‫כה אמר אדני יהוה‬ ‫כה אמר אדני יהוה‬ ‫כה אמר אדני יהוה‬ ‫ היה דבר־יהוה אלי לאמר‬+ date + ‫ויהי‬ ‫כי כה אמר אדני יהוה‬ ‫כה אמר אדני יהוה‬ ‫כי כה אמר אדני יהוה‬ ‫ויהי דבר־יהוה אלי לאמר‬ ‫ויהי דבר־יהוה אלי לאמר‬ ‫ויהי דבר־יהוה אלי לאמר‬ ‫ויהי דבר־יהוה אלי לאמר‬ ‫ היה דבר־יהוה אלי לאמר‬+ date + ‫ויהי‬ ‫ היה דבר־יהוה אלי לאמר‬+ date + ‫ויהי‬ ‫ויהי דבר־יהוה אלי לאמר‬ ‫ היה דבר־יהוה אלי לאמר‬+ date + ‫ויהי‬ ‫ היה דבר־יהוה אלי לאמר‬+ date + ‫ויהי‬ ‫ היה דבר־יהוה אלי לאמר‬+ date + ‫ויהי‬ ‫ היה דבר־יהוה אלי לאמר‬+ date + ‫ויהי‬

prophecies is relatively rare outside Ezekiel, but very frequent in this book.76 The four prophecies in Ezek. 25 have a more or less homogeneous literary structure,77 suggesting that they are part of the same subunit. A similar structure has been attributed to 26:2–7 and 28:20–23, the

76 For ‫ כה אמר אדני יהוה‬as the beginning of a prophecy, see Isa. 49:22; Obad. 1 (not in opening position in Isa. 7:7; 28:16; 30:16; 52:4; 65:13; Jer. 7:20). The ‫כה אמר‬formula appears also elsewhere in the Tyre-prophecy (Ezek. 26–28), but it does not always function as a text-delimiter (e.g., 27:3; 28:2, 6, 12, 22). In 28:25, ‫ כה אמר‬introduces a new section, but one that is not part of the Tyre-collection (see below). In the Egypt prophecies (Ezek. 29–32), ‫ כה אמר‬is used in a variety of ways. ‫כה אמר‬ may belong to the text (cf. 29:3, 8, 19; 30:2; 31:10, 15?; 32:3, 11), or apparently function as an ending, like the ‫נאם‬-formula (cf. 30:6, 10, 13). Once or twice, ‫כה אמר‬ may introduce a new expansion (29:13; 31:15?), but in both cases the text is related and subordinated to the previous passages, so that it is hard to consider them individual prophecies similar to those headed by ‫ היה דבר־יהוה אלי לאמר‬+ date + ‫ויהי‬. The formula ‫ ויהי דבר־יהוה אלי לאמר‬appears as an opening text outside Ezekiel in Jer. 1:4, 11; 2:1; 16:1; 24:4; Zech. 6:9. As a formula inside a prophecy, see Jer. 13:3, 8; 18:5; Zech. 4:8. 77 ‫ יען‬+ mentioning a sinful deed against Israel + ‫ לכן‬+ recognition formula.

58

chapter two

Tyre- and Sidon-prophecies.78 This view is possible for the Tyre-text, but debatable for 28:20–23.79 It is often overlooked though that the prophecy against the Egyptians in 29:6b–9a and, to a lesser extent, 29:9b–12 also contains a similar structure.80 One may assume that the editors of Ezek. 25–32 reworked an earlier list containing more or less uniformly structured prophecies regarding Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre (?), and Egypt. The two major parts of the FNP collection in Ezekiel addressing neighbouring nations and Egypt are each delimited by a specific introduction and a specific ending. The introduction ‫בן־אדם שׂים פניך‬ ‫ והנבא עליהם‬. . . ‫ אל‬appears ahead of significant units in the book of Ezekiel. In the present case, the most important are 25:2, introducing a collection of FNPs, 28:21 beginning the prophecy against Sidon (and underlining its secondary origin) and 29:2, delimiting the Egyptian material.81 The specific ending for the two great blocks of Ezek. 25–32 appears at 28:24(25–26) and 29:16(21). The section on the neighbours is concluded by ‫ולא־יהיה עוד לבית ישׂראל סלון ממאיר וקוץ מכאב מכל‬ ‫( סביבתם השׁאטים אותם וידעו כי אני אדני יהוה‬28:24). Following rather uniform imagery, the nations appear here as pricking briers and piercing thorns. This conclusion is followed by a salvation prophecy on Israel promising it safety and security, who—unlike the foreigners— will recognise Yhwh through his merciful dealing with them. A similar verse appears in the second text block on Egypt at 29:16 concluding that ‫ולא יהיה־עוד לבית ישׂראל למבטח מזכיר עון בפנותם אחריהם‬ ‫וידעו כי אני אדני יהוה‬, followed in 29:21 by a related salvation proph-

78

M. Dijkstra, Ezechiël II (T&T), Kampen 1989, 24, 27. The Sidon oracle is different from the rest and may have been added to include seven nations in the collection (cf. Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel, 125). The Tyre prophecy is similar to 25:2–6, but it also presents differences such as the absence of the usual introductory ‫כה־אמר אדני יהוה‬, the use of ‫ יען אשׁר‬instead of ‫יען‬. If it was part of an earlier collection (Ezek. 25)—which is theoretically possible—it was reworked to fit its present position. Cf. below. 80 The fact that 29:6b–9a was originally distinct from the previous prophecy is beyond question (see Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel, 128; M. Dijkstra, Ezechiël II, 70–71). The closing ‘recognition formula’ appears in 29:9a. Of the Tyre and Egypt prophecies, only these two short prophecies denounce the nations because of their attitude towards Israel. 81 This phrase appears only in the book of Ezekiel in the heading of the prophecies against false prophets, Jerusalem, the Edom unit, and the Gog unit (see Ezek. 6:2; 13:17; 21:2, 7; 35:2; 38:2). 79

collections of foreign nation prophecies

59

ecy promising glory for Israel in contrast to Egypt.82 Egypt, Judah’s ally in the face of the Babylonian threat (29:6), would become an insignificant state (29:14), while Yhwh ‘will cause a horn to grow’ to Israel, i.e. its strength and glory will surpass that of Egypt. Now, the problem with Ezek. 29:16, 21 is that it does not appear at the end of the Egypt section but somewhere in the middle. This placement of Ezek. 29:16, 21 is not accidental. Formal and thematic considerations played an important part in the shifting editorial concepts of the book. Ezek. 29:13–16, 21 is, at any rate, later than the previous 29:6b–12 to which it has been attached.83 Since it envisages a different future for Egypt than the following prophecies do (Ezek. 30–32), it is probably later than those as well. One may assume therefore, that Ezek. 29:13–16, 21 was placed in its present location due to thematic considerations, and the direct relationship with the prophecy that it follows. From a literary-chronological point of view, however, and following the concept of its author, Ezek. 29:16, 21 is indeed a conclusion similar to 28:24–26. The prophecies against Tyre and Egypt are disproportionately long in comparison with the utterances against other nations. Both of them form small collections of seven pericopes, containing, on the one hand, utterances against a nation (Tyre: 26:1–6, 7–14; Egypt: 29:6b–16, 21; 29:17–20; 30:1–19), supplemented by elegies on its fall (Tyre: 26:16–21; 27:1–36; Egypt: 32:17–32). On the other hand, both collections include prophecies against the king (Tyre: 28:1–10; Egypt: 29:1–6a; 30:20–26; 31:1–18), and elegies on the fall of the king (Tyre: 28:12–19; Egypt: 32:1–16). The organisation of the prophecies against Tyre appears to be thematic in the first instance (first the city, then the king) and formal in the second (first prophecies, then elegies). In the case of Egypt, formal criteria seemingly played an important role, but the chronological headings must have surely imposed some limitations. The Tyre series contains one single date only, while the organisation of the prophecies in the Egypt unit is based on chronological considerations.84

82 Ezek. 29:21 probably belongs to 29:13–16, the salvation prophecy with which it has more common points than the preceding 29:17–20. 83 Ezek. 30:23, 26 also mentions the dispersion of the Egyptians, so that 29:13–16, 21 probably derives from a still later date than 30:20–26. Ezek. 29:13–16, 21 reflect on 29:6b–12 (note the motif of 40 years of captivity and Egypt as supporter of Judah). 84 An unsurprising exception is the prophecy in Ezek. 29:17–20.

60

chapter two

(b) Given that the book of Ezekiel contains several explicit references to the nations surrounding Judah, the organisation of the FNPs according to geographical principles (Ezek. 28:24, 26) fits the theological framework of the book (cf. 5:5, 6, 7, 14, 15; 36:3, 4, 7, 36). The structure reinforces the close connection between the FNPs and the prophecies on Israel in Ezek. 1–24. Like the MT version of Jeremiah, the two textual units are probably connected based on chronological considerations. The prophecies in the first section of the book are dated between the 5th–9th years of king Jehoiachin’s captivity (Ezek. 1:2; 24:1).85 The dated prophecies concerning the nations are placed between the 10th–12th years of the same king’s reign (32:17). The conclusion is that the prophecies concerning Judah and the foreign nations stretch together over a period of 7 years, a number having symbolic value.86 Besides the two textual blocks with prophecies addressed to Judah and the FNPs, it is believed that Ezek. 33–48 forms a collection of salvation prophecies. The view is somewhat complicated, however, by the fact that Ezek. 33 does not fit the scheme of a salvation prophecy.87 Moreover, Ezek. 35 again contains a prophecy against Edom, 85 On the chronological problems, cf. W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel (BK, 13/1–2), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969, 40–45, 562; M. Dijkstra, Ezechiël I (T&T), Kampen 1986, 21, 32; Idem, Ezechiël II, 15. 86 The symbolic sense of the number 7 is well illustrated by Ezek. 3:15–16. According to this text, after sitting dumb for seven days among the exiles, God’s word was revealed to him. The motif of dumbness appears at different key locations in the book (3:15, 26; 24:27; 29:21; 33:22). Its interpretation has been a source of many difficulties (cf. R.R. Wilson, ‘An interpretation of Ezekiel’s dumbness’, VT 22 [1972], 91–104). Since the key chapter, Ezek. 33, is strongly connected with Ezek. 3, and since Ezek. 4:6 is familiar with a 1 day = 1 year symbolism, it is tempting to relate the seven day dumbness in 3:15 with the seven year dumbness in 33:22, as well as the seven year period of the prophecies in Ezek. 4–24; 25–32. It is also noteworthy that the activity of Jeremiah, presented as the second Moses in Jer. 1, is similarly dated to a symbolic period of forty years, from the 13th year of Josiah in Jer. 1:1, i.e. 627 to the fall of Jerusalem in 587 (cf. Blenkinsopp, Prophecy, 135). 87 Ezek. 33, which closes the judgment speeches against Judah and the nations, is a very significant chapter in the book from a compositional viewpoint. Contrary to assumptions that Ezek. 33:21–33 would have originally belonged to Ezek. 1–24 (Dijkstra, Ezechiël I, 21; Idem, Ezechiël II, 21, 95), this entire chapter can be adequately explained in its present context. Ezek. 33 is the conclusion to the previous set of prophecies rather than the introduction of a new section. It reflects on important passages from the book, especially Ezek. 3; 18 and 24. The function of Ezek. 33 is threefold. First, in view of the judgment accomplished with the fall of Judah and the nations, it concludes the entire activity of Ezekiel in the light of Ezek. 3:16–21. Ezekiel is not to blame for the doom that has come upon Judah, for he fulfilled his task of a watchman. The prophet has saved his life (3:21; 33:9). Second, neither is Yhwh to

collections of foreign nation prophecies

61

and other FNPs appear in Ezek. 38–39. Therefore we lack a coherent section of salvation prophecies concerning Israel in this book. It is also striking that we find no prophecy explicitly addressing Babylon in this collection. Babylon appears in the latest dated section of the book (Ezek. 29:17) as a tool used by Yhwh to punish nations. However, it is highly probable that Ezek. 21:33–37, a prophecy now addressed to Ammon, should be seen as an oracle originally addressed to the ‘sword’ of Yhwh, i.e. Babylon.88 Outside the collection of FNPs, we also find a prophecy against Edom in 35:1–15, similar to 25:12–14.89 Ezek. 35:1–15 begins as a new section, but it forms a diptych with the following prophecy of salvation addressed to Israel (36:1–15). Further prophecy against foreign nations appears in Ezek. 38–39 where Gog and his army (the Mediterranean islands; cf. 39:6) are addressed in seven prophecies introduced with the well-known formula of the book of Ezekiel, ‫כה אמר אדני יהוה‬.90 (c) As in other FNPs, geographical factors, chronology and the use of the number seven are important for Ezek. 25–32. Its structure appears to be the result of a longer development. We have good reasons to believe that, like Amos 1–2 and Jer. 46–51, the individual prophecies of Ezek. 25–32 were not only expanded (Tyre and Egypt) but also their number was increased (Sidon). At the same time, the vocabulary, the expressions, the superscriptions, the motifs and the chronology suggest that Ezek. 25–32 was intended to be part of the book of Ezekiel from the very beginning and be read in relation to the prophecies on Israel (cf. Amos 1–2; Jer. 46–51). Ezekiel’s collection is also unique in distinguishing between neighbouring nations and Egypt. Furthermore, the prophecies against Tyre and Egypt are enlarged to form disproportionately long micro collections by themselves. The prophecy on Edom in Ezek. 35, which is outside the collection but connected

blame for what happened to his people (18:25, 29; 33:17). Third, only Israel alone is to be held responsible for the course of the events, as it was not only unfaithful to Yhwh (33:25–26) but also failed to heed any warning (33:30–33). 88 Cf. Dijkstra, Ezechiël I, 222–23; M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37 (AncB, 22A), New York, NY 1997, 434, 436. 89 Its form is also similar, since it also makes use of the ‫ יען‬/ ‫ לכן‬sequence (35:5–6, 10–11) and the recognition formula (35:9, 15). 90 Whether the ‘basic narrative’ can still be assigned to the prophet Ezekiel (so Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 946; Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel, 180–81) is a question that reaches beyond the interest of this chapter. It is clear, nevertheless, that Ezek. 38–39 was also written for this book, as it adopts the book’s characteristic phraseology.

62

chapter two

with a prophecy on Israel in Ezek. 36, reminds the reader of the similar organisation of the anti-Edom prophecy in Isa. 34 and 35. 2.4.4

Foreign Nation Prophecies in the Book of Zephaniah

(a) Although the book of Zephaniah is relatively small, it contains a distinctive collection of FNPs addressing Philistia, Moab and Ammon, Kush, and Assyria. These prophecies have no distinctive headings, nor are they composed of uniform utterances in the manner of Amos 1–2. These FNPs are mainly short texts, some hardly longer than one single phrase. (b) Exegetes differ regarding the extent of the collection of FNPs. In his dissertation devoted to the FNPs of Zephaniah, Ryou argued that the book follows a tripartite structure: Zeph. 1 contains judgment speeches against Judah and Jerusalem, Zeph. 2:1–3:8 describes the implications of Yhwh’s judgment day for foreign nations, and Zeph. 3:9–20 describes the salvation offered by Yhwh.91 Perlitt demarcated the three sections as 1:1–2:3 (judgment on Israel); 2:4–15 (FNPs) and 3 (salvation oracle).92 Sweeney maintained that Zeph. 1:2–18 proclaim the arrival of the day of Yhwh, but the second major block, 2:1–3:20, was, in his view, a document supporting the reform program of King Josiah.93 In clarifying the formation of the book of Zephaniah, it is important to reveal the role of Zeph. 2:1–3; 2:4 and 3:1–8. Zeph. 1 presents the day of Yhwh as an event in the near future. Zeph. 2:1–3, on the other hand, looks back to this previous proclamation of judgment arguing that repentance still is a way to avert punishment. Ryou correctly assumes that the particle ‫ כי‬in 2:4 motivates the exhortation in 2:1–3.94 The syntactic role of ‫ כי‬leads us to question the function that the FNPs could have in this book.

91 D.H. Ryou, Zephaniah’s Oracles against the Nations: A Synchronic and Diachronic Study of Zephaniah 2:1–3:8 (BIS, 13), Leiden 1995; cf. also J. Vermeylen, ‘L’unité du livre d’Isaïe’, in: BoI, 32. P.-M. Bogaert, ‘L’organisation des grands recueils prophétiques’, in: BoI, 148, disputes the legitimacy of comparing Zephaniah with the Major Prophets but his short note does not raise any convincing objections. 92 L. Perlitt, Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk, Zephaniah (ATD, 25/1), Göttingen 2004, 98. 93 M.A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, vol. 2, Collegeville, MN 2000, 494; cf. J. Vlaardingerbroek, Sefanja (COT), Kampen 1993, 135. 94 Ryou, Zephaniah’s Oracles, 135.

collections of foreign nation prophecies

63

One editorial concept underlying the organisation of the FNPs is articulated in the retrospective text, Zeph. 3:6–7. According to this passage, the destruction of the foreign nations (in the past), and the literary formulation of these destructions in the text of the FNPs, intended to serve as a warning to Judah before it was subjected to a similar fate.95 Zeph. 3 also concludes that these pedagogical measures of Yhwh did not lead to the expected results: Judah failed to return to God. However, this intention ascribed by Zeph. 3:6–7 to the collection of 2:4–15 does not seem to correspond to the message of particular passages in the FNPs, like 2:7, 9b. The implicit promises of salvation for Judah in these verses presuppose a different authorial intention.96 This may suggest that Zeph. 2:7 and 9b were inserted with concerns different from Zeph. 3:6–7. The rest of Zeph. 2 probably also passed through stages of textual formation. The ‫ הוי‬cry in 2:5 usually appears at the beginning of oracles. One may presuppose therefore that Zeph. 2:5 was originally the introductory line of an oracle. Zeph. 2:5–7 could have been imported from elsewhere and inserted into its present location after 2:4 based on a thematic relationship with the latter.97 The extent of the prophecy against Moab and Ammon and the originality of its present location also remains a problem. Zeph. 2:11 referring to the ‘isles of the nations’ (‫ )איי הגוים‬has little to do with Moab and Ammon and it should rather be related to the Philistines of 2:4, both containing short utterances on various nations.98 It is possible that Zeph. 2:11 was detached from 2:4, because the prophecies on Philistia and Moab-Ammon (2:5–10) had already been connected before being inserted between 2:4 + 11–15.99

95 Contra Perlitt, who believed that the FNP-cycle of Zephaniah was an expression of the universal rule of Yhwh (Perlitt, Zephaniah, 123). 96 Zeph. 2:7 refers to the return from exile. But it is exactly this exile that repentance was supposed to prevent (cf. 2:1–3). 97 Cf. Ezek. 25:15–17 and see Ryou, Zephaniah’s Oracles, 294–99. 98 On the connection between Zeph. 2:11 and the oracle on the Philistines, see Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 517. 99 Note the above-mentioned similarities between 2:7 and 9b. Zeph. 2:9b fits well into its immediate context, Zeph. 2:8–10 (as 2:7 also fits 2:5–6), but the message of this entire prophecy differs from the reading imposed by Zeph. 3:6–7 (warning for Judah). Moreover, it is difficult to read the Moab-Ammon prophecy as a description of the past, as Zeph. 3:6–7 presupposes. That is understandable if 2:8–10 was not originally written for its present position.

64

chapter two

If the secondary prophecies in Zeph. 2:5–7, 8–10 are temporarily disregarded, then we are left with a small collection of short utterances against Philistia, the Mediterranaean isles, Kush, and Assyria. What is interesting in this primary list of nations is that it can be viewed as an account of Yhwh’s judgment in the past (as presupposed by Zeph. 3:6–7). Furthermore, the list is formed by representatives of all inhabitants of the earth, descendants of the sons of Noah: Japhet (the Isles and Philistia; Gen. 10:2–5), Ham (Kush; Gen. 10:6, 14) and Shem (Assur; Gen. 10:22). The devastation of the foreign countries by Yhwh on his day (Zeph. 1:14) was intended to serve as a warning for those questioning his interventions in recent history of the world (Zeph. 1:12). The status granted by the special genealogical origin of Judah will provide no safety against the raging anger of Yhwh. As an alternative interpretation, these nations may represent the entire earth subordinated to Yhwh, from the Upper Sea (Mediterranaean and Philistia) to the Lower Sea (Assur) and the far ends of the earth (Kush). This perspective is also reflected in the description of the world-wide dominion of the king of Ps. 72:8–11. At a later stage, the small collection of prophecies was expanded with the addition of Zeph. 2:5–10, which gave it a new shape. The nations subsequently appear to be arranged in geographical order: Philistia on the west, Moab and Ammon on the east, Kush on the south, and Assyria on the north.100 In whatever direction the Judaeans look, they have the opportunity to see Yhwh at work and hear his steps quickly approaching towards their homeland, and draw the necessary conclusions from it. Judah failed to look at the history through the eyes of the author of Zeph. 3:6–7, it neither heard nor trusted the message (cf. 2:1–3 with 3:2). This attitude meant that the nation of Yhwh would be counted among the foreign nations and destroyed as one of them. Judah, like Israel in Amos, has become just one of the nations of the earth. The purpose of Zeph. 3:1–7 is different from Amos 2:6–16 in that it is a

100 The text enumerates a list of nations both in proximity and far away, comparable to the perspective of the book (cf. Zeph. 1:8 with 3:8). The thesis of a geographical organising principle is more convincing than Berlin’s suggestion, who believed that the text is modelled on and reflects the cultural antagonism of nomadic Semites and urbanised societies. Cf. A. Berlin, ‘Zephaniah’s Oracles against the Nations and an Israelite Cultural Myth’, in: A.B. Beck et al. (eds), Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday, Grand Rapids, MI 1995, 175–84.

collections of foreign nation prophecies

65

reflection on the past rather than a proclamation of the future. Future pronouncement begins in 3:8 but has a very different tone, as if looking back on the history of Judah from a post-587 perspective. We find an interesting parallel to the redaction critical function of Zeph. 3:1–7 in Isa. 24–27. Isa. 24–27, also following the FNPs in Isa. 13–23, looks back to the ‘the city’ (Jerusalem) in ruins (Isa. 24:12; 26:5; 27:10) with a similar lament. The nations reappear after Zeph. 3:8. Zeph. 3:8 refers back to 1:18 and 2:1, announcing judgment not just on Judah but also on the entire earth. The tone changes radically from Zeph. 3:9. Instead of doom, this pericope speaks of a future when all the nations, even those beyond the rivers of Kush,101 will serve Yhwh with purified lips.102 (c) In its present form, Zephaniah expresses the universal nature of judgment using similar geographical principles as those found in other collections, but this collection is closest in its theology to the FNPs of Isaiah. The relation between Zeph. 3:1–8 and Isa. 24–27 was already mentioned. This collection of FNPs is intended to reveal how God is present in the entire world, a problem that bothers the audience of both the book of Zephaniah (Zeph. 1:12) and Isaiah (Isa. 5:19). Further, textual affinities between Isaiah and Zephaniah may suggest that the possibility of a more direct influence of Isaiah upon Zephaniah should not be excluded.103 Perhaps the most remarkable resemblance between the two collections is the setting of the FNPs against the background of Yhwh’s judgement, which shall be passed on both Judah and other nations, along with the use of the Upper Sea / Lower Sea motifs. I shall return to this literary motif in Chapter 3.

101 The expression ‫ בת־פוצי‬is most certainly a gloss (cf. Perlitt, Zephaniah, 140), reinterpreting the verse originally referring to foreign nations (cf. Isa. 18:1, 7) as a promise regarding the Jews in the diaspora. 102 A further possible reference to the future fate of foreign nations appears in a subsequent extension of the book at Zeph. 3:18, a verse famous for its problems. The text is usually taken to refer to Judaeans, but that hardly makes any sense in the context of the present verse. It seems more convincing to interpret 3:18 as an allusion to the reactions of foreigners grieving (‫ )יגה‬about the feasting of the Judaeans. In Zeph. 1, the verb ‫ אסף‬appears as a terminus technicus for judgment; its sense is probably the same in this location. In 2:8, ‫ חרפה‬describes the attitude of Moab and Ammon toward Judaeans. It is possible that 3:18 again refers to the ‫ חרפה‬of the same community of foreigners, arguing that their former insults will be turned as a burden on themselves (the emendation of ‫ עליה‬to ‫ עליהם‬is supported by the Targum). This verse is similar to Zeph. 2:9b. 103 Cf. Zeph. 3:9 | Isa. 19:18; Zeph. 3:10 | Isa. 18:1, 7; Zeph. 3:12 | Isa. 14:32.

66

chapter two 2.5

Conclusion

Prophecies concerned with foreign nations represent an important tradition in biblical prophecy. Although it is difficult to consider these texts as a distinctive genre inside prophetic literature, they can be recognised by a typical concern for the fate of foreigners, often either directly or indirectly related to the life and future of the prophet’s own community. FNPs are not specific to the Bible, since similar texts also appear elsewhere in the ancient Near Eastern archives where prophetic texts have been found. Previous research on FNPs was characterised primarily by a phenomenological focus which tended to generalise the phenomenon and intention of FNPs and to overshadow important details of these prophecies as literary compositions, as well as their book-specific character. Yet, because of the large amount of prophetic texts concerned with foreign nations, they are also especially relevant in discussing the composition of specific prophetic books. The FNPs in the books of Amos, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Zephaniah appear mostly in collections. Other prophetic books which do not have a distinctive collection of FNPs are either formed for the most part of prophecies concerning one particular foreign nation (Obad., Nah., Hab.) or contain a limited number of oracles against one (Mic., Mal.) or more (Joel, Hag., Zech.) nations. Collections of FNPs did not form by chance, nor were they piled up carelessly. Instead, they were the results of a well-planned, sophisticated, multi-faceted editorial activity based on a theology rich in religious symbolism and artistic sense. Geographical concepts, temporal criteria, symbolic numbers are key factors used in grouping these prophecies together. The editorial concepts that redactors used to form collections may enrich the original meaning and intention of the individual oracles. The primary historical background provides one context against which the FNPs can be interpreted. Transforming them to literary compositions and making them part of secondary literary contexts often caused new meanings to surface. The points of view of the authors and of later editors did not always coincide. This phenomenon partially explains the complexities in the literary form of these books. A comparison of the MT and LXX versions of Jeremiah reveals that the FNPs were not a static corpus, but one that could have been enhanced, reorganised according to different editorial concepts. Such evidence does not indicate a late collection of these texts but a reorganisation and expansion of early collections. Subsequent addi-

collections of foreign nation prophecies

67

tions may have altered the concept of earlier editors. The dynamic process of rereading and reformulating editorial concepts was influenced by changing audiences and hermeneutical situations. Examination of these four prophetic books does not suggest that the books of Ezekiel, Zephaniah, or the LXX of Jeremiah were ordered following an eschatological scheme. It is nevertheless significant that the FNPs always form dyptichs with prophecies addressed to Israel. The prophecies against Yhwh’s own people are usually followed by judgements pronounced on other nations (Jer., Ezek., Zeph.), but in the case of Amos, the prophecies concerning these nations precede those addressed to Israel. The foreign nations are important only in relation to Israel, the people of Yhwh. This also underlines the fact that the collections were composed from the perspective of the authors’ own community. The theological emphasis of the collections may differ. In Amos the prophecy on foreign nations functions as a prelude to the prophecies on Israel, and to a certain extent the same holds true for Zeph. 2:4–15. The announcement of judgment on other nations in the latter text serves as a warning for Israel. In Jeremiah, the motivation for the judgment of other nations is the previous punishment meted out to Judah. In Ezekiel, the judgment of nations is induced by their attitude towards Judah. In some cases, however, we may presuppose that the editors were acquainted with collections of FNPs in other books. We find concepts overarching various compositions (chronological, geographical organization of prophecies, use of the symbolic number seven, the theme of the day of Yhwh), and these features may reveal the interconnectedness of groups working on different books, even though it would go too far to ascribe all editorial activity to one particular group. Despite all these general observations, the collections of FNPs are strikingly book-specific. They are well integrated inside their respective books, so that authors and editors use superscriptions, headings and other stereotypical phrases appearing elsewhere in the same book.104 The uniformity is most noticeable in Amos, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The book-specific character of the prophecies suggests that the collections of FNPs were not supposed to be read as independent compositions but were always meant to be connected to the books in which they now stand.

104 This is indeed striking, in contrast to opinions maintaining that this redaction of the prophetic books was the work of the same editors (Vermeylen, ‘L’unité’, 32).

CHAPTER THREE

RECONSTRUCTING THE BROKEN STELE OF YHWH: THE FOREIGN NATION PROPHECIES OF ISAIAH 13–23 AS CONTEXT FOR ISAIAH 18–20

After examining the broader biblical context of collections of FNPs in the Old Testament, this chapter will consider Isa. 13–23 from literary, theological and historical viewpoints, both as a larger literary unit and as a composition of smaller pericopes and individual prophecies (13– 17; 21–23). The closing section gives a preliminary vision concerning the formation and intention of Isa. 13–23.

3.1

The Superscriptions and the Structure of Isaiah 13–23

In antiquity, the beginning and/or the end of a literary text was often marked by colophons. The colophons as superscriptions and subscriptions contained various information about the published text (addressee, author, scribe, subject, chronological information, etc.). Colophons were especially important for the archiving of texts in royal or cultic libraries, but some were explicitly written to be read aloud as part of the message. In spite of this Near Eastern scribal practice, there is today a rather general feel of scepticism among Old Testament scholars regarding the reliability of the biblical superscriptions. This disbelief is motivated, on the one hand, by the fact that later editors of biblical books often composed such superscriptions themselves. On the other hand, the special literary history of the biblical texts, which distinguishes them from ancient writing preserved on papyrus and clay tablets, also gives rise to such scepticism. However, unbiased treatment of biblical texts requires all options to be left open. Dismissing superscriptions by presuming that they are always secondary1 is no less unjustified than uncritically accepting them at face value. 1 In case of Isa. 13–23, cf., e.g., Wildberger, 1562; A.A. Fischer, ‘Der Edom-Spruch in Jesaja 21: Sein literaturgeschichtlicher und sein zeitgeschichtlicher Kontext’, in: M. Witte (ed.), Gott und Mensch im Dialog: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburtstag, Bd. 1 (BZAW, 345), Berlin 2004, 477.

70

chapter three ‫משׂא‬-Type Superscription

Isa. 13:1 14:28 15:1 17:1 19:1 21:1 21:11 21:13 22:1 23:1

‫משׂא בבל אשׁר חזה ישׁעיהו בן־אמוץ‬ ‫בשׁנת־מות המלך אחז היה המשׂא הזה‬ ‫משׂא מואב‬ ‫משׂא דמשׂק‬ ‫משׂא מצרים‬ ‫משׂא מדבר־ים‬ ‫משׂא דומה‬ ‫משׂא בערב‬ ‫משׂא גיא חזיון‬ ‫משׂא צר‬

Although there are discernible recurring patterns in the headings of biblical books preserving collections of FNPs, §2.3 has demonstrated that a uniform superscription system did not exist. This lack of uniformity is also visible in Isa. 13–23, where we find ten headings, each containing the word ‫משׂא‬. A closer look at these superscriptions reveals three types of headings. (a) Most headings are of the type ‫ משׂא‬+ GN, introducing prophecies on Babylon, Moab, Damascus, Egypt, and Tyre. The phrase ‫אשׁר חזה‬ ‫ ישׁעיהו בן־אמוץ‬at 13:1 should probably be understood as referring to the entire collection of 13–23, as it is, in this way, comparable to Isa. 1:1 and 2:1 (cf. Jer. 25:1–2; 46:1). In the five remaining cases, the headings of the prophecies are of different composition. (b) In Isa. 14:28, ‫ משׂא‬is not connected to a GN. This heading also contains historical information similar to Isa. 6:1 and 20:1. (c) A further group of four superscriptions occur in 21:1, 11, 13; 22:1. In these cases, ‫ משׂא‬is not followed by a GN but by cryptic references to addressees.2 The meaning of the terms attached to ‫ משׂא‬in (c)-type superscriptions is debated. The prophecy headed by ‫( משׂא מדבר־ים‬21:1–10) is in its present form concerned with the fall of Babylon. Various theories emerged

2 Some have argued that (c)-type headings are formed with the help of keywords derived from the prophecy (Procksch, 277; Kaiser, 5, 97 n. 1; A.A. Macintosh, Isaiah XXI: A Palimpsest, Cambridge 1980, 4; cf. Wildberger, 764). This idea may be true of 21:13 (‫)משׂא בערב‬, but in two other cases one would expect ‫משׂא‬ ‫( ממדבר‬cf. 21:1b) instead of ‫משׂא מדבר־ים‬, and ‫( משׂא בגיא חזיון‬cf. 22:5) instead of ‫משׂא גיא חזיון‬. ‫( דומה‬21:11) does not appear anywhere in the related prophecy.

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

71

to interpret ‫מדבר־ים‬, which I will not attempt to summarise here.3 One of the frequent suggestions is that ‫ מדבר־ים‬is related to the Akkadian māt tâmti, ‘the Sea Land’, designating Lower Mesopotamia.4 The fact that the Hebrew has ‫ מדבר־ים‬instead ‫ ארץ־ים‬is not a strong argument against this view.5 In this highly enigmatic prophecy, ‫ מדבר‬may in fact allude to the outcome of the prediction: the Land of the Sea will be turned into a Desert of the Sea.6 A similar concern seems to appear in Isa. 21:11 as well.7 The second superscription, ‫משׂא דומה‬, demarcating Isa. 21:11–12, is usually read as a prophecy concerning Edom (cf. ‫ שׂעיר‬in v. 11). ‫דומה‬, which does not reappear in the text, is understood as wordplay on ‫אדם‬ (cf. LXX). The cryptic content of the prophecy gives further support for considering ‫ דומה‬a symbol rather than a place name.8 ‫דּוּמה‬ ָ derives from ‫דום‬, ‘to be silent’.9 The superscription would mean ‘the silence oracle’. Whether this silence refers literally to the silence of the night (note ‫)לילה‬,10 figuratively to the lack of revelation from Seir, or both, is

3 Cf. Wildberger, 763–64; B. Uffenheimer, ‘The “Desert of the Sea” Pronouncement (Isaiah 21:1–10)’, in: D.P. Wright et al. (eds), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, Winona Lake, IN 1995, 677–79. 4 É. Dhorme, ‘Le désert de la mer (Isaïe, xxi)’, in: Idem, Recueil Édouard Dhorme: Études bibliques et orientales, Paris 1951, 301–4; Uffenheimer, ‘Pronouncement’, 678– 79; Sweeney, 280–81. māt tâmtī is referred to in the Erra and Ishum Epic (iv 130) as tâmtu. 5 Contra Macintosh, Palimpsest, 6; S. Erlandsson, The Burden of Babylon: A Study of Isaiah 13:2–14:23 (CB.OT, 4), Lund 1970, 82; D.S. Vanderhooft, The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets (HSM, 59), Atlanta, GA 1999, 131. 6 Cf. Jer. 25:12; 51:36–37. See Ibn Ezra and Qimchi apud Seitz, 167; Uffenheimer, ‘Pronouncement’, 678–79; W.R. Gallagher, Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: New Studies (SHCANE, 18), Leiden 1999, 39. 7 ‫ מדבר־ים‬can be compared with Jer. 50:21, which refers to Babylon as ‫הארץ‬ ‫מרתים‬. This name may also include a symbolic (cf. ‫מרי‬, ‘stubborn’, ‘rebellious’) and a geographical significance (cf. nār marrātu, designating the area where the Tigris meets the Euphrates). The same ambiguity appears possibly in ‫ )!פקד( פקוד‬in the same verse line. Cf. W. Rudolph, Jeremia (HAT, 12), Tübingen 1968, 303. 8 Since ‫ דומה‬is also the name of a city in the Arabian Desert (Gen. 25:14; 1 Chron. 1:30), Isa. 21:11–12 is sometimes connected with this Arabian region. Cf. K. Galling, ‘Jesaja 21 im Lichte der neuen Nabonidtexte’, in: E. Würthwein, O. Kaiser (eds), Tradition und Situation: Studien zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie. Arthur Weiser zum 70. Geburtstag, Göttingen 1963, 59; Oswalt, 397 n. 1; Sweeney, 285; Fischer, ‘EdomSpruch’, 476–77. However, the city of Seir mentioned in Isa. 21:11 reminds one of Edom rather than an Arabian settlement that is otherwise insignificant for Biblical literature. 9 Cf. ‫דומם‬, ‘quiet’, ‘silence’ (Isa. 47:5; Hab. 2:19 [‫ דומה‬in 1QpHab]; Lam. 3:26) and ‫דומיה‬, ‘silence’ (Ps. 22:3; 39:3; 62:2). See further ‫‘ )דמה<( דממה‬calm’ (1 Kgs 19:12; Ps. 107:29; Job 4:16) and ‫( דמה‬Ezek. 27:32). In connection with foreign nations, note especially Isa. 47:5 (Babylon) and Ezek. 27:32 (Tyre). 10 For ‫ דומם‬and ‫חשׁך‬, see Isa. 47:5, for ‫ דומיה‬and ‫לילה‬, see Ps. 22:3.

72

chapter three difficult to tell. Other homonymous verbal forms should also be considered, like ‫ דמה‬I, ‘to resemble’, ‫ דמה‬III, ‘to destroy’. The preposition ‫ ב‬is unique in ‫ משׂא בערב‬of 21:13. It seems, nevertheless, that ‫ ב‬is syntactically unrelated to ‫משׂא‬. I.e., v. 13 introduces a ‫ משׂא‬entitled ‘‫’ ַבּ ְﬠ ָרב‬. As in the previous case, the meaning of ‫ ערב‬is ambiguous.11 ‫ ) ֶﬠ ֶרב( ערב‬may refer to the evening (cf. LXX and Vulg.) or the Arabian population (‫ ; ֲﬠ ַרב‬1 Kgs 10:15; Jer. 25:24; Ezek. 27:21). Viewed through Isa. 21:16, the prophecy is concerned with the inhabitants of the Syrian Desert, the Kederites, sons of Kedem (Jer. 49:28). As we may conclude from the pericope, ‫גיא חזיון‬, the heading in Isa. 22:1, appears to be a figurative designation for Jerusalem (cf. 22:5).12

The symbolic language of the superscriptions is a common feature of these four oracles.13 In three cases (21:1, 11, 13; cf. 30:6) the metaphors in the headings are an integral part of the message and not only loosely connected to the body of the text. This suggests that these headings were recorded simultaneously with the prophecy. Isa. 22:1 also refers to the addressees in a symbolic way. Beside the similarities in the titles, one should note the highly symbolic language of Isa. 21, tying together the three utterances. A further common feature of 21–22 is the visionary experience of the prophet and the frequent use of 1st person formulas.14 The oracles in 21–22 refer to the seer receiving his revelation from Yhwh.15 Both Isa. 21 and 22 refer to Elam (21:2; 22:6); both portray the emotional implications of the revelation (21:3; 22:4); in both texts eating and drinking precedes the danger (21:5; 22:13); both texts mention refugees from

11 This superscription is absent in LXX, but it is supported by all other versions and manuscripts. Given the nature of the LXX of Isaiah, caution must be exercised when relying solely on this textual witness (contra Gallagher, Campaign, 57). Isa. 21:13–17 should be thematically distinguished from the previous prophecy, so that a new superscription should occur at this location. 12 Another symbolic ‫משׂא‬-superscription appears in Isa. 30:6. In the phrase ‫משׂא‬ ‫בהמות נגב‬, the term ‫ משׂא‬itself is ambiguous: ‫ משׂא‬may mean ‘pronouncement’ against those going to Egypt, as well as ‘burden’, i.e. the treasures people transported on the beasts in order to obtain support from Egypt. 13 Delitzsch, 245, and Young, 2.86, speak of a tetralogy. Sweeney argues that Isa. 21 is an ‘original unit’ (Sweeney, 277, 281, 284; cf. also Fischer, ‘Edom-Spruch’, 478). Yet, this argument is strange in view of his assumption that the oracles in 13–23 are delimited by the superscriptions ‫ משׂא‬+ X (Sweeney, 221, 254). His identification of 21:11, 13 as demarcations of ‘textual subunits’ (277) is confusing (he also regards 21:1–4; 21:5–10; 21:13–15; 21:16–17 as subunits). Unlike Sweeney (278) assumes, 21:10 concludes an individual oracle. 14 Cf. 21:2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 16; 22:4, 14. Isa. 21:16 may be secondary (see below). 15 21:2, 6, 10, 11, 16; 22:14. The ‫ משׂא‬of 14:28–32 also refers to an inquiry.

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

73

war (‫ ;נדד‬21:14, 15; 22:3); and both texts give a detailed description of the enemy. These common characteristics may suggest that Isa. 21–22 contains a distinctive sub-collection inside the prophecies on the nations of Isa. 13–23.16 Isa. 21–22 probably existed as a collection prior to being inserted into its present location. This editorial process may answer several important questions on the composition of Isa. 13–23, such as those concerning the two Babylonian prophecies, the appearance of a prophecy on Jerusalem and one addressed to a palace official alongside other texts on foreign nations, the present position of Isa. 23, and the differences in the superscriptions in Isa. 13–23. As noted above in §1.2, scholars usually relate the two anti-Babylonian prophecies in Isa. 13:1–14:27 and 21:1–10 to two successive stages in the redaction of the book of Isaiah.17 However, this interpretation is challenged by other texts which were similarly connected to different stages of redaction but were included among the thematically related prophecies. In these cases, the prophecies concerning one particular nation were collected under one heading in Isaiah (cf. 13–14; 15–16; 19–20), as well as in Jeremiah (Jer. 48; 50–51) and Ezekiel (Ezek. 26–28; 29–32). It is more convincing therefore to argue that Isa. 21–22 were not from the beginning supposed to form part of a collection of FNPs. Moreover, they were related to each other even before they came to be part of Isa. 13–23. An earlier grouping of Isa. 21–22 may also explain the present location of Isa. 22, the unusual prophecy addressing Jerusalem in a collection of FNPs. Similar collections in Jeremiah, Ezekiel or Zephaniah do not include prophecies on Jerusalem. A prophecy against Israel appears in Amos 2:6–16, but there it forms a bridge to the second part of the book, Amos 3–6. Isa. 22 in its present position does not share the same function as Amos 2:6–16, especially since Isa. 22 is followed by another prophecy concerning a foreign nation, Tyre, in Isa. 23. Furthermore, Isa. 22:15–25, the prophecy addressed specifically to a Judaean palace official, is unusual with regard to any collection of FNPs. The assumption that Isa. 21–22 was inserted among an already existing ‫משׂא‬-collection also provides an explanation for the present

16 17

Duhm, 12, also takes 10:28–20:6 and 21–22 + 30:6–7 as two collections. For instance, Vermeylen and Jenkins.

74

chapter three

placement of the prophecy concerning Tyre (Isa. 23). In my view, the Tyre prophecy originally followed the prophecy on Egypt (Isa. 19[– 20]), as the two nations are also connected in Ezek. 26–32, reflecting the close political and economic ties between them (cf. §5.3.1). Similarly to other collections of FNPs, Isa. 13–23 contains headings and superscriptions that are not of the main (‫ )משׂא‬type (Isa. 14:24; 16:14; 17:12; 18:1; 20:1; 22:15). These headings are important witnesses to the growth of the collection, but the relationship between these and the ‫משׂא‬-type headings, whether subordinating or coordinating, requires a more detailed examination of the smaller collections in Isa. 13–23.

3.2 The Subdivisions in Isaiah 13–23 The space allotted to this chapter and the specific focus of the present study limit our examination of Isa. 13–23 to issues related to specific problems in Isa. 18–20. In accordance with a general approach in recent Old Testament scholarship, the final form of the text is taken as the starting point for our discussion. Nevertheless, even if the reconstruction of the diachronic development of biblical texts is to a large extent dependent on subjective considerations and exegetical insights, the question whether the final form corresponds to the original form must be considered seriously in each individual case. Pursuing this trajectory, I shall aim to answer the following literary, theological and historical questions: a. Literary questions. As we have seen above, Isa. 13–23 contains headings which delimit further text blocks inside 13–23. What can we say about the literary integrity of these delimited subsections? How far can these sections be read holistically and to what extent do we need to consider other originally unconnected individual prophecies? Taking into account the possibility that the final form of these subdivisions was reached through several stages of textual development, what kind of possible editorial principles and strategies can we discern with regard to the subsections? b. Theological questions. What are the theological concerns of individual prophecies? Has recontextualisation caused any shift in the meaning of the text? How do the different editorial concerns

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

75

interact with one another? What kind of intertextual connections appear among the prophecies in Isa. 13–23? c. Historical questions. What can we say concerning the authorship, date and historical setting of the prophecies and collections? 3.2.1 The Composition of Isaiah 13:1–14:27 The superscription ‫ משׂא בבל‬in Isa. 13:1 delimits the following section as a prophecy concerning Babylon. In its present form, the pericope deals with Babylon and Assyria.18 The prophecy on Assyria in 14:24–27 contains no individual superscription, which most likely means that it is subjected to the heading in 13:1. Evidently, the unity of 13:1–14:27 is secondary and not original.19 The thematic dissimilarity between the prophecies against Babylon and Assyria suggest that 14:24–27 was originally independent. In general, scholars distinguish the following distinctive pericopes: 13:1–22; 14:1–4a; 14:4b–21; 14:22– 23; 14:24–27. The literary unity of 13:1–22 is often presupposed,20 yet the arguments supporting this position hardly involve anything more than recognition of ‘une grande unité de style et de contenu’ (Vermeylen). Other scholars distinguish an earlier (anti-Babylon) prophecy from its

18 Some exegetes delimit 13:1–14:23 as the first division, excluding the prophecy on Assyria in 14:24–27 (Kaiser, 5). Others regard 13:1–14:32 as one unit (Sweeney, 221–22; Childs, 124). According to Sweeney the superscription in Isa. 14:28 ‘does not correspond to the standard form of the title in chs. 13–23’. It should instead be treated like 20:1, as an ‘appendix’ (Sweeney, 221). However, the superscriptions of Isa. 21–22 also deviate from the ‘standard’ forms, bringing further pluriformity of ‫משׂא‬-type headings in the range of possibilities. Isa. 20:1 is different from 14:28, because it is concerned with the same theme as the previous Isa. 19. No such thematic connection appears between 13:1–14:27 and 14:28–32. Along with other scholars, I consider 13:1– 14:27 to be the first ‫משׂא‬-unit. Cf. K. Jeppesen, ‘The maśśāʾ bābel in Isaiah 13–14’, PIBA 9 (1985), 63–80; J.A. Goldstein, ‘The Metamorphosis of Isaiah 13:2–14:27’, in: R.A. Argall et al. (eds), For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism and Early Christianity, Harrisburg, PA 2000, 78–88. 19 Contra Goldstein, ‘Metamorphosis’, 78–88. For the original unity of 13:1–14:23, see Erlandsson, Burden; B. Gosse, Isaïe 13,1–14,23 dans la tradition littéraire du livre d’Isaïe et dans la tradition des oracles contre les nations (OBO, 78), Freiburg 1988, 276; Watts, 195. Hayes & Irvine, 226, treat 14:1–27 as a unit. 20 Duhm, 112; Kissane, 154; Wildberger, 507; Vermeylen, 1.286–87; Sweeney, 231; Kilian, 95 (but cf. 100); Blenkinsopp, 276–77.

76

chapter three

later expansions,21 or assume that 13:2–22 is a collection of several originally independent prophecies.22 The particles ‫ הנה‬and ‫ הנני‬at vv. 9 and 17 indicate two shifts in the text. When used independently in the Latter Prophets, ‫ הנה‬often occurs at the beginning of a new prophecy.23 When this is not the case, ‫ הנה‬signifies a logical step inside a textual unit.24 In our case it is difficult to regard 13:9 as an integral part of the previous prophecy for at least two reasons. First, no significant shift appears here, since the previously-commenced description of the day of Yhwh continues after 13:9. Second, v. 9 presents the arrival of the day of Yhwh as if it were new information to the reader, which it is not (cf. 13:5–6). Similarly, ‫ הנני‬in 13:17 also signals a text of a different origin than 13:2–8.25 It appears therefore that 13:9 is the beginning of a prophecy that was originally independent from 13:2–8. In conclusion, we can provisionally divide Isa. 13 into two subsections: vv. 2–8 and vv. 9–22. Isaiah 13:2–8 The first unit of the ‫ משׂא בבל‬begins with a summons (‫)שׂאו־נס‬. Another imperative appears later in v. 6 (‫)הילילו‬, although this is aimed at other addressees.26 As vv. 2–8 describe the preparations for the day

21 Zapff identifies an older anti-Babylon oracle 13:1a+17–22a from 13:1b+2– 16+22b, with universalistic tendencies and with Babylon as the personification of evil. Cf. B.M. Zapff, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie—Jes 13 und die Komposition des Jesajabuches: Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Redaktionsgeschichte des Jesajabuches (FzB, 74), Würzburg 1995, 219, 227–39. Bosshard-Nepustil regards 13:2–8+14–16 as the primary layer (after 587), expanded by 13:1+17–22 (around 539), and later by 13:9–13. Cf. E. Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen von Jesaia 1–39 im Zwölfprophetenbuch (OBO, 154), Freiburg 1997, 91. Fischer distinguishes 13:2–5+7–8+14–16 (after 587), from two subsequent expansions 13:1a+17+18b+19–22 (after 539) and 13:6+9–13 (date?). Cf. C. Fischer, Die Fremdvölkersprüche bei Amos und Jesaja (BBB, 136), Berlin 2002, 75–99. 22 Clements, 132–38, discerns vv. 2–3 (Babylonian revolt against Assyria, late 8th century), vv. 4–5 (Babylon against the world, end 7th century), vv. 6–8 (Babylon against Jerusalem, after 587), vv. 9–16 (eschatological reinterpretation of ‫יום יהוה‬, 4th century), vv. 15–16 (after 587), vv. 17–22 (ca. 545–538). 23 Isa. 17:1; 19:1; 24:1; 30:27; Jer. 6:22; 47:2; Amos 8:11; 9:13; Nah. 2:1. 24 Isa. 28:2, 16; 34:5; 35:4; 39:6; Jer. 2:35; 5:14; Joel 4:7; Hab. 2:4; etc. 25 For ‫ הנני‬as the beginning of a new prophecy, see, e.g., Jer. 46:25; 49:35; 51:1; as the beginning of a new section, cf. Jer. 49:5; 50:18. 26 Isa. 13:6 may form a new beginning in the poem (cf. Isa. 23:1), but it is not likely that 13:6–8 was independent from 13:2–5 (contra Clements, 134–35). Kaiser, 11 noted that 13:2–5 is written in qina-meter which obviously differs from v. 6. This may mean that the summons to wail in v. 6 refers to the lament in 13:2–5. Jer. 4:5–8 serves with a further example for the relation between the summons to wail and the coming destruction of the enemy.

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

77

of Yhwh, the verses furthermore refer to an unnamed enemy introduced as the consecrated ones (‫)מקדשׁי‬, warriors (‫ )גבורי‬and weapons of Yhwh’s wrath (‫)כלי זעמו‬, commanded (‫ צוה‬/ ‫ )קרא‬to execute his anger (13:3). They arrive from a distant land (‫)מארץ מרחק‬, from the ends of the sky (‫)מקצה השׁמים‬. These warriors are often assumed to be divine beings, and the evoked scene involves universal eschatological judgment.27 It is more likely, however, that this army is formed by divinely commissioned humans. The expression ‫( ממלכות גוים‬13:4) is unsuitable for divine beings. The imagery of this conglomerate force coming from very far away complies with other descriptions of a historical, human foe.28 The opponents to this army acting as the weapon of Yhwh’s anger are not explicitly identified. There are two rather general allusions in 13:5 and 7. ‫ כל־הארץ‬in v. 5 may be rendered either ‘the entire world’ or ‘the entire country’, and does not therefore add any helpful information. The same holds true for the impersonal formulations in vv. 7–8. Another reference to those subject to judgment is probably hidden in 13:2. ‫ פתחי נדיבים‬is often assumed to be the name of a gate of a certain city. If this was the case, it would further corroborate the view that the judgment is to be performed on one city rather than the entire world. However, the plural form of ‫ פתחי‬makes it unlikely that one specific city gate is intended. It is also improbable that several gates of a city would be called ‘gates of the nobles’. As an alternative reading, it is possible to read ‫ פתחו‬instead of ‫פתחי‬, and to take ‫נדיבים‬ as the subject of the verb ‫בוא‬.29 ‫נדיבים‬, which is just another name for the warriors (cf. Num. 21:18), corresponds to the picture of the consecrated soldiers of Yhwh in this text. But which gate is referred to here? One entering Babylon or belonging to some other nation? Some scholars have argued that 13:2–8 was formerly an anti-Judaean prophecy, in which Babylon (or Assyria) appeared as the nation from the ends of the earth that is subject to judgment in the second part of the prophecy (13:9–16). The text would have then been later reinterpreted as an anti-Babylonian

27

Zapff, Prophetie, 237; Höffken, 128. Cf. Deut. 28:49; Isa. 5:26; Jer. 6:22 (‫ ;)מירכתי־ארץ‬cf. Deut. 30:4; Neh. 1:9. 29 LXX seems to support reading ‫פתחו‬, by vocalising ‫ פתח‬as an imperative, ‫ִפ ְתחוּ‬ (ἀνοίξατε). Following this consonantal text but vocalising ‫ ִפ ְתחוֹ‬, would give a clearer reading, viz. ‘so that the nobles may enter his gate.’ 28

78

chapter three

speech.30 If—and this is significant—the superscription in 13:1 is later than 13:2–8, the view that this passage refers to Judah is also a possibility.31 Undoubtedly, the description of the enemy fits the Babylonian army, but there is still some question concerning the extent to which 13:2–8 complies with other anti-Judaean prophecies portraying Babylon as an enemy. The practice of borrowing and reapplication of motifs should warn us against easily assigning meanings to parallel traditions,32 or ascribing such meaning to the various passages in which such motifs reappear (cf. §§1.1.2–3). It is one thing to argue that, if decontextualised, 13:2–8 may appear as a prophecy against Judah in which Babylon acts as the instrument of judgment. It is quite another thing to prove that 13:2–8 is actually such a prophecy. There are three arguments that may help us to advance this hypothesis a few steps closer towards confirmation. First, it is unusual in a prophecy concerning a foreign nation to address the audience without any direct reference to the nation’s name. If the ‫משׂא‬-heading in 13:1 is secondary, the only reference to the victims is ‫ כל־הארץ‬in v. 5 and the impersonal allusions of vv. 7–8. This failure to identify the subject of prophecy is, however, more common in the speeches addressed to Judah. Second, the expression ‫ כשׁד משׁדי‬in Isa. 13:6 may be interpreted as a wordplay alluding to the ‫כשׂדים‬, Chaldaeans, who are then seen to be acting as the instruments of God (Jer. 51:20–23).33 Third, the description of the enemy as comprising many nationalities complies historically with the late Persian army, but much less with the pre539 Persians. These considerations might suggest that Isa. 13:2–8 was originally an anti-Judaean prophecy. ‫ כל־הארץ‬in v. 6 may once have stood for Judah itself (cf. Zeph. 1:18). In the new context, this term is transformed into a reference to the Babylonian Empire. But how could a prophecy proclaiming doom on Judah by the Babylonians become an anti-Babylonian speech? This phenomenon is not

30 Kissane, 154–55; Goldstein, ‘Metamorphosis’, 78–88. C.T. Begg noted the ‘loose sitting’ of Babylon in Isa. 13–14 and argued for the later babylonisation of these prophecies (‘Babylon in the Book of Isaiah’, in: BoI, 122). 31 In a prophecy against Judah, Jer. 1:15 (cf. 25:9) speaks about a great multitude of the north (‫ )משׁפחות ממלכות צפונה‬summoned (‫ )קרא‬by God to come and set up a throne before the ports of Jerusalem (‫)פתח שׁערי ירושׁלם‬. 32 Goldstein, ‘Metamorphosis’, 84–85, argues that the similarity between Isa. 13:20 and Zeph. 2:13–15 would mean that Isa. 13:20 also refers to Nineveh. 33 Similar word play occurs in Isa. 21:14 and 22:5–6 (cf. Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen, 47 n. 5).

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

79

unique to Isa. 13. The idea behind this recontextualisation corresponds to the so-called theology of retribution: the Medes will destroy Babylon in the manner that they destroyed Jerusalem (Jer. 4; Zeph. 1). Allusions to this idea are also found in Isa. 33:1 and 4 (cf. also Jer. 50:15, 29; Hab. 2:8), but, even more significantly, it reappears in the ‫משׂא‬ ‫ בבל‬in Isa. 14:2. This latter verse is commonly attributed to the redactors of Isa. 13–14. Similar editorial processes are observable in Isa. 10:16–19 and 10:28–34. Relocated from their original anti-Israelite or anti-Judaean contexts, these prophecies now sound as anti-Assyrian texts.34 Another prophecy addressing primarily Judah or Israel that was later reapplied to the Babylonian enemy is Isa. 29:15–24.35 Similar recontextualisation also occurs outside the book of Isaiah. Jer. 50:41– 43, a prophecy against Babylon, is almost literally the same as the antiJudaean Jer. 6:22–24. The foe of Babylon will resemble the Chaldaeans, the enemies of Judah. Isaiah 13:9–16, 17–22 When arguing that Isa. 13:9–16 was originally independent from 13:2–8, I disagree with those who view 13:9–13(14–16) as a literary expansion of the previous ‫יום יהוה‬-theme.36 The connection between 13:2–8 and 13:9–16 is established through the well-known catchword principle of the editors, according to which two originally distinct prophecies are seen as related by a common expression which appears in both. In this case, the catchword is ‫ יום יהוה‬in vv. 6 and 9, which in this form is attested only here in Isaiah.37 The theological concern of 13:9–16 is to proclaim punishment for sinners (‫)חטאים‬, the wicked (‫)רשׁעים‬, the arrogant (‫ )גאון זדים‬and tyrants (‫)גאות עריצים‬. These motifs may be contrasted with 13:3, according to

34

On the redaction-critical problems of Isa. 10:5–34, cf. O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Tübingen 31964, 413–14; Mowinckel, ‘Komposition’, 284; G.C.I. Wong, ‘Deliverance or Destruction? Isaiah x 33–34 in the Final Form of Isaiah x–xi’, VT 53 (2003), 544–52. 35 See C. Balogh, ‘Blind People, Blind God: The Composition of Isaiah 29,15–24’, ZAW 121 (2009), 48–69. 36 Clements, 135; Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen, 71; Fischer, Fremdvölkersprüche, 91–99. The (often insignificant) lexical similarities between 13:9–16 and its context referred to in Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen, 71 n. 1, need not imply the direct influence of one text on the other. These similarities can be more convincingly explained by the common theme of the two texts. 37 For connections with ‫ יום ליהוה צבאות‬in Isa. 2:12, see §3.4 below.

80

chapter three

which the agents of judgment are rejoicing in the greatness of Yhwh (‫)עליזי גאותי‬. As in Isa. 10:5, hubris is the cause of Babylon’s fall. No addressee is named directly in 13:9–16. Nevertheless, ‘the earth’ (13:9), its wicked and tyrannical inhabitants (13:11) and the imagery of nations fleeing home (13:14) allude to an empire which has taken others into exile, so that Assyria38 or Babylon39 are the likely candidates. Isa. 13:9–16 is often argued to lack concrete historical references, for which reason several scholars believe that this text focusing on the destruction of the wicked in the world is an eschatological universalist reinterpretation of 13:2–8.40 Notwithstanding that the motifs of ‫הארץ‬, the fading stars, constellations and heavenly bodies (13:9–11) allude to a judgment with universal consequences,41 this poetic picture corresponds to the ‫ יום יהוה‬tradition in which it was common to issue particular, nation-specific, historical messages of doom.42 The metaphorical significance of the cosmic elements basically distinguishes this text from apocalyptic literature, where the cosmic cataclysm is treated in a historical (and not poetical) frame. One may even wonder whether the cosmic aspect of the judgment in 13:10 is not somehow related to the famous astrological knowledge of the nation addressed (cf. Isa. 47:11–14). Furthermore, 13:17–22 as well as the concrete names in the heading of v. 1a create a historicising context that makes it difficult to read vv. 9–16 as an ahistorical eschatological text. In this case, distinguishing between a historical (13:2–8) and

38 H. Grimme, ‘Ein übersehenes Orakel gegen Assur (Isaias 13)’, ThQ 85 (1903), 1–11; Kissane, 154; Goldstein, ‘Metamorphosis’, 78–88. 39 For instance, Gray, 241. Cf. Isa. 48:20; Jer. 50:8, 16; 51:6, 45; Zech. 2:10, 11. Procksch, 189, Clements, 136, and Zapff, Prophetie, 156, understand 13:14 in the sense that even flight would not bring escape from Yhwh’s wrath. However, this interpretation contradicts 13:15, according to which death will come only upon those who are in the city and not those in flight. Moreover, Jer. 50:16–17 makes clear that the earliest witness to this Isaianic text (note the imagery of the scattered sheep, the devouring sword; cf. also ‫ )אישׁ אל־עמו יפנו ואישׁ לארצו ינסו‬understood Isa. 13:14 as referring to the flight of foreigners from Babylon. 40 For example, Kaiser, Clements, Zapff, Kilian, Bosshard-Nepustil. 41 Cf. Vermeylen, 1.288–89; Ohmann, 63; Kilian, 98; Blenkinsopp, 278–79. 42 Jer. 4:23–25, 28; Ezek. 32:7–8; Joel 2:2, 10; Amos 5:18–20; 8:9–10; Zeph. 1:14–16. Cf. the nearness of the day of Yhwh in Joel 2:1 | Zeph. 1:7, 14 | Isa. 13:6, the consecrated warriors in Zeph. 1:7, 14 | Isa. 13:3, the summons to howl in Zeph. 1:11 | Isa. 13:6, wrath in Zeph. 1:15 | Isa. 13:3, 5, fear in Joel 2:6 | Isa. 13:7–8, the wealth which cannot save in Zeph. 1:18 | Isa. 13:17. Cf. also Isa. 28:2; 29:6; 30:30 (cosmic theophany); Judg. 5:4–5, 20; Josh. 10:11–13.

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

81

a cosmologic, eschatological (13:9–13) judgment is for these reasons unconvincing in my opinion. The view that the motif of wicked and sinful in Isa. 13 would be part of an ahistorical eschatology should also be questioned. The prophecy of Habakkuk suggests that Babylon can take on the role of the evil par excellence, just as Assyria can become the prototype of arrogance. Both images, the wicked and the proud, are rooted in wisdom literature where the arrogant figure typifies the enemy, the opponent to Yhwh (compare Prov. 23:11 with Jer. 50:34). In prophetic representations, the general motifs of the wicked and arrogant enemy and the righteous humble sufferer receive concrete historical and political contours (cf. Hab. 2). ‫ הנני‬in Isa. 13:17 denotes the beginning of a new section in the prophecy. It is significant that 13:17–18 repeats ideas attested before in 13:15–16.43 But unlike 13:9–16, vv. 17–22 cannot be treated as an independent prophecy. ‫ עליהם‬in 13:17 can only be understood in a context in which the references are identified. Isa. 13:17–22 must be considered an expansion of either vv. 2–8 or vv. 9–16. The references to Babylon and the Medians have long provided reason to question the Isaianic authorship of Isa. 13. By reinterpreting Isa. 13 either partially or entirely as a prophecy concerned with Assyria rather than Babylon in the first place, or by arguing that the agents of destruction were the Assyrians, scholars attempted to save Isa. 13 from an ever growing list of non-Isaianic prophecies. The possibility of Isaianic authorship can be taken into consideration only for 13:2–8, if this text is presumed to have originally described an Assyrian invasion of Judah. However, as noted above, it is more likely that the Babylonians threatening Jerusalem underlie vv. 2–8, implying a date somewhere in the late 7th century. If 13:9–16 focuses on the fall of Assyria, an earlier date in the 7th century date can be proposed. Yet it is more likely that 13:9–16 anticipates the collapse of Babylon, implying a date after the first campaign against Jerusalem. Vv. 17–22 may derive from a time when the face of an enemy capable of defeating Babylon began to emerge from the shadow.44 It is commonly agreed that the events connected to the fall of Babylon in 13:9–16 and 17–22 do not comply

See ‫ רטשׁ‬in 13:16 and 18, and cf. Kaiser, 11. In prophetic texts, Persia is never mentioned as an enemy of Babylon, but only Elam and Media (Isa. 21:2), or Media alone (Jer. 51:11, 28). 43 44

82

chapter three

with the peaceful Perso-Median occupation of Babylon in 539. The question is whether this incongruence presupposes a date before 539 or after it, e.g. the time of the defeat of rebellious Babylon by Darius I in 521–520 or Xerxes in 482.45 It is well-known that eager expectations concerning the fall of Babylon were widespread during the early postexilic period (cf. Jer. 50:28; Hag. 2:6–7; Zech. 1–2). It is, however, also possible that vv. 17–22 recall the idea of turning a former friend into an enemy, a frequent theme in prophecies (Jer. 4:30; Ezek. 16:31–41; 23:9, 22–24). If this concept is being referred to in this passage, Isa. 13:17 can be dated to a period when Media and Babylon were still allies, i.e. before 539. At any rate, 13:22 assumes that the fall of Babylon still lies in the future.46 To conclude this discussion, (a) Isa. 13 is composed of three pericopes. Vv. 2–8 and 9–16 form two originally independent prophecies connected by the ‫ יום יהוה‬theme, while 13:17–22 is the Fortschreibung of either 13:2–8 or 13:9–16. The original anti-Judaean prophecy in 13:2–8 was most likely transformed into an anti-Babylonian text by, at least in part, its move to the present context. Isa. 13:9–16 does not predict an eschatological cosmic cataclysm but the collapse of the historical Babylonian Empire (cf. 13:9 with Isa. 10:14). (b) Isa. 13 contains important themes reappearing intermittently in the rest of Isa. 13–23: the utter destruction (13:5, 9, 19–22) of the whole earth (‫)כל־הארץ‬, former tribute bearer nations of Babylon (13:14), on the ‫ ;יום יהוה‬haughtiness (‫גאון‬, ‫זד‬, ‫גאוה‬, ‫צבי‬, ‫ )תפארת‬and wickedness (‫רעה‬, ‫רשׁעים‬, ‫( )עון‬13:11, 19); history as governed by Yhwh, who himself commands (‫צוה‬, 13:3) and leads (‫פקד‬, 13:4) his army; the call to howl and wail (‫ילל‬, 13:6); the motif of taking refuge (13:14–15); the temporal aspect in the fulfilment of the prophecy (13:22). (c) The dates of the three passages are uncertain. Isa. 13:2–8 may derive from the late 7th or early 6th century. In case of 13:9–16 and 13:17–22 this period may be extended to the exilic era (before 14:1–4a).

45

Gosse, Isaïe, 272 (Darius I); Vermeylen, 1.289–90 (Xerxes). For Isa. 13 as a pre-eventum prophecy, cf. Clements, 136–37; Begg, ‘Babylon’, 124–25; Sweeney, 231; H.G.M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction, Oxford 1994, 158; Vanderhooft, Babylon, 125; Blenkinsopp, 277. 46

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

83

Isaiah 14:1–4a, 4b–21, 22–23 The introductory particle ‫ כי‬suggests that Isa. 14:1–4a is a text composed for its present location to connect Isa. 13 with 14:4b–23. Read through the looking glass of 14:1–2, the judgment of Babylon in 13:1–22 was a sign of Yhwh’s compassion towards Israel. The poetic imagery in 14:1–2 reminds one of various sections from Isaiah and Zechariah,47 which may belong to the same theological tradition of the late exilic or early post-exilic period.48 The previous message announcing total destruction of Babylon in Isa. 13 is shifted to presenting Babylon as a vassal in 14:2 (cf. Isa. 60:14). Vv. 3–4a are written in prose. The introductory ‫ והיה ביום‬might suggest that they are a later addition, although that is by no means certain.49 The coherence of Isa. 14:1–4a is reinforced by adopting the vocabulary of Israel’s pre-settlement-experience: Israel’s election (‫ ;בחר‬14:1), the heavy slavery (‫ ;העבדה הקשׁה‬14:3), the foreigners that shall join Israel (cf. Exod. 12:38), the return to the homeland, the rest (‫ ;נוח‬14:1) in the land of Yhwh (‫ ;אדמת יהוה‬14:2), the servants of God’s nation (14:2; cf. Jos. 9:21). The king of the song in 14:4b–21, who refused to set his prisoners free (v. 17), reminds the reader of the stubborn Egyptian pharaoh. Isa. 14:1–4a functions like a bridge between the prophecies in Isa. 13 and the song in 14:4b–21. Having described the defeat of the despot, Babylon (Isa. 13), the victory is celebrated in song, as in days of old on the Asian side of the Red Sea (14:4b–21). The sequence act of salvation followed by a song also appears elsewhere in Isaiah (cf. Isa. 12; 25–27*; 38:9–20). The most prominent example is 11:11–16 (new exodus) and 12 (a new ‘song of Moses’; cf. Exod. 14–15). Because 14:4b–21 can also be read independently of its context, it is often believed that this passage was relocated from a different place.50 According to v. 4a, the song is a ‫משׁל‬, a paradigm, applicable to any person fitting the model it creates.51 While the unity of 14:4b–21 is

47

Cf. Isa. 11:11–16; 45:14; 49:22–23; 56:3, 6; 60:10–16; 61:5–6; Zech. 2:13–16. Note

‫( אדמת הקדשׁ‬Zech. 2:16) and ‫( אדמת יהוה‬Isa. 14:2), ‫( ובחר עוד בירושׁלם‬Zech. 2:16) and ‫( ובחר עוד בישׂראל‬Isa. 14:1). 48

Sweeney, 232 (post-exilic); Williamson, Book, 165–67, 171–75 (exilic). For the unity of 14:1–4a, cf. Zapff, Prophetie, 265–66. 50 Wildberger, 506; M.A. Sweeney, King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel, Oxford 2001, 244. 51 For ‫ משׁל‬as ‘paradigm’, cf. R.M. Shipp, Of Dead Kings and Dirges: Myth and Meaning in Isaiah 14:4b–21, Atlanta, GA 2002, 34–43. 49

84

chapter three

generally accepted,52 its Isaianic authorship is less widely shared. The mythological imagery in 14:12–13 and the allusions to deportation in 14:17 suggests that the addressee comes from Mesopotamia.53 Nevertheless, from Tiglath-pileser III to Alexander the Great all major players in history have been named as potential protagonists. The most frequently mentioned figure in connection with Isa. 14:19, is Sargon II, who died on the battlefield in 705 bc. His corpse was not found and could not have been properly buried.54 This identification is problematic, however, for 14:20, mentioning a king who ‘destroyed his land and killed his people’, could hardly refer to Sargon.55 Furthermore, ‫ השׁלכת מקברך‬in 14:19, often rendered as ‘you were cast away from your grave’, or ‘you were cast away without having your grave’, should better be translated as ‘you were cast out from your grave’,56 which dissolves the tensions with 14:9–11, 15, where the king is already said to have descended into the grave. This song emphasises that the king is not only thrown out of heaven because of his cruelty and wickedness (14:12) but also from the underworld. The author does not describe the specific

52 Jeppesen, ‘Isaiah 13–14’, 78 n. 30, allow the possibility that Isa. 14:4b–21 was composed of the independent units 14:4b–8, 9–11, 12–17, 18–21. Blenkinsopp, 285, distinguishes two poems, 14:4b–11 and 14:12–21, but gives no details. It is, however, doubtful that these passages could have formed independent prophecies. Some also argued that 14:5 and 20b–21 are later glosses. Cf. Fohrer, 1.174; Wildberger, 541; Kaiser, 29; H. Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung (WMANT, 48), NeukirchenVluyn 1977, 128; Clements 141; Zapff, Prophetie, 266–67; Blenkinsopp, 285; Fischer, Fremdvölkersprüche, 125–26. This assumption is based on the conviction that v. 5 implies the direct action of Yhwh, unexpected in such a song. Note however, that Yhwh is actively present in the similar dirges of Ezekiel concerning the fall of Tyre (Ezek. 28) and Egypt (Ezek. 31–32). Moreover, v. 6 could hardly be the continuation of v. 4b. ‫ מכה‬connects v. 6 to ‫ מטה‬/ ‫ שׁבט‬in v. 5 (cf. Isa. 10:24; 14:29; 30:31), and not ‫ נגשׂ‬in v. 4b (contra Zapff, Prophetie, 266–67). For Isa. 14:21, cf. also Ezek. 32:31–32. 53 Although Canaanite mythological elements may appear here (cf. Shipp, Dead Kings, 1–24, 67–79), it is more likely that the text presents primarily Mesopotamian views, filtered through the interpretation of a Canaanite poet. 54 E.g., Sweeney, 232–33; Gallagher, Campaign, 88–89; Shipp, Dead Kings, 172. In Assyrian texts Sargon is called šakin Ellil, ‘the governor of Ellil’. Gallagher assumes that the similarities between Ellil and ‫ הילל‬in 14:12, justify identification of the king as Sargon (Campaign, 88–89). Accepting, for the sake of argument, the philological connections between ‫ הילל‬and Ellil, it still remains problematic that Sargon is called ‘governor of Ellil’. Isa. 14:12 points not only to ‘a close association of Sargon with this particular god’ (so Gallagher, Campaign, 89), but it identifies ‫ הילל‬with the king and associates him with ‫שׁחר‬. 55 We know that Esarhaddon killed some of the high officials, and so did Sennacherib and Sargon II, too, with other throne contenders. But this was rather common and far from destroying one’s land and killing the people. 56 Blenkinsopp, 284; S. Olyan, ‘Was the “King of Babylon” Buried Before His Corpse Was Exposed? Some Thoughts on Isa 14,19’, ZAW 118 (2006), 425.

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

85

circumstances under which Sargon II died (many details of which are still unknown today), but he pictures the king as a malicious ruler who would find no rest even in death. Being thrown down from heaven is paralleled by being thrown out by Sheol. As the first imagery is artistic, the second one must be likewise. Another unburied Assyrian or Egyptian king appears in Ezek. 31:12–13; 32:4–6 (cf. Ezek. 29:5). Like the texts of Ezekiel, Isa. 10:5–15, 24–27 or 37:22–29, Isa. 14 uses stereotypical language in describing Assyrian monarchs.57 The ‘sons’ punished for the sins of the ‘fathers’ (pl!) according to Isa. 14:21, those not supposed to fill the earth with cities, are not only royal descendants, but the inhabitants of the land.58

Attempts to identify the ruler with a specific king from Mesopotamia lead us on a false track. Therefore, the literary-mythological character of Isa. 14 must be taken seriously. The stereotypical imagery (haughtiness, descent to the underworld) makes this poem perfectly suited to a ‫משׁל‬.59 But even if the identity of the king(s) remains undisclosed, can one identify the nation behind the song with greater accuracy? AntiBabylonian feelings were clearly formulated from the turn of 7th–6th centuries (cf. the ‫ משׁל‬in Hab. 2:6–12), but the motif of haughtiness appears in descriptions of both Assyria (Isa. 10:5–15; Ezek. 31) and Babylon (Isa. 13:11, 19; Hab. 2:4), as do the themes of plundering and injustice. Some scholars assume that the expression ‫ כנצר נתעב‬in Isa. 14:19 contains a wordplay on the name of ‫נבוכדנ)א(צר‬.60 However, one can also find the variant spelling ‫( נבוכדראצר‬cf. Akkadian Nabûkudurrī-uṣur) for this name in the Bible, so that this identification is uncertain.

57 Cf. Zapff, Prophetie, 271; Blenkinsopp, 287; Kaiser, 28; Goldingay, 102. For the motifs of ascent, descent, Sheol, see Shipp, Dead Kings, 81–127. 58 The plurals ‫רשׁעים‬, ‫( משׁלים‬14:5) and ‫( מרעים‬14:20) are not to be seen as redactional expansions universalising an earlier song (contra Barth, Jesaja-Worte, 127–28; Clements, 144; Zapff, Prophetie, 267–68). It is characteristic to the genre ‫ משׁל‬that its language is impersonal, expressed here by the plural. 59 In contrast to Wildberger, 542; Vermeylen, 1.294; Kaiser, 28, and Zapff, Prophetie, 271, I do not regard anonymity as the sign of a late date, but a common feature of ‫משׁל‬-literature. Note that in Ezek. 28:2–10, 11–19; 31; 32:1–10, 17–30 are also without proper names. 60 Ehrlich, 56; Gosse, Isaïe, 239; W.A.M. Beuken, ‘A Song of Gratitude and a Song of Malicious Delight: Is Their Consonance Unseemly’, in: F.-L. Hossfeld, L. Schwienhorst-Schönberger (eds), Das Manna fällt auch heute noch: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten, Ersten Testaments. Festschrift für Erich Zenger (HBS, 44), Freiburg im Breisgau 2004, 102.

86

chapter three

The case for the Assyrian background of the song is stronger. First, 14:21 referring to the building of cities reminds one of Nimrod in Gen. 10:8–12, and beyond that of Mic. 5:5, where Assyria is called ‘the land of Nimrod’. Second, a probable reference to the myth of Ishtar’s descent to the netherworld in 14:12 may also be evidence of an Assyrian origin of the protagonist king. Ishtar played an important role as the mother of the Assyrian king.61 Third, it has been noted that there are close connections between 14:4b–21 and Ezek. 31, the lamentation over the king of Egypt. These connections reach beyond formal similarities, and Isa. 14 may have influenced Ezek. 31 in a more direct way. Yet Ezek. 31 suggests that Ezekiel read Isa. 14:4b–21 as an Assyriarelated text.62 But what role is an anti-Assyrian prophecy playing in this part of the book of Isaiah? Is it possible to determine its original position with any degree of certainty? It appears that Isa. 14:4b–21 was part of an anti-Assyrian collection in an earlier form of the book. I argued above that the pre-monarchic experience of Israel, especially its Egypt-related past, provided an important analogy for the editors of Isa. 13–14 when they described the return from Babylon. It is striking to observe this pre-monarchic, mainly Egypt-related past used as an analogy in the anti-Assyrian utterances of Isa. 9–11. Three of these texts are especially important: Isa. 10:20–23; 10:24–27 and 11:11–12:6. Although appearing in an anti-Assyrian prophecy, 10:20–23 is in fact dealing with Jacob and Israel (cf. 14:1). It asserts that in the future, Israel will no longer rely on ‘the one who had struck them’. ‫מכהו‬ is often identified with Assyria.63 However, since in its present location 10:20–23 is a secondary interpolation, the connection of this text with Assyria is dubious. If Jacob and Israel refer to the Northern Kingdom, ‫ מכהו‬cannot be Assyria, for Israel was never supported by Assyria. If Jacob and Israel allude to Judah, identifying ‫ מכהו‬with Assyria would also be problematic, for Judah never sought support from Assyria, who

61 For Ishtar as the deity of dawn (‫)שׁחר‬, cf. Shipp, Dead Kings, 76. It is common in Assyrian prophecies to refer to the king as raised up by his mother, Ishtar. For the Assyrian hubris motif, cf. M. Kőszeghy, ‘Hybris und Prophetie: Erwägungen zum Hintergrund von Jesaja xiv 12–15’, VT 44 (1994), 549–54. 62 Zapff also argues that Ezek. 31 depends on Isa. 14:4b–21, but he dated the Isaianic text to the early post-exilic period (Prophetie, 271–72). Yet Ezekiel’s description of the fall of Egypt caused by Babylon is not likely post-exilic. 63 Cf. Delitzsch, 176; König, 150; Procksch, 171; Clements, 115; Young, 1.369; Oswalt, 270. Watts, 153, assumed this verse referred to the Aramaean support to Pekah, or the Assyrian support to Hoshea.

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

87

has smitten it. When Ahaz became an ally of Assyria, Judah had not yet been smitten by it; later Assyria appears as an enemy and not a friend of Judah. It is more likely that the reference is to Egypt, which was supporting Israel after previously having smitten it (Isa. 31:1). This early Egypt-related tradition is also the imagery recalled in the following verses (10:24–26), which refer to Israel’s servitude in Egypt. The Assyrian yoke resembles Egyptian slavery, but Assur will also be humiliated similarly to the Egyptian pharaoh. The third text alluding to Egypt and the exodus is Isa. 11:11–12:6. These verses promise the restoration of the glorious nation of the past with Ephraim and Judah living in peace and the surrounding nations subjugated as vassals. With boundaries reaching from Egypt to Assyria, this is the restored Davidic kingdom. Its inhabitants will be brought home by Yhwh, who will divide the sea of Egypt and the river Euphrates. The new parting of the waters will be followed by a new song of Moses (Isa. 12), related in its vocabulary to Exod. 15. The exodus event and song of gratitude are connected in Isa. 11–12, as they are in Exod. 14–15.

Close connections exist between the editorial ideas piecing together Isa. 13–14 (14:1–4a) and Isa. 10–12. It would require little imagination to read 14:4b–21 in relation to the boasting speech of the Assyrian king in 10:5–15. Isa. 14:4 can be considered an answer to the haughty speech of the Assyrian king in 10:5–15 (cf. also 37:22–35), as well as a secondary continuation of either 10:27, the verse originally closing the anti-Assyrian speech, 10:5–15, or 11:10.64 The closing verses, Isa. 14:22–23, form an oracular statement. It is commonly accepted that these short utterances do not belong to the previous poem, but they were added in view of the present context of the anti-Assyrian prophecy. They are usually assigned to the author of 14:(1–2)3–4a.65 However, the views of 14:2 and 14:22 are different with respect to what happens to the remnants of Babylon. Furthermore, Isa. 14:21 deviates from the genre of the song and comes close to a 64 There are close connections between 14:4b–21 and the anti-Assyrian texts in Isa. 9–11. ‫ שׁבת נגשׂ‬in 14:4b reminds of ‫ שׁבט הנגשׂ‬in 9:3. ‫ מטה‬and ‫ שׁבט‬in 14:5 appear in 9:3; 10:5, 15, 24, 26 (cf. 28:27; 30:32), in which Assyria is presented as ‫ מטה‬and ‫ שׁבט‬in the hand of Yhwh (10:5, 15), or as holding the ‫ מטה‬and ‫ שׁבט‬in its hands (10:24). The expression ‫נצר נתעב‬, ‘abhorrent branch’ (14:19), may be the reversed image of the glorious ‫ מטה‬and ‫( שׁבט‬cf. Ezek. 15:3–5; 31:12). At any rate, the new monarch who shall take on the former role of Assyria is portrayed as the new sprout (‫ ;נצר‬11:1), the new ruler of ‘the earth’ (11:4, 9), justly holding the staff (‫ ;שׁבט‬11:4) of righteousness. Note also 14:8 showing similarities with another anti-Assyrian speech, likewise related to Isa. 9–11, now located at Isa. 37:24 (37:22–35). 65 Fohrer, 1.181; Zapff, Prophetie, 269.

88

chapter three

prayer-like imprecation that seeks confirmation. As a divine answer to the summons in 14:21, the oracular utterance in 14:22–23 may contain exactly this expected confirmation, added in view of the whole antiBabylonian prophecy in 13:1–14:21. To conclude, (a) Isa. 14:1–4a represents an editorial text looking back to Isa. 13 and forward to 14:4b–21. This editor may be responsible for the present organisation of 13:1–14:23. The return of Israel from Babylon is compared to a new exodus. Like in the original version of Exod. 14–15, the anticipated event (Isa. 13) is extended by a related song of deliverance (14:4b–21). Prominent in this passage is the concept of the reversal of fortunes. Beyond its final form and meaning, Isa. 14:4b–21 formerly belonged to the anti-Assyrian prophecies, probably following 11:10 in the late 7th century edition of Isaiah. With the composition of Isa. 11:11–12:6 and 13:1–14:23, this prophecy was removed from its original context and made part of the anti-Babylonian collection. At this stage the first section of the book culminated in the defeat of Assyria and the return of a remnant population from the four corners of the world, followed by the new exodus song, while the prophecy against Babylon was placed ahead of a second section, the judgment of the world. The editors responsible for the rearrangement and to some extent the composition of 13:1–14:23 may have been the authors of 11:11–12:6.66 It is important to note that Jer. 50–51 apparently already reads Isa. 14:4b–21 as an anti-Babylonian prophecy, i.e. in its present context.67 (b) From a theological point of view, 14:4b–21 is a song about the fall of the wicked and arrogant despot. This theme determines the basic tone of the entire poem. Not only Israel, but the entire earth (‫ ;כל־הארץ‬14:7–8) appears here as rejoicing and resting peacefully, in contrast to the destruction, fear and howling in Isa. 13. Unlike other nations, Babylon will have no remnants (14:20–22). The original concern of 14:4b–21 was possibly the fall of Assyria. The punishment of

Cf. the heading ‫ ואמרת ביום ההוא‬in 12:1 followed by a song as in 14:4a. Cf. Jer. 50:23 | Isa. 14:4; Jer. 50:26 | Isa. 14:22; Jer. 50:29, 31 | Isa. 14:11–14; Jer. 50:33 | Isa. 14:17; Jer. 50:34 | Isa. 14:7. Note also that Jer. 50:17–18 explicitly alludes to the analogy between Assyria and Babylon. For other citations of Isa. 13–14 in Jer. 50–51, cf. S. Erlandsson, The Burden of Babylon: A Study of Isaiah 13:2–14:23 (CB.OT, 4), Lund 1970, 154–59; Goldstein, ‘Metamorphosis’, 86 n. 29; Cs. Balogh, ‘Oude en nieuwe profetie: De rol van de profetische traditie in de volkenprofetieën’, in: G. Kwakkel (ed.), Wonderlijk gewoon: Profeten en profetie in het Oude Testament, Barneveld 2003, 130–33. 66 67

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

89

the sons for the sins of the fathers (14:21) suggests some distance from those who committed ‘the sins’. But clearly, it required no substantial imagination to argue that the sons were actually the Babylonians, heirs to the Sargonid Empire and descendants of Nebuchadnezzar. This explains the placement of 14:4b–21 in its present position (cf. Jer. 50:17–18). (c) The prophecy in 14:4b–21, related to the anti-Assyrian prophecies of the other parts of the book, probably derives from the 7th century. The additions in Isa. 14:22–23 and 14:1–4a may be dated to the exilic and post-exilic periods respectively. Isaiah 14:24–27 It strikes the reader of the book that, after being denounced in Isa. 10, Assyria is mentioned again in 14:24–27. Isa. 14:24–25 contains a brief oracular statement introduced by ‫נשׁבע יהוה צבאות לאמר‬. The passage presents the succession of historical events, the humiliation of Assyria and the end of Israel’s servitude as the fulfilment of Yhwh’s plans concerning the world. Some expressions that appear here are common with other parts of Isaiah, most notably 10:5–15, 24–27. Isa. 10 highlights the divergence between the thoughts (‫ )דמה‬and purposes (‫ )חשׁב‬of Assyria and Yhwh. Probably as a replica to the boasting speech of Assyria, Yhwh swears in 14:27 that as he himself has designed (‫ )דמה‬so will it stand, as he purposed (‫ )יעץ‬so will it be fulfilled (‫)קום‬. The removal of the yoke and the burden from the shoulders of Judah (14:25) closely parallels 10:24–27.68 The plan concerning the earth (‫ )העצה היעוצה על־כל־הארץ‬is probably a direct allusion to 10:23 (cf. also 28:22). The hand stretched out (‫ )היד הנטויה‬appears in the refrains of 5:25; 9:11, 16, 20; 10:4. These interconnections have led scholars to conclude that 14:24–27 is the closing section of the antiAssyrian prophecy in Isa. 10:5–15.69 It is more likely, however, that Isa. 10:5–15 is concluded in 10:24–27. The opening ‫נשׁבע יהוה צבאות‬ ‫ לאמר‬introduces a new and independent prophecy in Isa. 14:24 which was not an integral part of an earlier prophetic speech. Nevertheless, 68 For ‫על‬, see Isa. 9:3; 10:27; for ‫סבל‬, see Isa. 9:3, 5; 10:27; for ‫שׁכם‬, see 9:3, 5; 10:27; for ‫סור‬, cf. 10:27. 69 Procksch, 181; Vermeylen, 1.252–55, 296–97; Kaiser, 42; F. Huber, Jahwe, Juda und die anderen Völker beim Propheten Jesaja (BZAW, 137), Berlin 1976, 47–48, 59; Gosse, Isaïe, 88; R.E. Clements, ‘Isaiah 14,22–27: A Central Passage Reconsidered’, in: BoI, 256; Zapff, Prophetie, 290–91; U. Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch (FRLANT, 178), Göttingen 1997, 272.

90

chapter three

the common vocabulary does indeed suggest a close connection between 14:24–27 and Isa. 9–11. It is often assumed that 14:(25b)26–27 is the expansion of an earlier oracle, 14:24–25(a).70 Although this possibility cannot be excluded, the evidence in this regard is not sufficiently clear.71 There is obviously a change in perspectives in 14:26, but that should not necessarily lead to the conclusion that vv. 26–27 are further expansions of v. 25. As noted, the entire passage shares an evenly distributed vocabulary with constant allusions to other passages. Therefore, 14:24–27 may be one literary unit. In order to clarify the present position of the text, we need to look at two significant motifs in 14:24–27: the counsel purposed by Yhwh (‫ )העצה היעוצה‬and the hand stretched (‫ )היד הנטויה‬over the earth (‫)כל־הארץ‬. Both motifs derive from Judah- and Israel-related texts (5:19; 29:15; 30:1). Particularly important is 28:22 and its citation in 10:23, in which an announcement is made concerning a determined (‫ )חרץ‬plan of Yhwh against the entire country ‫( על־כל־הארץ‬cf. 7:24). It is possible that ‫ כל־הארץ‬in these earlier passages was reinterpreted in 14:26 as referring not to Israel or Judah alone, but the entire world under Assyrian control (cf. 10:14, 23).72 Isa. 14:26 is close to the salvation prophecies in Isa. 7:5, 7, which denounce the plans (‫ )יעץ‬of Damascus and Samaria (‫ ;לא תקום ולא תהיה‬cf. 14:24). The motif of the extended hand (‫ )היד הנטויה‬derives similarly from texts concerned with Israel and Judah (5:25; 9:11, 16, 20; cf. 31:3). But 14:24–27 is the culmination of the judgment on Israel. While the earlier texts indicate that the hand of Yhwh is raised but still (‫)עוד‬, Isa. 14:26 holds no more surprises for the future. It appears as if the destruction of Assyria was the ultimate fulfilment of ‫ עוד‬in the antiIsraelite passages. This theology is concealed in the Assyria-related 10:12: ‘When Yhwh has finished all his work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, he will punish the arrogant boasting of the king of Assyria and his haughty pride.’ From 14:24–27, it becomes clear that the ultimate purpose of Yhwh was not the punishment of his people (‫;בעמו‬ 5:25), but it had much wider implications (‫ ;על־כל־הגוים‬14:26). The hand extended against Israel in 9:20 is followed by the hand reaching 70

Duhm, 123; Wildberger, 566; Zapff, Prophetie, 293; Becker, Botschaft, 272. Clements and Zapff mention the universalistic character of vv. 26–27. However ‫ על־כל־הארץ‬in 14:26 is not more universalistic than 10:14, 23. 72 For a similar reinterpretation of ‫כל־הארץ‬, cf. Zeph. 1:18 and 3:8. 71

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

91

out against Assyria in 10:5–15, 24–27 and, beyond that, against all nations in Isa. 14:24–27. These interconnections suggest that 14:24–27, which provides the theological background for the anti-Assyrian reinterpretation of antiIsraelite texts,73 actually forms a bridge between Isa. 1–12 and 13–23. Isa. 14:24–27 not only closes the Israel-related prophecies, but it also opens the prophecies concerning the other nations. The fall of Assyria with its universal implications (‫ על־כל־הארץ‬/ ‫ )על־כל־הגוים‬explains the salvation prophecies concerning some nations in Isa. 15–23.74 When the anti-Babylonian prophecies in 13:1–22 and 14:1–4a were inserted, 14:4b–21 and 14:24–27 came to be detached from their earlier Assyrian context. After Babylon had taken over the historical role of Assyria and 14:4b–21 became a part of this anti-Babylonian section by the insertion of 13:1–14:4a, 22–23, Isa. 14:24–27 was also integrated into this collection. Isa. 14:24–27 may have followed 14:4b–21 in the earlier edition as well. The oath in 14:24–27 can be read as the answer to 14:21 (similarly to 14:22–23, the Babylonian reinterpretation of 14:4b–21). The editors recognised the function of 14:24–27 as a bridgetext. In such a context, Assyria may have been regarded secondarily either as just another literary name for the Babylonian Empire75 or as a prototype for Babylon (cf. Jer. 50:17–18).76 The secondary literary connections of 14:24–27 with the Babyloniantexts should not be underestimated. From the viewpoint of the final editors of the book, the terms ‫( כל־הארץ‬13:5; 14:7; 14:26), the motif of the fall of the king and Assur on the mountain (13:2; 14:13; 14:25), the plan of Yhwh and his command to his chosen ones (13:3; 14:24) played an important role. Isa. 14:2 about ‘the land of Yhwh’, may have also been inspired by 14:25. Regarding its date, Isa. 14:24–27 probably derives from before the definitive fall of Assyria in 612/609 bc. A few scholars date it to the days of Sennacherib, reading 14:25 in relation to the events of 701

73

Cf., e.g., 29:7–8; 30:27–33; 31:4–5, 8–9. The reference in Isa. 14:18 to ‫ כל־מלכי גוים‬may also be read in relation to an early collection of FNPs, while 14:6–8 alludes to the positive effects of the destruction of Assyria and may implicitly testify to the salvation prophecies in 15–23. 75 Kaiser, 42; Kilian, 106. The name of Assyria refers to the Seleucids in the apocalyptic rereading of Isa. 10:21–22 in Dan. 9:26–27, but this hermeneutical practice may be of earlier origin. 76 Jeppesen, ‘Isaiah 13–14’, 74; Blenkinsopp, 289. 74

92

chapter three

retold in Isa. 36–37.77 However, the Assyrian campaign of 701 was far more complex than the later Isa. 36–37 would suggest. The positive effects of the Assyrian invasion could only have appeared so impressive decades after 701. For this reason, it is more likely that 14:24–27 alludes to a future Assyrian defeat, possibly in the 7th century.78 In conclusion, (a) we have no substantial reasons to question the unity of 14:24–27 but not much support for any assertion of such unity. Isa. 14:24–27 appears as a key text in the existing collection as well as in a possibly earlier (pre-Babylonian) edition of FNPs, which these four verses may have introduced. Through its overarching motifs, 14:24–27 serves as a bridge between the first part of Isaiah and the collection of FNPs. (b) The key theological concepts in these verses are the plan of Yhwh and the stretching out of his hand. Both motifs develop earlier themes of Isaiah. The plan against Israel and Judah revealed in Isa. 9 is enlarged by 14:24–27 with a purpose concerning Assyria and all nations. Once Yhwh completes his task in Jerusalem, he will punish Assyria, who claims to rule the whole earth (10:12, 14). This action will mark the ultimate fulfilment of his earlier announced purpose (Isa. 9). Inserting the Babylon-related prophecies in the FNPs assigned the two Assyria-related prophecies, 14:24–27 and 14:4b–21, a new position and meaning in this collection. The editors recognised not only the key importance of 14:24–27 for the FNPs section, but Babylon was also regarded as the heir to the Assyrian empire and also to its judgment. (c) Isa. 14:24–27 may originate from the 7th century (before 609). 3.2.2

The Composition of Isaiah 14:28–32

The second ‫משׂא‬-heading in Isa. 13–23 appears in 14:28, where it introduces a speech against Philistia. The form of 14:28 is different from the other headings, suggesting that 14:28 does not depend on the other ‫משׂא‬-type superscriptions from Isa. 13–23 (in that case one would expect ‫)משׂא פלשׁת‬.79 Isa. 14:28–32 may have been regarded as part of the collection of FNPs precisely because its superscription

77 Duhm, 133–34; Fohrer, 1.182–83; Gosse, Isaïe, 92. Sweeney, 233, dated this passage to an alleged campaign of Sargon II in 720, on the shaky grounds of the similarity of vocabulary with 10:5–34, also dated by him to that period. 78 Cf. Clements, 146; Zapff, Prophetie, 293, and Berges, 51, on 14:24–25(a). 79 Cf. Jeppesen, ‘Isaiah 13–14’, 76 n. 9, in contrast to Blenkinsopp, 292.

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

93

already contained the word ‫משׂא‬. Eventually, the other superscriptions of 13–23 borrowed the term ‫ משׂא‬from Isa. 14:28. The similarities between Isa. 14:28, 6:1, and 20:1 are often noticed, although it is not entirely clear how these similarities should be interpreted in relation to the composition of the passages in which they appear.80 Even if 14:28 is a later editorial heading connected to the literary recording of an oral prophecy in vv. 29–32, it may have preserved valuable information (cf. 20:1). The fact that neither the text nor the context provides any clues as to why 14:29–32 should be read against the background of the death of Ahaz strengthens the traditional dating of vv. 28–32. No Judaean anti-Philistine raids are known to have taken place during the reign of Ahaz, so it is unlikely that ‘the rod’ beating Philistia could have referred to him.81 It is far more likely that this symbol alludes to an Assyrian king (cf. 9:3; 10:5, 15, 25; 30:32), as does ‘the smoke from the north’ (v. 31). If the heading is considered reliable, there is only one Assyrian king to whom the text could refer and whose death occurred in the same year as the death of Ahaz (727 bc): Tiglath-pileser III.82 Isa. 14:28–32 forms a literary unit,83 but one may distinguish here two short oracular utterances, 14:28–30 and 14:31–32. ‫ הילילי‬in v. 31 is intrinsically related to ‫ אל־תשׂמחי‬in v. 29, providing a rhetorical argument for the coherence of the pericope.84 However, vv. 30(a) and 32, both referring to ‘the poor’, are often assumed to refer to the spiritual poverty, a theme popular among the post-exilic writers.85 It cannot be excluded that Isa. 14:30a is a secondary interpolation into its present context, and v. 30b may have once been connected directly to v. 29. However, the expression ‫ דלים ואביונים‬does not

80 Williamson argues that, like Isa. 6:1, 14:28 was the heading of an earlier collection of FNPs (Book, 163–64; cf. Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen, 118–19). But the limited reference of the demonstrative pronoun in ‫ המשׂא הזה‬calls into question the idea that 14:28 would reach beyond the prophecy of 14:28–32. 81 Contra Sweeney, 234; Becker, Botschaft, 273. Cf. 2 Chron. 28:18! 82 The date of the death of Ahaz and the ascension of Hezekiah is one of the debated issues in Old Testament chronology. Contrary to the often adopted view that Hezekiah would have ascended the throne as late as 715–714, see, e.g., A.K. Jenkins, ‘Hezekiah’s Fourteenth Year: A New Interpretation of 2 Kings xviii 13–xix 37’, VT 26 (1976), 284–98; G. Galil, The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah (SHCANE, 9), Leiden 1996, 99–101. 83 Cf., e.g., Gosse, Isaïe, 93; Becker, Botschaft, 272–74. 84 Isa. 22:1–14 similarly contrasts the present joy with future doom. 85 Gosse, Isaïe, 93; Becker, Botschaft, 272; U. Berges, ‘Die Armen im Buch Jesaja: Ein Beitrag zur Literaturgeschichte des AT’, Bib. 80 (1999), 160–62; Blenkinsopp, 293. Cf. also Fohrer, 1.184; Barth, Jesaja-Worte, 14–15.

94

chapter three

necessarily have a religious connotation in v. 30a. The imagery is used in connection with deliverance from oppression during the Assyrian and Babylonian era.86 Two significant texts may be mentioned in relation to 14:30a and its context. First, Isa. 11:1–9, with its motifs closely paralleling 14:29–31,87 describes a world in which snakes and vipers no longer represent any danger to the security of the oppressed living under the authority of the king, the shoot of Jesse. Isa. 14:30a also assures the audience that the root (‫ )שׁרשׁ‬of the snake and the seed (‫ )פרי‬of the winged viper will not harm the seed (‫בכור‬, ‘first-born’) of the poor, even if it will destroy the root (‫ )שׁרשׁ‬of Philistia. The image of the safe first-born (‫ )בכור‬among the snakes in 14:30a is similar to the ‫ קטן נער‬in 11:6 or the ‫ יונק‬and ‫ גמול‬in 11:8. The message of doom for Philistia is correlated with a message of salvation for Judah. Secondly, v. 30a can also be compared to Zeph. 2:6–7, 9, which assures secure dwelling for the oppressed ones, formerly in conflict with the Philistines. Isa. 14:32 is, however, most likely original. This verse is an oracular response to inquiries made through the prophet to Yhwh concerning how to answer the ‘messengers of the (foreign) nation’ (cf. Isa. 21:10, 11–12).88 The messenger of Yhwh urges the inquirers to place their trust in God rather than Philistia. This message is well-suited to an audience preparing for war after the death of Tiglath-pileser and Ahaz, his Judaean ally. Philistia will be harmed by the snake, but the

86 See Isa. 10:5–15; 25:4; 29:19–20; Hab. 3:14. Cf. Balogh, ‘Blind People’, 66. This terminology is not exclusively biblical. The Zakkur Stele refers to the one oppressed by foreign powers as ʾš ʿnh (DNWSI, 874). Sargon calls himself ‘der die Lastenbefreiung für Sippar, Nippur und Babylon festsetzte, der Beschützer ihrer schwachen (enšūtu), der ihnen der Schaden ersetzte’ (Tonzylinder 1:4; ISK). Sennacherib is a ‘prayerful shepherd, worshipper of the great gods, guardian of the right, lover of justice, who lends support, who comes to the aid of the needy, who turns (his thoughts) to pious deeds’ (A1; D.D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib, Chicago 1924, 48; cf. also B1:1–2). 87 Note especially ‫( צפע‬14:29) and ‫( צפעוני‬11:8), and further ‫( יצא‬14:29; 11:1), ‫( שׁרשׁ‬14:29, 30b; 11:1), ‫( רעה‬14:30; 11:7), ‫( רבץ‬14:30; 11:6, 7), ‫( דל‬14:30; 11:4), ‫ענו‬ (11:4; 14:32), and ‫( אביון‬14:30). 88 The text only makes sense if an implicit ‫ ל‬is ‘inserted’ before ‫מלאכי־גוי‬. The pl. ‫ מלאכי‬cannot be the subject of the sg. verb. ‫ מלאכי־גוי‬cannot refer to the Assyrian messengers in Isa. 37:9–10 (contra Berges, ‘Armen’, 162), not in a prophecy addressed to Philistia. The messengers from Isa. 18:2 provide a better parallel. The fact that ‫ גוי‬appears in the sg. suggests that it refers to one foreign nation, probably the Philistines.

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

95

‫עניי עמו‬, ‘the needy of his people’ should trust Yhwh (cf. Isa. 7:9).89 ‫( חסה‬14:32) and ‫( בטח‬14:30) are synonymous terms conveying an idea familiar to the reader of Isaiah from 28:16.90 With regard to the present position of the prophecy in Isa. 14:28– 32, it is interesting that v. 29 implies the breaking of the rod of Assyria, which was the theme of 14:5, while vv. 24–27 again refer to the breaking (‫ )שׁבר‬of Assur. This close thematic resemblance between the pericopes justifies the present location of the ‫ משׂא‬concerning Philistia after the prophecies against Assur. Clearly, however, the collapse of Assyria in 14:29 is supposed to be only a temporary phenomenon, unlike in the previous passages, which again points to the earlier origin of 14:28–32 with respect to 14:5 or 14:24–27. To conclude, (a) Isa. 14:29, 30b–32 forms a literary unit. V. 32 suggests that the prophecy was an answer to an oracular inquiry, intending to convince Judah not join the Philistines in rebellion. Isa. 14:30a, however, appears to be a later reinterpretation. (b) Key theological motifs of 14:28–32 are the image of the vanished oppressor, the imperative to wail (‫ ;הלל‬14:31; cf. 14:29), the threat posed to Philistia, which will not affect those who place their trust in Zion, and the lack of surviving trace of the Philistines. (c) This text is dated to the death of Ahaz (and the emergence of King Hezekiah), which coincided with the death of Tiglath-pileser III. The text of a prophecy containing a message close to the ‘Immanuel-theology’ expressed in Isa. 7–8 is well-suited to this historical background.

89 ‫ עניי עמו‬appears further in Isa. 10:2 (‫ )עניי עמי‬and Ps. 72:4 (‫)עניי־עם‬, in both cases referring to a smaller group (cf. Isa. 3:15). In Isa. 14:32, ‫ עניי עמו‬may also allude to a small audience. V. 30a with its reference to the synonymous ‫ דלים ואביונים‬may have been influenced by this earlier v. 32. 90 On Isa. 28:16, see J. Dekker, Zion’s Rock-Solid Foundations: An Exegetical Study of the Zion Text in Isaiah 28:16 (OTS, 54), Leiden 2007. This verse may help us to understand why 14:32 is only concerned with the ‫עניי עמו‬. In 28:16, the trust in Yhwh is also contrasted to the arrogance, and pride of the leaders of the nation who know nothing of ‫ משׁפט‬and ‫צדקה‬, i.e. exactly the group opposite to ‫עניי עמו‬. The differentiation among the audience of Isaiah appears explicitly in Isa. 8:11–18, also in the context of conspiracy or rebellion. Berges emphasises the connection between Isa. 14:32 and Zeph. 3:12–13. He argues that both texts reflect the same view and both were written in the post-exilic period (mid-5th century) (‘Armen’, 163, 174). However, further correspondences between Zephaniah and Isaiah (Zeph. 2:8 | Isa. 16:6; Zeph. 3:10 | Isa. 18:1, 7) may suggest that Isa. 14:28–32 was known to the author of Zeph. 2 and 3, and Zeph. 3:12 may have borrowed ideas from Isa. 14:32.

96 3.2.3

chapter three The Composition of Isaiah 15–16

There are several studies that regard the prophecies concerning Moab in Isa. 15–16 as one long poem.91 However, 16:13–14, which contrasts a prophecy spoken long ago (‫ )מאז‬with a new message, gives explicit evidence of textual growth. As a large composition, Isa. 15–16 can be divided into the following pericopes: 15:1–9; 16:1–5; 16:6–12; 16:13–14. The internal relationship that binds these divisions will be explained in what follows. Isaiah 15:1–16:5 Isa. 15:1–9 describes a catastrophe in Moab. Some scholars have argued that the main body of this text was formerly a lament concerning drought and famine.92 Only v. 9, with its allusions to ‘blood’ and ‘the lion’ devouring the remnants of Moab, suggests a war scene. This thematic change as well as the form of v. 9 as an utterance of Yhwh, which is strange to the genre of lamentation, has led scholars to conclude that v. 9 is a later addition.93 Others have argued that Isa. 15 is a mixed composition (cf. Isa. 14) expressing irony, dressed in the garments of a lament.94 Although natural disaster may appear in descriptions of enemy invasions, destruction of natural resources being a frequently-implemented military technique in the Near East,95 the drought-like disaster in vv. 6–7 does not have human causes. Nevertheless, the allusion to blood filling the water(beds) of Moab in v. 9 builds on the previous motif of drought. It is therefore possible that an earlier song of lament about natural disaster was reapplied with prophetic purposes to predict future destruction by an enemy in Moab. Yhwh is about to inflict more (‫ )נוספות‬on Moab (i.e. in addition to drought). Isa. 15:9 was 91 W. Rudolph, ‘Jesaja xv–xvi’, in: D.W. Thomas, W.D. McHardy (eds), Hebrew and Semitic Studies Presented to Godfrey Rolles Driver, Oxford 1963, 141; T.G. Smothers, ‘Isaiah 15–16’, in: J.W. Watts, P.R. House (eds), Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts (JSOT.S, 235), Sheffield 1996, 82–83; Sweeney, 240–51; B. Jones, Howling over Moab: Irony and Rhetoric in Isaiah 15–16 (SBL.DS, 157), Atlanta, GA 1996. 92 Jenkins, ‘Development’, 241; Blenkinsopp, 298. ‫ ֲח ֻל ֵצי מואב‬, ‘the warriors of Moab’, paralleled by ‫ נפשׁו‬in 15:4, should perhaps be emended to ‫ ַח ְל ֵצי מואב‬, ‘the loins of Moab’ (cf. LXX; Rudolph, ‘Jesaja xv–xvi’, 134). 93 Rudolph, ‘Jesaja xv–xvi’, 141; Clements, 151; Kilian, 110. 94 Hayes & Irvine, 242; Jones, Howling, 107, 249–71. 95 The invasion of a country by the enemy is sometimes linked to natural disasters (cf. Isa. 32:9–12; 33:9; 37:30; Jer. 14; Joel 1–2; Hab. 3:17).

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

97

supposedly added to the text when the lament was first adapted for the purposes of a prophecy.96 This second theme of a military assault against Moab is elaborated in 16:1–5 in a different tone. The mount Sela in v. 1, often connected with Edom (but see Jer. 48:24), is one of the places to which the Moabites fled to escape the attacker from the north. The ‘lamb’ (‫ )כר‬belonging to the ruler of the land (‫ )משׁל־ארץ‬was often assumed to refer to a tribute that the Moabites should have sent to Jerusalem (cf. 2 Kgs 3:4).97 However, it is more likely that ‫ כר‬is a metaphor for the dispersed Moabites, who are advised to take refuge in Judah (16:2–4).98 This metaphor, which is inspired by the pastoral lifestyle of the Transjordanian tribes, also fits the previous picture of the destruction of herbage and vegetation (15:6–7). The imagery of a ruler of Moab (‫)משׁל־ארץ‬ unable to guard and feed his people reminds us of descriptions of Israel as a (scattered) flock (‫ )צאן‬and its leaders as rams (‫ )איל‬or shepherds (‫)רעה‬. Lam. 1:6 writes: ‘From daughter Zion all her majesty departed, her leaders have become like rams99 that found no pasture, and walked feebly before their pursuer.’100 Neither the rock of Edom (‫)סלע‬, nor the ruler of Moab (‫ )משׁל־ארץ‬could offer secure shelter, but the daughters of Moab (16:2) can find safety on the mountain of the daughter of Zion. The new leader in Judah who rules in the tent (‫ )אהל‬of the shepherd David (16:5) will grant them protection before destruction (‫ שׁודד‬and ‫ שׁד‬in 16:4; cf. 15:1). Isa. 16:5 is especially close to 4:2–6; 9:5–6; 11:1–5, and 32:1–2.

96 Cf. G.R. Hamborg, ‘Reasons for Judgment in the Oracles against the Nations of the Prophet Isaiah’, VT 31 (1981), 151. Cf. also Isa. 19:5–10 in its context (§5.3.1) and Isa. 23 discussed below. 97 Cf. Rudolph, ‘Jesaja xv–xvi’, 140; Smothers, ‘Isaiah 15–16’, 76–77; Jones, Howling, 197–202. The sg. form of ‫ כר‬makes this opinion highly unlikely. 98 Although Isa. 16:2 is dropped as a gloss (Kilian, 111) or relocated to the previous poem (Fohrer, 1.188), it makes good sense in its present position. ‫ בת־ציון‬in 16:1 and ‫ בנות מואב‬in 16:2 presuppose metaphorical language. 99 Reading ‫ ַאיִ ל‬, ‘ram’ instead of ‫ ַאיָּ ל‬, ‘deer’ is more likely (cf. LXX and the note below). The verb ‫ רדף‬refers here to the deportation of the inhabitants of Jerusalem and therefore reminds the reader of a flock driven before a shepherd, in which connection ‫ רדף‬is often used. Note that these ‘animals’ walk (‫ )הלך‬before the ‘pursuer’ and not flee from him (in contrast to most translations). 100 Cf. Ps. 44:12; Isa. 13:14; Jer. 25:36; Ezek. 34:6; Zech. 11; etc. Cf. also ‫עתוד‬, ‘hegoat’ (Isa. 10:13; 14:9; Jer. 50:8; Zech. 10:3), or ‫איל‬, ‘ram’ (2 Kgs 24:15; Jer. 25:34 and ‫ אילי מואב‬in Exod. 15:15) as symbols for leaders. Cf. Jer. 51:40; Ezek. 39:18. For ‫משׁל‬ as leader of animals / nations, see Hab. 1:14.

98

chapter three

Although divergent from Isa. 15:1–9, the positive message concerning the Moabites in 16:1–5 is supposed to function as an elaboration of the previous pericope (cf. 16:4 and 15:1). There are two coinciding historical references in 16:1–5. V. 4 presupposes that the enemy has departed from Canaan’s surroundings (cf. Isa. 4:4; 10:12; 14:4b–27) and v. 5 alludes to a ruler in Jerusalem in the ‘tent’ of David.101 The coincidence of these historical references suggests a late 7th-century date for the present passage.102 Consequently, Isa. 15:(1)9 is inspired by an earlier Assyrian campaign against Moab (e.g., in 644 bc), but the exact date of the prophecy remains a riddle. The song of 15:(1)2–8, on which 15:9 and 16:1–5 are based, is still earlier. Isaiah 16:6–12, 13–14 Even though some prefer to read Isa. 16:6–14 as forming an original unit with 15:1–16:5, we find a clear break at Isa. 16:6, dividing 16:6–12 from 16:1–5.103 The content of the two prophecies is different. After the positive message addressing refugees from Moab in 16:6, Moab is again accused of maintaining an inappropriate attitude towards God’s people, followed again by a proclamation of judgment that will be executed by a foreign enemy. Although Isa. 16:6–11 is often regarded as another lament, v. 6 is obviously a text of a different genre. Furthermore, the 1st person form ‫ השׁבתי‬in 16:10 implies that Yhwh is speaking, typical for a prophecy rather than a lament song.104 As was the case in 15:1–9, it is possible that an ancient song has been reworked here to fit the purposes of a prophecy.105 The ‫בכי יעזר‬, ‘the weeping of Jaezer’ (16:9), may have been the title of a lament that has been adopted and expanded in a way

101

In contrast to JPS, NIV, NRSV, I assume that vv. 4–5 refer to the past. The fact that the Judaean ruler is placed in a ‘tent’ in v. 5, need not necessarily allude to the post-monarchic origin of these verses (as Berges suggests, 164). The true shepherd reminds us of David (contrast the bad shepherds of the house of David), a tent is familiar in Moabite context, and the imagery parallels ‫ סכה‬in Isa. 4:5. ‫כסא‬ most likely refers to an existing royal throne. 103 J. Høgenhaven, ‘The Oracles against the Nations in the Book of Isaiah: Their Possible Value for the Study of the History of Jordan’, in: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan VII: Jordan by the Millennia, Amman 2001, 354; Kilian, 112. In contrast to Jones, Howling, 263–64, I doubt that rhetorical arguments can satisfactorily explain the radical transition in 16:6. 104 The translation as a passive construction in LXX suggests a niph‘al reading. However, the most ancient witness of this text, Jer. 48:33 also uses the hiph‘il 1st pers. 105 The parallel text in Jer. 48 contains even more prophetic elements. 102

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

99

which is typical of prophecy. The other framing verse, Isa. 16:12 with its allusion to 15:2, connects 16:7–11 to the former Moab-prophecy.106 The forecasting of further judgment in 15:9 provides a theological base for these further expansions. The fact that 16:1–5 was attached to the first part of the prophecy only, namely to 15:1–9, also makes it clear that 15:1–8 and 16:7–11 derive from different sources and do not form an original literary unit. Moreover, it is noteworthy that 15:1–8 is concerned with calamities affecting pastures and waters (15:6–7), while in 16:7–11 the emphasis falls on the vineyards of Moab (16:8–10). Yet by the time Jer. 48 was composed, Isa. 15:1–16:12 had already taken its present form.107 The final pericope, 16:13–14, alludes to even further developments in the text of these prophecies. An ‘ancient’ (or ‘earlier’; ‫ ;מאז‬cf. Ezek. 29:17–21) prophecy is contrasted with a new revelation (‫)ועתה‬. The chronological indication in v. 14 is similar to Isa. 7:8 and 21:16.108 Unlike 16:6–12, vv. 13–14 emphasise that judgment is to appear soon. Owing to Moab’s role in the destruction of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 24:1), prophecies composed after the fall of Zion express strong anti-Moabite feelings. The prophecy in 16:6–12 may date from this period, though the lament underlying 16:7–11 may be older.109 To conclude, (a) Isa. 15–16 form an editorial unit with 15:(1)2–8, which was likely an old song, expanded by 15:(1)9. This prophecy was first supplemented by the addition of 16:1–5 and its positive message concerning Moabite refugees. Isa. 16:1–5 is supposed to have served as an extension of the previous prophecy. Isa. 16:6–12 further transforms

106

Note both the similarities and contrasts in Isa. 15:2 and 16:12. I.e. including Isa. 16:1–2 (cf. Jer. 48:28), 16:6 (cf. Jer. 48:29–30), and 16:12 (cf. Jer. 48:35). For the parallelism of 16:1–2 | Jer. 48:28, cf. König, 190; Gosse, Isaïe, 108; Jones, Howling, 99–101; Balogh, ‘Oude en nieuwe’, 123–24. The absence of various passages in 15:1–16:12 need not necessarily mean that the author of Jer. 48 was unacquainted with those (contra Gray, 271–72; Wildberger, 606). The reason behind the selective citation is rather that Jer. 48 is limited to sections describing judgment, an element missing in Isa. 16:3–5. Cf. Jer. 48:5 | Isa. 15:5; 48:28 | 16:1, 2; 48:29, 30 | 16:6; 48:31 | 16:7; 48:32 | 16:8, 9; 48:32, 33 | 16:10; 48:34 | 15:4, 5, 6; 48:35 | 16:12 (15:2?); 48:36 | 16:11+15:7; 48:37 | 15:2, 3; 48:38 | 15:3. The view that Isa. 15–16 was based on Jer. 48 (Blenkinsopp, 297–98) is not convincing, neither is it likely that Jeremiah was influenced by a text different from Isa. 15–16 (despite the claims of J. Bright, Jeremiah [AncB, 21], New York 1965, 322). 108 This formula has little to do with apocalyptic vision (as suggested by Kaiser, 6; Ch. Fischer, Die Fremdvölkersprüche bei Amos und Jesaja [BBB, 136], Berlin 2002, 75–99, 184), but it is typical of salvation prophecies. 109 Cf. Rudolph, ‘Jesaja xv–xvi’, 141–42; Smothers, ‘Isaiah 15–16’, 83. 107

100

chapter three

the text into a prophecy of judgment. This passage may go back to an ancient song (16:9), but in its present form it is prophetic-predictive. Isa. 16:13–14 further emphasises that the judgment of Moab will appear very soon. (b) Seven important themes link Isa. 15–16 to other FNPs: first, the theme of destruction (‫ ;)שׁדד‬second, the motif of howling (‫ ;)ילל‬third, the vanished oppressor (16:4); fourth, the reference to a plan (‫)עצה‬ and the counsel (‫ )פלילה‬that should be taken concerning the refugees of Moab (16:3); fifth, Jerusalem with a ruler on its throne appears as a place of refuge for the Moabite fugitives; sixth, the motif of pride and haughtiness (‫גאון‬, ‫גא‬, ‫גאוה‬, 16:6); seventh, the temporal aspect with regard to the fulfilment of the prophecy (16:14). (c) In terms of authorship and historical setting, one may argue that Isa. 15:1–16:5 can be well-understood against a pre-exilic background. The sound of hope in 16:1–5 may be connected to the departure of Assyria from Canaan and the neighbouring territories (cf. 14:4b–21, 24–27). In Isa. 16:6, Moab appears again as an enemy which may reflect the experience of Judah after the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 bc. 3.2.4

The Composition of Isaiah 17(–18)

The fourth ‫ משׂא‬mentions only Damascus in its superscription, but a greater part of this pericope is actually concerned with Israel (partially including Judah as well) rather than Aram. Aram, referred to for the last time in v. 3, is only important as the supporter of Israel, whose fate is really at stake and to whom v. 3 alludes twice. Since Damascus plays no further role in this prophecy beyond v. 3, it is possible that ‫משׂא‬ ‫ דמשׂק‬was originally only the title of 17:1–3, which was subsequently expanded by further verses concerning Israel. The text is uneven at more than one point, suggesting that the present form of Isa. 17–18 is the result of a very complex literary history in which originally unrelated prophecies were added and existing texts expanded. Isa. 17:1–11 can be substructured around several smaller pericopes as follows: 17:1–3; 17:4–6; 17:7–8; 17:9; 17:10–11. Isa. 17:12– 14 and 18:1–7 are two independent prophecies. Isa. 17:1–3 is a poetic passage110 delimited by a ‫נאם‬-formula. With a few exceptions, the unity of 17:1–3 is generally assumed to be

110

Note the parallels and word play ‫( מעי | מעיר‬17:1), ‫( ערער | ערי‬17:2).

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

101

original.111 The association of Damascus and Ephraim in v. 3 suggest that the events of 734–732 play a role in the background of this prophecy.112 Isa. 17:4–6 is introduced by ‫ והיה ביום ההוא‬and is separated from the following passage by the ‫נאם‬-formula. The concern of this prophecy is the imposing threat on the Northern Kingdom, expected to have devastating effects. Being most likely a predictive prophecy (cf. ‫ביום‬ ‫)ההוא‬, it is difficult to determine the date of this oracle. All we can say is that it most likely predates 721 bc.113 In attaching what was likely an individual oracle to the previous vv. 1–3, the editors may have been guided by the catchword ‫ כבוד‬appearing in vv. 3 and 4. V. 3 proclaims that the future of the rest of Aram will be similar to the fate of Israel. Vv. 4–6 then describe the looming fate of Israel. Yet vv. 4–6 are not subordinate to the previous passage, making it probable that 17:4–6 was not written for its present location but was relocated by the editors. The theme presented in 17:4–6 is echoed in 9:7–20, and especially the originally anti-Israelite 10:16–19 (which was also relocated in the context of the anti-Assyrian prophecy, Isa. 10:5–15).114 Isa. 17:7–8 also begins with the ‫ביום ההוא‬-formula. The focus of the author is the future of the survivors. After suffering judgment, ‘one’ (‫ )האדם‬will again be devoted to the Holy One rather than the idols. This verse, a cohortative note of hope, reminds one of Isa. 10:20–21(22–23), which is linked to 10:16–19, the latter being strongly related to 17:4–6.115 It is likely therefore, that vv. 7–8 expand vv. 4–6.

111 Because Aroer also appears as a Moabite city, Wildberger (639–40) and Clements (157) argue that Isa. 17:2 re-echos the preceding Moab oracle. However, Aroer was a border city, once also possessed by Israel (Num. 32:34; Deut. 3:12; 4:48; Josh. 13:9, 16), annexed by Aram (2 Kgs 10:33), and later by Mesha (Moabite stone ln. 26). On fluctuating borders in early states, cf. M. Steiner, ‘I am Mesha, King of Moab, or: Economic Organisation in the Iron Age II’, in: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan VII: Jordan by the Millennia, Amman 2001, 328; G.L. Mattingly, ‘Moabite’, in: A. Hoerth et al. (eds), Peoples of the Old Testament World, Grand Rapids, MI 2000, 319, 326. 112 Gosse, Isaïe, 95; Clements, 157. Based on Jer. 49:23–27, Höffken has argued that a post-Isaianic interest in Damascus should not be excluded (148). However, Damascus is here presented as an ally (‘glory’) of Israel, which suggests an 8th century date. 113 It is sometimes assumed that these verses refer to Tiglath-pileser III’s earlier campaign (2 Kgs 15:29). Cf. Gosse, Isaïe, 95; Clements, 157. 114 Cf. ‫( משׁמן‬10:16 | 17:4), ‫( רזה | רזון‬10:16 | 17:4), ‫( כבוד‬10:16 | 17:4), ‫( בשׂר‬10:18 | 17:4). Cf. the remnant-motif in 17:6 and 10:20–22. 115 For Yhwh as the creator of Israel, see especially Deut. 32:15; Hos. 8:14.

102

chapter three

V. 9, which is also marked by ‫ביום ההוא‬, returns to the theme of judgment. Isa. 17:9 is related to 17:2 by the verb ‫ עזב‬and to 17:6 by the rare noun ‫אמיר‬.116 The deserted and abandoned cities and fortresses invert the theme of the conquest of Canaan: the people of Yhwh forsake the cities to the onslaught of the enemy, as their enemies once abandoned those cities to an advancing Israel (cf. Deut. 28; 2 Kgs 21:9). Similarly to vv. 7–8, vv. 10–11 are also later expansions of the theme of v. 9, providing explanation for the preceding prediction: Israel has forgotten its Saviour and Rock (cf. Deut. 32:18) and this neglect is rendered concrete by the adoption of unacceptable religious practices. The prophecy ends in a judgmental tone. The use of sg. 2 fem. forms in vv. 10–11 is notable. This form of address reappears in Isa. 1–39 only in relation with Zion. From a historical point of view this means that vv. (9)10–11 refer to Judah, as the later heir of the Northern Kingdom both in its blessings and in its judgments.117 In conclusion, (a) Isa. 17:1–11 is a complex unit composed of three (fragmentary) prophecies connected by catchwords (‫כבוד‬, 17:3, 4; ‫אמיר‬, 17:6, 9; ‫עזב‬, 17:2, 9). Within this composition, vv. 4–6 may have originally belonged to other contexts. Vv. 7–9 and 10–11 are two later elaborations of the preceding pericopes. The sequence in which judgment (17:1–6) is followed by hope (17:7–8) and then a second judgment (17:9–11) also appears in Isa. 15–16. (b) The concern for religious sins in 17:7–11 suggests that this part of the prophecy does not focus on Israel’s alliance with Damascus, which was at the centre of 17:1–3. It is rather a theological meditation on the causes of Israel’s shameful end. In comparison with the previous texts, it is important to note the motif of remnant in 17:3, 6

116 The frequently proposed emendation of ‫ האמיר‬to ‫האמרי‬, and ‫ החרשׁ‬to ‫החוי‬ (cf. Fischer, 134; Wildberger, 637) based on LXX becomes even less likely in view of these intertextual connections. 117 The Judah-oriented interpretation of Isa. 17 is underlined by further texts such as Isa. 24:12–13 and 27:2–11. Isa. 24:12 alludes to the desolation of Jerusalem (‫בעיר‬ ‫)שׁמה‬, the city of chaos (cf. 24:5, 10, 12), as does 17:9. Isa. 24:13 refers to 17:5–6. This means that by the time 24:12–13 was composed, 17:1–11 was known in its present form, i.e. containing both 17:6 and 17:9. The other text, Isa 27:2–11, is rich in intertextual allusions especially to Isa. 5 and 17:1–11. For the latter, see especially ‫( מזבח‬17:8; 27:9), ‫( אשׁרים וחמנים‬17:8; 27:9; only here in Isaiah), ‫( רבץ‬17:2; 27:10), ‫( עזב‬17:2, 9; 27:10), ‫( סעיף‬17:6; 27:10; appears only here), ‫‘( קציר‬branch’, not ‘harvest’, 17:11; cf. JPS). The description of Yhwh as Israel’s maker and creator (‫ ;עשׂהו ויצרו‬27:11) can be compared to 17:7. Isa. 27 also presupposes the present form of 17:1–11.

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

103

and, to some extent, the motif of humiliation of the ‫ דובכ‬and ‫ מבצר‬of Israel. An allusion to Yhwh’s day of the judgment occurs as ‫יום נחלה‬ in 17:11. (c) The appearance of Damascus in 17:1–3 suggests a date between 734 and 732, while 17:4–6 can be dated to 734–721. Uncertain is 17:7– 8, especially because of its predictive character, but it is probably not earlier than the 7th century, the era of cultic reforms. Isa. 17:9 and 10–11 might be based on earlier criticism against the Northern Kingdom, but its present position probably implies exilic origin. Although the literary and theological function of Isa. 17:12–14 and 18:1–7 is strongly related to 17:1–11, the two former passages will be discussed separately in §4.3.1. 3.2.5

The Composition of Isaiah 21:1–10

I argued above in §3.1 that the specifically composed headings of Isa. 21–22 mark it out as a distinctive unit within the collection of Isa. 13–23. Nevertheless, the appearance of the term ‫ משׂא‬later served as an editorial guideline when Isa. 21–22 was included in the book of Isaiah. It can be inferred from v. 9 that Isa. 21:1–10 is directed against Babylon. The language of this prophecy is difficult and its precise meaning is not always easy to grasp. Some scholars attribute the abrupt style of this text to ecstatic prophetic experience.118 Others explain its complexity as the result of editorial supplements adding different levels of meaning.119 Even others assume that Isa. 21:1–10 is composed of different oracles.120 Editorial activity can indeed often be the cause of problems in reading ancient texts. Yet in this particular case, one should pay appropriate attention to the degree in which the prophecy is a ‫חזות קשׁה‬, 118

Galling, ‘Jesaja 21’, 56. Macintosh, Palimpsest. Bosshard-Nepustil also distinguishes between a Grundschicht from 587 (21:1, 2abα, 3–5, 6, 8–9a) and an expansion from around 539 (21:2bβγ, 7, 9b–10; 2bβ: ‫ ;עלי עילם צורי מדי‬2bγ: ‫( )כל־אנחתה השׁבתי‬Rezeptionen, 24–42). Like W.H. Cobb (apud Macintosh, Palimpsest, 69), Bosshard-Nepustil argues that originally the prophecy had nothing to do with Babylon but proclaimed doom for Jerusalem (Rezeptionen, 33–36; cf. Kaiser, 6). He identifies ‫ מדבר־ים‬with the southern desert of Judah and notes a relationship with the exodus tradition (Rezeptionen, 36). However, the author heaps up his premises in a manner that they are ultimately unconvincing. 120 Höffken, 163, wonders whether Isa. 21 can be divided into 21:1–5+6–10. 119

104

chapter three

‘hard vision’ (21:2). The genre ‫ חזות‬legitimises the use of heavily metaphorical language, which is ultimately the cause of most interpretive problems. The fact that we have here a vision rich in symbolism which was recorded subsequently as a report urges the exegete to exert more caution in making conclusions regarding the literary integrity of Isa. 21:1–10. Therefore we need to distinguish between two levels in this text. The first level invokes the real world of the prophet and his audience in which the prophet reflects on an inquiry (or concern) formulated by his community. The 2nd person ‫ לכם‬in v. 10b implies that the prophecy was uttered in front of a public troubled by what was going on in its world.121 Beyond that, however we can discern another level, the vision of the prophet in which six different roles are assigned to various actors: the attacking nation (Elam and Media), the attacked nation (Babylon), the oppressed nation (Judah), Yhwh, the seer, and the lookout in 21:6–9. What is the meaning of the vision? Isa. 21:1b reports the arrival of a yet unnamed enemy from a terrible land, comparing this invader to storm winds in the south.122 According to v. 2, the reason for this enemy’s arrival is that ‘the treacherous (‫ )בוגד‬deals treacherously and the destroyer (‫ )שׁודד‬destroys’. Then Elam and Media are summoned to lay siege, suggesting that these two nations are the unnamed agents of v. 1b. But who is the treacherous one? Since ‫ בוגד‬and ‫ שׁודד‬also appear in Isa. 33:1 probably in relation to Assyria,123 some exegetes connect these terms with Assyria in 21:2 as well.124 However, even if Assyria is the treacherous destroyer of Isa. 33:1, this text should not necessarily govern our reading of 21:2. The imagery of v. 2 also applies 121

Cf. Ezek. 12:21–25; Hab. 2:1–3. Scholars in general delimit the colas of v. 1b as ‫ כסופות בנגב לחלף‬/ ‫ ממדבר בא‬/ ‫( מארץ נוראה‬cf. BHS). However, in this form the qal inf. ‫ לחלף‬does not make any sense. ‫ חלף‬+ ‫ ב‬is not attested, but ‫ חלף‬+ ‫ מן‬is well-known (1 Sam. 10:3). I suggest the following division: ‫ כסופות בנגב‬/ ‫ לחלף ממדבר‬/ ‫בא מארץ נוראה‬, ‘like whirlwinds in the south, about to pass on from the desert, (so) it comes from a fearful land’. The enemy is not assumed to have come from the south (contra, e.g., Macintosh, Palimpsest, 7; cf. Jer. 4:11), it is only compared to southern winds. For the imagery applied here, cf. also Isa. 5:28; Jer. 4:13 (‫ ;)סופה‬49:39; Hab. 1:11 (‫ ;רוח‬for ‫ חלף‬in connection with ‫רוח‬, ‘wind’, see also Job 4:15). See also Isa. 25:4; 27:8; 28:2; 29:6. 123 See discussion in Cs. Balogh, ‘ “He Filled Zion with Justice and Righteousness”: The Composition of Isaiah 33’, Bib. 89 (2008), 493–94. 124 Cf. Erlandsson, Burden, 274; J. Høgenhaven, Gott und Volk bei Jesaja: Eine Untersuchung zur biblischen Theologie, Leiden 1988, 145; Ohmann, 79–81; Gallagher, Campaign, 40. 122

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

105

to Babylon.125 If ‫ בוגד‬and ‫ שׁודד‬allude to Assyria, the name of Babylon would come as a surprise in v. 9. Instead, it is more likely that this verse names the treacherous destroyer of v. 2, which is therefore Babylon. The Elamites and Medians are summoned to put an end to the suffering of Yhwh’s nation caused by Babylon.126 Isa. 21:5–9 is also not free of troubling details,127 but the main lines are reasonably clear. In v. 6, the prophet is told to go and post a lookout (‫ )מצפה‬and state what the lookout will see. Who is this lookout? Galling thought it was another ego of the prophet.128 I believe that ‫מצפה‬ is a different actor, who appears only in the vision of the prophet. In his vision, the prophet hears God telling him to install a lookout. What the lookout tells the prophet is also part of the vision. We have here a vision (of the lookout in 21:7–9) embedded in a vision (of the prophet).129 The outcome of the vision is clear: Babylon is fallen. It has become Yhwh’s ‘threshed one’, ‘the product of Yhwh’s threshing floor’.130

125 Cf. Vanderhooft, Babylon, n. 37. See, e.g., Jer. 6:26; Hab. 1:13. Like the seer of Isa. 21, Habakkuk also observed the lack of ‘righteousness’ in his world (Hab. 1), and he was depressed by his experience; he was sighing and groaning in front of Yhwh imploring God to favour his oppressed people. 126 ‫ ַאנְ ָח ָתה‬should probably be ‫ ַאנְ ָח ָתהּ‬, ‘her (Judah’s) sighing’ (as suggested by many Massoretic manuscripts, Vulg. and the Syr.; cf. HUB). Hayes & Irvine, 275, argue that Isa. 21:2 refers to Babylon’s sighing under the Chaldaean oppression, as one of Sargon’s text claims. However, the Assyrian text which they point to refers to Sargon acting in favour of Babylon, while Isa. 21 is concerned with the fall of the city. The interpretation of 21:2 in the sense that the Elamites and Medians would be Babylon’s allies rather than enemies (argued by Gallagher and Sweeney) is problematic. The imperative to Elam (‫ )עלה‬can only be interpreted as ‘to go up (against)’ in offence and not in defence (cf. Jer. 46:9, 11; 50:21; Nah. 2:2; with Blenkinsopp, 326, contra Macintosh, Palimpsest, 14–16; Sweeney, 277, 281). 127 One of the notorious problems is the precise meaning of ‫ צפה הצפית‬in v. 5. Galling emended the phrase and put it in the mouth of the enemy preparing for battle (‘Jesaja 21’, 57). But it is more likely that v. 5 refers to the Babylonians rejoicing before the fall of the city (cf. Isa. 22:13; Dan. 5). 128 Galling, ‘Jesaja 21’, 57. 129 This complex structure also appears in the vision reported by Micaiah ben Imlah, who saw Israel scattered on the mountains and, in this vision, was told by Yhwh to send the people home (1 Kgs 22:17). 130 ‫ מדשׁתי ובן־גרני‬refers to Babylon after ‘the threshing’ (judgment) of Yhwh (as suggested by Sa’adya, Ibn Ezra, Qimchi apud Macintosh, Palimpsest, 37; cf. Jer. 51:33) and not to Judah (as claimed by Macintosh, Palimpsest, 38; Hayes & Irvine, 276; Gallagher, Campaign, 46).

106

chapter three

Isa. 21:1–10 is dated to between the 8th–3rd centuries bc. Despite several detailed attempts to connect 21:1–10 to the 8th century,131 significant problems remain with this proposal.132 Dating it as close to the accomplishment of 1QIsaa as possible is equally unconvincing.133 The prophecy makes most sense in a context where Babylon is a really threatening historical power, that is in the New Babylonian era.134 It has become usual to connect anti-Babylonian prophecies to the actual fall of the city in 539. However, questions about the future of Babylon intrigued the people of Canaan from the turn of the 7th century onwards. In Isa. 21:2, Elam appears as a significant military power, a status it gradually loses after 596 bc. Media is mentioned as a foe of Babylon in later texts only (Isa. 13:17; Jer. 51:11, 28), while Elam has descended to the Sheol (Ezek. 32:24). The year 596 may serve therefore as a terminus ante quem for the composition of Isa. 21:1–10. In the late pre-exilic age, there are differences among the prophets concerning Babylon’s role in Yhwh’s plan. In the aftermath of the invasions of the land of Hatti by Nabuchadnezzar in 605–604, Jeremiah considers Babylon the tool in the hand of Yhwh, a view also shared by the prophet Ezekiel (Ezek. 17). In addition to the famous clash between

131 Erlandsson, Burden, 92; Macintosh, Palimpsest, 105–6; Hayes & Irvine, 272–74; Sweeney, 279–83; Gallagher, Campaign, 21–50. 132 The 8th-century dating was based mainly on the identification of ‫ בוגד‬/ ‫שׁודד‬ with Assyria. But if—as argued—v. 1 refers to Babylon, its description as ‫ בוגד‬and ‫ שׁודד‬and as an enemy of Elam and Media would not apply to the 8th century bc. Some have also argued that the feelings of the prophet would be inopportune if the nation condemned was Babylon (cf. Macintosh, Palimpsest, 20; Sweeney, 278–79; Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen, 24, 25 n. 2; Gallagher, Campaign, 24). However, the prophet’s feelings express neither sympathy nor empathy (cf. Isa. 16:11; Jer. 4:19?), but they are the direct consequence of the ‘harsh vision’. A causative translation of ‫‘( משׁמע‬because of hearing’) and ‫‘( מראות‬because of seeing’)—which I favour above the privative ‘so that I cannot hear’, ‘so that I cannot see’—strengthens this assertion. According to v. 4, vision was unbearable to the prophet (cf. Hab. 3:16; Dan. 4:2; 7:15, 28; 8:27). The cruelty of the vision also proclaims a negative message concerning Babylon. 133 Kaiser, 6, considers this an earlier poetry from before 539, but as he approaches the end of his Isa. 21 commentary, he becomes increasingly sceptical of a real historical setting (Kaiser, 105). Kilian, 128, also favours a very late date, but his reasoning is circular. Both scholars assume that Babylon could have functioned as a chiffre for world empires, but they fail to prove that in Isa. 21 this actually was the case. 134 It is doubtful whether Isa. 21:1–10 could be related to the post-Cyrus era (Fischer, ‘Edom-Spruch’, 480–81). Babylon would hardly appear then as ‫ בוגד‬and ‫שׁודד‬, causing the groaning of God’s people. It may be important that the name at the end of the oracle, ‫יהוה צבאות אלהי ישׂראל‬, appears once in 2 Sam. 7:27 (|1 Chron. 17:24); Isa. 37:16; Zeph. 2:9, but 32 times (!) in Jer.

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

107

Jeremiah and Hananiah (Jer. 27–28), we also find a nuanced view of Babylon in the book of Habakkuk. Habakkuk does not question the fact that Yhwh used Babylon to accomplish his plans (Hab. 1:2–11), but he wonders whether this empire still plays the role that Yhwh has assigned to it (Hab. 1:12–17). In the chaotic era after 598 but still before the decisive battle in 587 other prophets may have also thought similarly to Habakkuk. Ezek. 12:21–25 suggests that people were expecting certain prophecies—probably addressed against Babylon— to be fulfilled. Strikingly, it is the late pre-exilic book of Habakkuk that contains significant similarities with the prophecy in Isa. 21:1–10.135 As argued, ‫ אנחתה‬refers to the oppressed Judah, a situation cognate with Hab. 1:1–4. It is therefore most attractive to date Isa. 21:1–10 to the late pre-exilic period, possibly after 598 and before the defeat of Elam in 596.136 To conclude, (a) the difficulties in interpreting 21:1–10 are not caused by the literary evolution of the text as often argued. Instead, they derive from the complex nature of the prophecy that was a report of a visionary experience pronounced before an audience. (b) The lack of motifs common with the other prophecies of Isa. 13–20.23 may be an additional argument for an origin of Isa. 21:1–10 that distinguishes it from the other ‫ משׂא‬prophecies (cf. §3.1). (c) The imperialistic picture of Babylon in Isa. 21 (‫בוגד‬, ‫)שׁודד‬, presenting its former friends and allies, Elam and Media, as enemies, suggest that 21:1–10 may have been composed shortly before 596 bc. 3.2.6

The Composition of Isaiah 21:11–12

The short prophecy in Isa. 21:11–12 is written in an ambiguous style. As argued earlier in §3.1, the concern of the prophecy is the kingdom of Edom. Modern readers disagree on whether the prophet intends to

135 Both Hab. and Isa. 21 are ‫משׂא‬-oracles and visions (Hab. 2:1–3; Isa. 21:2); cf. also the description of Babylon in Hab. 1:2, 13 and Isa. 21:2, the reaction of the prophet in Hab. 3:16 and Isa. 21:3–4, the watcher in Hab. 2:1 and Isa. 21:6. On Habakkuk and Babylon, see Vanderhooft, Babylon, 152–63. 136 Höffken, 163, noted that 21:1–10 is written from a Judaean perspective. For a discussion of the political background (especially Elam and Media as adversaries of Babylon), see Vanderhooft, Babylon, 132–34. Elam was a supporter of Babylon against Assyria prior to its fall but became Babylon’s enemy as soon as it began expanding eastward (ABC 5:rev. 16–20). Jer. 49:34–39 provides an account of Elam in conflict and losing the battle in a prophecy dated to 597/596.

108

chapter three

formulate a positive or a negative message concerning this land, or simply intends to say that he has no message to communicate at all. Isa. 21:11–12 cites two questions that inquirers in Seir ask the ‫שׁמר‬, ‘watcher’ (probably the prophet).137 The expression ‫ מה־מלילה‬may mean ‘what (has remained) from the night’, i.e., ‘how long will night continue?’,138 but it may also be rendered as ‘what from the night’, i.e., ‘what should we expect from the night?’, or ‘what do you, prophet, see in your night visions?’ ‫ לילה‬may eventually also function as a metaphor for distress (see Isa. 15:1; cf. also 17:14; 60:2). The second part of the question is less clear. ‫ מה־מליל‬may duplicate the former question, so that it could be considered a mere phonetic variation of the first question. However, Rendsburg has argued that ‫ מה־מליל‬derives from Aramaic ‫מלל‬, ‘to speak’, so that ‫ מה־מליל‬could be translated as ‘what did he (Yhwh) say?’.139 The 3rd person formulation in 21:12 is in striking contrast to the beginning of this text, which starts as a first person account. The sentence ‫ אתה בקר וגם־לילה‬is an ambiguous prophetic answer. The verb ‫ אתה‬can perhaps refer to the future: ‘the morning will come and so will the night’. But what does this utterance mean? Galling argues that the prophet was not allowed to give a more precise answer, but Yhwh would reveal his will at the right moment. That is why he urged the inquirers to return.140 I rather believe that the ambiguous answer of the prophet is a proper response to the ambiguous question from inquirers in Seir. The prophet seems to suggest that the formulation of the question is either not right or not clear. The situation recalls a similar inquiry in Jer. 23:33–40 in which Jeremiah also gives no answer to the question ‫מה־משׂא יהוה‬. Though the exact reasons behind his refusal of the term ‫ משׂא‬are unclear, it is nevertheless obvious that Jeremiah wished the inquirers to formulate their questions in another way (Jer. 23:35–36). That may also be the prophet’s wish in Isa. 21:12. The prophet’s reluctance to answer may also be related to the fact that the inquirers send their message from Seir (v. 11) and do not appear before him in person. It is difficult to discern the historical situation Cf. ‫ צפה‬in Ezek. 3:17, ‫ מצפה‬in Isa. 21:6 and ‫ שׁמרים‬in Isa. 62:6; Jer. 51:12. For other temporal interpretations, see Gray, 357; Galling, ‘Jesaja 21’, 60. 139 G.A. Rendsburg, ‘Linguistic Variation and the “Foreign Factor” in the Hebrew Bible’, IOS 15 (1995), 181–82; cf. Gallagher, Campaign, 52. The two verbs appearing here, ‫( בעה‬cf. Obad. 6) and ‫אתה‬, may also be Aramaisms, which makes good sense in a dialogue with foreigners. 140 Galling, ‘Jesaja 21’, 59–60; cf. Sweeney, 285. 137 138

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

109

behind this prophecy. The Edomite messengers may have visited the prophet or sent him letters. However, the entire scene might also be visionary.141 If it is right to argue that the prophet does not provide any specific response to the queries from Seir, Isa. 21:11–12 should be considered a peculiar case inside the FNPs containing general messages of doom towards the nations, in some cases supplied with prophecies of salvation. This text does not seem to reflect the aftermath of any particular Assyrian or Babylonian campaign, so that it would be difficult to suggest any specific date for this oracle. It is only because of the similarities with the content of the prophecy in 21:1–10 that I am predisposed to date it to approximately the same era.142 3.2.7 The Composition of Isaiah 21:13–17

‫ משׂא בערב‬introduces a prophecy concerning the inhabitants of the southern Syrian Desert and the northern part of the Arabian Peninsula, the remote eastern neighbours of Judah. The message of the prophecy is rather obvious, even though the text contains some problematic issues. The expression ‫ ַבּיַּ ַﬠר ַבּ ְﬠ ַרב‬is a play on words. Nevertheless, the meaning of ‫ ַבּיַּ ַﬠר‬is unclear. The idea of sleeping in the forest was also used in Ezek. 34:25, but ‫יַ ַﬠר‬, ‘forest’, is not appropriate when applied to a desert region.143 ‫ ַבּיַּ ַﬠר‬may eventually be emended to ‫ ָבּ ִﬠיר‬. Later in the prophecy, the nomads associated with Dedan, the Kederites are said to live in the cities and villages of the desert.144 ‫ ַבּ ְﬠ ַרב‬may also be vocalised as ‫ ְבּ ֶﬠ ֶרב‬, ‘in the evening’. The ambiguous meaning allows us

141

Medieval Jewish exegetes were seriously troubled by a prophet who provided answers to inquirers from Edom (Macintosh, Palimpsest, 41–42). 142 The lack of anti-Edomite feelings so characteristic of the post-exilic period may additionally support this hypothesis (Macintosh, Palimpsest, 133), although Edom may appear in a favourable light even after the exile (cf. ‫ ישׁבי סלע‬in Isa. 42:11; cf. Galling, ‘Jesaja 21’, 60). 143 It is sometimes assumed that ‫ יער‬refers to an ‘oasis’ in the desert (cf. Jer. 46:23), but ‫ יער‬is quite consistently used for ‘forest’. Eccl. 2:5–6 mentions ‫ יער‬in connection with ‫פרדס‬, both of which probably refer to royal forests rather than an oasis. For ‫פרדס‬, see also Neh. 2:8. 144 Cf. Isa. 42:11: ‫מדבר ועריו חצרים תשׁב קדר‬. For ‫ לין‬+ ‫ ב‬+ place in Isa. 21:13, cf. Gen. 19:2; 31:54; Josh. 4:3; 6:11; Judg. 19:11; Song 7:12.

110

chapter three

a secondary metaphorical interpretation.145 As a further option, ‫ערב‬ could be a geographical term (cf. ‫ לין‬+ ‫ ;בערבה‬2 Sam. 17:16). Dedan and Tema in north Arabia are not just addressed in 21:13– 14 but also appear side by side in Jer. 25:23. Strikingly, however, the related FNP in Jer. 49:28–33 mentions only Kedar and Hazor. According to Isa. 21:13b, the inhabitants of Dedan lay down peacefully in their cities in contrast to their northern brothers who flee the sword. The inhabitants of Tema are summoned to bring water and bread to these people in flight. This means that neither Dedan nor Tema are affected by the judgment. The summons ‫ קדמו נדד‬in 21:14 is possibly a word play on ‫בני־קדם‬, ‘sons of the East’, designating those living north to Dedan and Tema. ‫ בני־קדם‬is a synonym of ‫( קדר‬cf. Jer. 2:10; 49:28), attested here in 21:16–17. The unity of Isa. 21:13–17 is debated. Based on similarities with the closing verses of the Moab prophecy in 16:14, some scholars regard Isa. 21:16–17 as a secondary expansion.146 The wide ranging lexical connections between the two texts may indicate a direct relationship, yet the direction of influence is not so obvious. The phrase ‫כי־כה אמר‬ ‫ אדני אלי‬occasionally introduces a secondary expansion of a prophecy.147 One may argue that the community undergoing judgment in Isa. 21:13–15 was originally the ‫בני־קדם‬, while 21:16–17 could have been an update to the previous vision extending the judgment proclaimed earlier in 21:13–15 to the whole of north-eastern Arabia, to which the term Kedar may also refer.148 But it is also possible that ‫קדר‬, as a synonym to ‫בני־קדם‬, was the original addressee of the prophecy. In this case Isa. 21:16–17 could be integral to the text and may have influenced the formulation of Isa. 16:13–14, an obviously later addition to its present context. It is difficult to date Isa. 21:13–17. The Arabians of the Syrian Desert were intermittently involved in conflicts with Assyrians and Babylonians. Nebuchadnezzar campaigned against the Arabians in 599 (ABC 5:rev. 9). The Chaldaean king, Nabonid, lived about a decade in the region of Tema. Because the prophecy in 21:13–15 does not presup-

Cf. LXX, Vulg. For ‫ לין‬+ ‫בערב‬, cf. Gen. 32:14, 22; Josh. 8:9 (‫)בלילה‬. It should also be noted that 21:13–15 is poetry and 21:16–17 prose (Galling, ‘Jesaja 21’, 62; E.A. Knauf, ‘Kedar’, ABD 4.9; Blenkinsopp, 329–30). 147 Isa. 8:11; 30:15; Ezek. 14:21; 16:59. Cf., however, Isa. 18:4; 21:6. 148 On Kedar, see I. Eph’al, The Ancient Arabs: Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent 9th–5th Centuries bc, Jerusalem 1982, 223–27; Knauf, ‘Kedar’, 9. 145 146

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

111

pose the fall of Tema and Dedan, at least these three verses should perhaps be dated to the pre-Nabonid era. Nothing more precise can, however, be deduced from the oracles. 3.2.8 The Composition of Isaiah 22 The book of Isaiah is unique not only in including a prophecy against Jerusalem (Isa. 22:1–14) among those addressed to foreign nations but, more significantly, a prophecy addressing Judaean officials (22:15–25). As suggested earlier, the presence of Isa. 22:1–14 in 13–23 should be attributed to the fact that it already formed a unit with Isa. 21 prior to becoming part of Isa. 13–23. On the other hand there are strong correlations between 22:1–14 and 15–25, which explain the presence of Isa. 22:15–25 among the FNPs.149 Isaiah 22:1–14 While most scholars consider Isa. 22:1–14 a coherent passage, a few exegetes argue that it bears signs of expansion. For metrical reasons, Duhm regarded vv. 1–8a, 8b–9a, 9b–14 as distinctive texts.150 In the footsteps of Marti, Kaiser considered vv. 1b–4, 12–14a to be the Isaianic layer, which was supplemented around 588 by vv. 9–11a and even later by 22:5–6.151 Uncertainties arising from the temporality of the verbal forms weigh heavily in discussions regarding the unity of 22:1–14. The question is whether the prophet refers to a recent past experience (such as

149 First, ‫ אדני יהוה צבאות‬is a characteristic divine name in the book of Isaiah (3:15; 10:23, 24; 28:22), also appearing in Isa 22 in vv. 5, 12, 14, 15 (cf. Ps. 69:7; Jer. 2:19; 46:10; 49:5; 50:25, 31; mainly Jeremiah’s FNPs!). Comparable is ‫האדון יהוה‬ ‫צבאות‬, which is attested in Isa. 1:24; 3:1; 10:16, 33; 19:4. These names connect juxtaposed texts in 3:1, 15 and 10:16, 23, 24, 33. Obviously, neither Isa. 3 nor 10:5–34 are original literary units. These divine names were one of the reasons why these texts were positioned close to each other. The same is probably true in the case of Isa. 22. It is furthermore significant that the two prophecies in Isa. 22 begin with the questions ‫ה־לְּך‬ ָ ‫ ַמ‬and ‫ה־לָּך‬ ְ ‫ ַמ‬respectively. Moreover, Isa. 22:2–3 envisages the capture of Judah’s leaders by the enemy. In the final form, vv. 15–17 flesh out the prediction of 22:2–3 on one particular leader. Finally, Isa. 22:1–14 ends with the prediction that the iniquity of Judah will not be forgiven until its inhabitants all die. Strikingly, v. 15 begins with the tomb cutting of Shebna. These literary and thematic considerations explain the linking of Isa. vv. 1–14 to 15–25, as well as the presence of Shebna in the FNPs. 150 Duhm, 157. Cf. also Procksch, 276. 151 Kaiser, 114, 118–19; cf. also R.E. Clements, ‘The Prophecies of Isaiah and the Fall of Jerusalem in 587 bc’, VT 30 (1980), 430.

112

chapter three

the aftermath of 701/598/587), or predicts the fall of the city (before 701/598/587). Both the future and past-related interpretations of the prophetic word have their advocates in exegetical literature.152 As in the case of Isa. 21:1–10, a distinction needs to be made between two different temporal dimensions in 22:1–14. On one level, there is the prophet’s audience rejoicing, feasting, eating and drinking (22:13). His message to these addressees is that Yhwh will not forgive their present attitude and they will perish according to the revelation he received. This stage is set in the present and looks out towards the future. On another level, there is a different scene in which people are climbing up onto roofs. War, victims, exile, and weeping is seen and heard from this vantage point. These two scenes belong to different temporal levels; the contrast between the two is explicitly signalled in the text by ‫מה־לך אפוא‬, ‘what happened to you now’, and ‫והנה‬ in 22:13.153 Recognising these two temporal dimensions on which the actions of 22:1–14 take place, answers most problems related to the interpretation of this prophecy. Given these observations, the verses referring to the present situation and the real world of the prophet can be seen to include vv. 4 and 12–14. Vv. 1–3 and 5a(5b–9a?) belong to a description of a future event alluded to in v. 14.154 This second temporal dimension of a dark future is a pre-eventum vision (not a historical reality) which the prophet utters to his yet rejoicing audience.155 The vision of future

152 For an interpretation of vv. 1–14 as an account of past events, see NRSV, JPS, Alexander, Dillmann, König, Kaiser, Wildberger (except for 22:14), Schoors, Watts, etc. On interpreting vv. 1–14 as predictive prophecy, see NIV, Knobel, Duhm (22:1– 8a), Procksch (22:1–8a), Young. 153 ‫ והנה‬in v. 13 cannot refer here to the past (contra NRSV, JPS). V. 14 can only be understood as a prediction still needing to be accomplished. 154 Those who make no distinction between vision (future) and the reporting of the vision (present), assume that Judah was feasting after a partially lost battle (Kaiser, 113). However, Duhm, 157, rightly argues that a loss such as the one described in vv. 2–3 could have hardly been celebrated by the people. 155 The fact that we are here dealing with a vision complies well with the indication in the title of this prophecy that it concerns the Valley of Vision. ‫ גיא חזיון‬is perhaps a symbolic name for Jerusalem (Delitzsch, 254; cf. Joel 4:2, 12, 14; for Jerusalem as the inhabitant of the valley, see Jer. 21:13). As an ominous title, ‫ גיא חזיון‬may appear in deliberate contrast to the people who cannot see the approaching judgment (cf. 22:8a below and Oswalt, 405). Jerusalem, usually called Mount Zion, is here referred to as a valley. ‫ גיא חזיון‬may also allude to the valley of the (current) vision to be soon filled with soldiers (22:5; cf. ‫ עמק‬in v. 7).

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

113

doom is addressed to people having no insight into what is going on and who celebrate when they should be lamenting. The prophet foresees the presently-rejoicing nation as wailing and mourning over its captives. In contrast to the activities of a city usually full of joy (‫ ;מה־לך אפוא‬v. 1b), the people of the vision climb up onto rooftops.156 The sorrow of the seer prophet (v. 4; cf. 21:3–4) corresponds to the approaching calamities. In a vision, he sees victims fallen neither of the sword nor of death in battle, but who have been captured without a bow, while trying to flee away. All those in the city were captured without getting the chance to flee away.157 Following the description of the effects of Yhwh’s judgment, the prophet turns to provide explanation for 22:1–3, the events leading to this sorrowful episode. He proclaims a day of terror for which his audience is not preparing (22:5a). The role of the following vv. 5b–8a remains a question. If this description of Shoa, Elam, Aram, and Kir attacking Jerusalem belongs to the same vision as vv. 1–3, 5a, this would have significant consequences for dating our passage.158

156 Climbing up on the roofs (22:1) is not an expression of joy after the enemy retired (in opposition to the views of Gray, 364; Procksch, 278; Fohrer, 1.249; Kaiser, 115), nor an attempt to hide oneself from the enemy (contra Beuken, 251), but it alludes to weeping for the dead and captives (cf. Isa. 15:3; Jer. 48:38), i.e. it resonates with the negative prediction of 22:12. According to one of Sargon II’s conquest accounts, the old men and women of Urartu were weeping on the roofs after the Assyrians devastated their country (cited by Beuken, 251 n. 99). 157 Isa. 22:3 is a difficult sentence. Preferring to avoid emendations, I structure the text as follows: ‫ כל־קציניך נדדו־יחד‬/ ‫ מקשׁת אסרו‬/ ‫ כל־נמצאיך אסרו יחדו‬/ ‫מרחוק‬ ‫ברחו‬, ‘all your rulers have fled together, / (but) were captured without a bow, / all those found inside were captured together, / without away fleeing (i.e. without getting the chance to flee away; ‫ מן‬+ ‫’)מרחוק = רחוק‬. For the privative function of the preposition ‫מן‬, cf. JM §§133e, 157; WO §11.2.11e. Some believe that Isa. 22:3 refers to death caused by famine (Knobel, 150–51; Alexander, 380). But the context mentions only people in flight and taken captive, or others captured in the city. ‫ חלל‬does not imply death in itself, but may also be rendered as ‘wounded’, or perhaps even ‘victim’ (Job 24:12). 158 ‫ קר‬in v. 5 may have been chosen because of its multiple meanings. ‫קר‬, ‘shout’ (cf. Ugaritic qr), ‫קיר‬, ‘city[wall]’, and the geographical name, Kir, of Aramaean background (cf. 2 Kgs 16:9; Amos 1:5; 9:7; Gallagher, Campaign, 66 n. 180). ‫ שׁוע‬may also ַ (cf. Job 30:24; 36:19), but it also appears as the name of a mean ‘cry’ if read as ‫שׁוּע‬ people. Shoa and Peqod (Ezek. 23:23) were likewise Aramaic tribes (cf. Puqudū in Taylor Prism i 45 [BAL, 2.63]). In its present form, ‫ אדם‬is senseless and it should perhaps be emended to ‫ ארם‬as in Zech. 9:1. ‫ אדם פרשׁים‬cannot mean ‘horsemen’, as often rendered, for that would require either ‫( בעלי ]ה[פרשׁים‬2 Sam. 1:6), or ‫אנשׁי‬ ‫]ה[פרשׁים‬, or simply ‫פרשׁים‬. ‫ אדם‬cannot substitute ‫ אישׁ‬in such cases. It is unclear whether ‫ ָפ ָר ִשׁים‬is to be vocalised as ‫( פּ ָֹר ִשׂים‬cf. app. BHS; ‘Aram spreads out with

114

chapter three

It is problematic to place these verses in an 8th century context. Although we know that Aramaean tribes in Lower Mesopotamia were defeated by the Assyrians (cf. 2 Kgs 16:9; Taylor Prism i 45), the Elamite contingent in the Assyrian army does present a problem. The Elamites were allies of Babylon, and they were constantly at war with Assyria until about 596 bc. The description of an international force as in Isa. 22 corresponds better with the Babylonian army. The charioteers and horse riders of Aram and other nations appear in Ezek. 23:23–24: [I shall stir up against you] the Babylonians and all the Chaldeans, Pekod,159 Shoa and Koa (‫)פקוד ושׁוע וקוע‬, and all the Assyrians (‫)כל־בני אשׁור‬ with them, handsome young men, all of them governors and commanders, chariot officers and men of high rank, all mounted on horses. They will come against you with weapons (?), chariots and wagons and with a host of people. They will take up positions against you on every side with large and small shields and with helmets. I shall turn you over to them for punishment, and they will punish you according to their standards.160

V. 7 may belong to either 22:5b–6 or 5a.161 However, there is intense discussion concerning the meaning and role of the somewhat ambiguous v. 8a. How is the removal of Judah’s covering to be understood? It is often assumed that this verse refers to laying Jerusalem bare before the enemy.162 This interpretation of Isa. 22:8a fits the previous v. 7, mentioning the arrival of the enemy to whom Judah is supposed to be exposed. However, ‫ ויגל את מסך יהודה‬can also be interpreted as removing a blindfold (2 Sam. 17:19; cf. Isa. 25:7) from the eyes of Jerusalem which prevented it from seeing the breaches in the walls of the city of David.163 This second interpretation of 22:8a is apparently presupposed by vv. 8b–11. Yhwh removes the covering chariots’), but it is noteworthy that a few manuscripts have ‫וּפ ָר ִשׁים‬ ָ . Isa. 22:5–6 can be translated as follows: ‘Kir cries out (or ‘tears down’, cf. Num. 24:17; or ‘attacks’, from ‫ קרה‬I, cf. Deut. 25:18) / and Shoa to the hill, / Elam takes up the quiver, / Aram [comes] with chariots [and] horsemen (cf. Exod. 14:9), / and Kir uncovers the shield.’ 159 ‫ ְפּקוֹד‬appears in Jer. 50:21 as suffering judgement along with Babylon. 160 For Aramaeans and Elamites as Babylonian allies, cf. W. Pitard, ‘Arameans’, in: A. Hoerth et al. (eds), Peoples of the Old Testament World, Grand Rapids, MI 2000, 223–24. 161 The dangling wayyiqtol, ‫ויהי‬, in v. 7 is unusual for poetry (cf. Duhm, 160; Kaiser, 117). 1QIsaa has ‫ והיה‬here, which appears often (e.g., Isa. 8:8). 162 Cf. Isa. 47:2–3; Jer. 13:22, 26. Cf. Young, 2.97. Duhm emended ‫מסך‬, ‘covering’ to ‫מסד‬, ‘fundament’ (cf. Mic. 1:6), but this change is unnecessary. 163 Knobel, 152–53; Delitzsch, 257; König, 218; Procksch, 281.

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

115

from the face of Jerusalem so that it may detect its weaknesses. Yet instead of recognising the events as the workings of Yhwh and turning to him (v. 11b), Judah takes the initiative of repairing the breaches in the wall. This means that Yhwh’s efforts went unheeded. Just like Israel (Isa. 9:12; 17:10), Judah failed to recognise and return to Yhwh, and was punished as a result (Ezek. 23:11, 31). In this respect, v. 11b–c is close to later texts of Isa.164 It is clear that all these events cannot be placed on the same temporal level. Isa. 22:8b–11 sounds like a retrospective description of the past and as a reproach addressed to Jerusalem. The perspective of vv. 1–5a(5b–7), 12–14, which proclaim an imminent future judgment on the Valley of Vision, is obviously different.165 Consequently, one should distinguish not only vv. 1–5a(7–8a) and 12–14 from vv. 5b–6(7–8a), which represents an early New Babylonian period expansion, but one may recognise a further exilic text looking back upon the past of Judah and reproaching blindness as the cause of its destruction. What we see here is that the motif of removing Judah’s covering in v. 8a was originally understood as the exposure of Jerusalem before the enemy but was reinterpreted by vv. 8b–11 as the removal of a blindfold. This reinterpretation provides the background for the different focus of 22:8b–11.166 V. 12 connects well with v. 5a. On the day of devastation, Jerusalem will be summoned to lament and mourn. Vv. 13–14 contrasts the present tumult and sphere of joy with the lament required in view of the coming judgment, performed here as an ominous sign by the seer prophet (22:4).

164 Isa. 37:26 contains a close parallel to v. 11b–c: ‫ למרחוק אותה עשׂיתי‬/ ‫ מימי קדם‬/ ‫ויצרתיה עתה‬. Note the fem. suffixes in both texts. In Isa. 22:11, these suffixes can also

be related to the city, but in 37:26 they refer to the historical events. These verses are also closely related to Isa. 46:10; 48:3, 5. 165 Driver noted that if 22:5b is read as an account of the past, the measures taken in 22:9b would be incomprehensible. It is not likely that a city wall would be repaired during the war, when the valley is full of soldiers, an interpretation required if 22:5b is read as a past narrative. Nor would the acts described in 22:10–11 comply with the feasting of the community in 22:14. Emerton passed over this difficulty too easily. Cf. J.A. Emerton, ‘Notes on the Text and Translation of Isaiah xxii 8–11 and lxv 5’, VT 30 (1980), 442. 166 A similar reinterpretation of the blindness theme appears in Isa. 29:15–24. For more on this topic, see Balogh, ‘Blind People’, 48–69. The blindness of the people is one of the favourite motifs of the book of Isaiah (see, e.g., Isa. 5:12; 6:9, 10; 9:1; 17:7–8; 28:7; 29:15, 18, 23; 30:10, 20; 32:3; 35:5; 42:18–25; 50:10).

116

chapter three

In exegetical research Isa. 22:1–14 is often dated to after167 or immediately before168 the Assyrian campaign of 701 bc. Procksch and Oswalt associate the prophecy with 711, when Ashdod was captured.169 Young asserts that Isa. 22:1–14 predicted the conquest of Jerusalem by Babylon, but was written in the 8th century bc.170 Recently, it has become common to view 22:1–14 as telescoping events from both 701 and 587.171 Clearly, the nature of 22:1–5a.(7–8a) as an anticipatory vision addressing a rejoicing Judaean community before its collapse (vv. 4, 12–14), makes it difficult to compare the events of the vision with the historical facts. The most we can say is that the primary layer of the prophecy is well-suited to the time of Isaiah. However, the Chaldaean contingents in the Aramaean and Elamite forces mentioned in 22:5b–6(7–8a) (cf. 2 Kgs 24:2) suggest a pre-596 period. Judaean leaders were taken captive during the Babylonian assault on Jerusalem in 598. This situation could have been considered the fulfilment of the earlier vision of 22:2–3 by the author of this secondary interpolation. Vv. 22:8b–11 in which Judah is reproached for not being vigilant in spite of God’s warnings, reflect on the Babylonian invasion from a post-event and exilic perspective. In conclusion, (a) the present position of Isa. 22:1–14 in the context of the FNPs is the result of editorial work. Regarding the integrity of this pericope, we should distinguish between an earlier cluster, vv. 1–5a(7–8a), 12–14, expanded by vv. 5b–6(7–8a) and by vv. 8b–11 respectively. (b) The themes prominent elsewhere in Isa. 13–23, like the plan of Yhwh, the motif of hubris, the remnants, etc., do not appear in 22:1– 14. Instead of security in Zion, Isa. 22:9a emphasises the insecurity of the city of David. This lack of common subject is telling. In inserting

167 Kaiser, 116; Gray, 364; Fohrer, 1.249; Schoors, 130; Wildberger, 813; Clements, ‘Fall of Jerusalem’, 429. 168 Dillmann, 197–98; Watts, 281, 284; Gallagher, Campaign, 66–72. Gallagher assumes that 22:1–8a refers to Babylon (rather than Jerusalem), the city welcoming Sennacherib in 704 after his defeat of Merodach-baladan II in the battle of Kish. His conclusion are mostly based on the present position of Isa. 22 following a prophecy on Babylon (Isa. 21). Gallagher’s interpretation of 22:1–14 as a vision, yet also conforming to precise historical realities, remains one of the perplexing problems of his approach (Campaign, 73 n. 207). 169 Procksch, 277; Oswalt, 408. 170 Young, 2.88. 171 This opinion, formulated already by Calvin and Vitringa, has been adopted by Clements, Oswalt, Bosshard-Nepustil as well as others.

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

117

Isa. 22 into the present collection, the editors may have been guided by the ‫משׂא‬-title and the theme of the day of Yhwh in 22:5a. (c) The primary prophecy, 22:1–5a(7–8a), 12–14, goes back to the 8th century. The first expansion, 22:5b–6(7–8a), probably derives from shortly before 596. A second addition of 22:8b–11, partially modifying the topic of the prophecy, bears the signs of the Babylonian exile. Isaiah 22:15–25 Isa. 22:15–25 is concerned with two individuals from Jerusalem: Shebna and Eliakim ben Hilkiah. It was argued above that this prophecy was connected with 22:1–14 before its inclusion into Isa. 13–23. Shebna is called ‫ הסכן‬and ‫אשׁר על־הבית‬, the highest official of the royal court, an office to be received by Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, after Shebna is shamefully replaced and deported to a foreign land. As the name Shebna also appears in Isa. 36:3, 11, 22; 37:2,172 scholars usually identify the two figures. This identification is, however, problematic. In Isa. 36–37, Shebna is a ‫ספר‬, ‘scribe’, and Eliakim ben Hilkiah, is ‫אשׁר־על־הבית‬. The idea that Shebna may have been degraded to a scribe,173 however widely shared, is hardly more than speculation, given the lack of serious support. It is doubtful whether historically speaking a governor could ever be demoted to a scribe. Unless we assume that ‫ ספר‬is a wrong variant for ‫סכן‬, it remains difficult to identify the two persons. As an alternative, it has also been suggested that ‫ על־שׁבנא אשׁר על־הבית‬following ‫ אל־הסכן הזה‬was a later gloss in the prophecy.174 However, v. 15 has a good parallel in this respect in Isa. 36:6. Even though the syntax of Isa 22:15 is rather unusual,175 the name of Shebna must have been related to the prophecy from the beginning.176 The name Shebna appears on a seal in Louvre with the inscription ‫לשׁבניו עבד עזיו‬, ‘Belonging to Shebnayaw, servant of Uzziyaw’ (COS 2.70R). Shebna is called an officer of (most likely) king Uzziah of Judah.177 ‫ שׁבנא‬is rendered consistently with ‫ א‬in Isa, but appears twice with ‫ ה‬in 2 Kgs 18:18, 26. Its original form was probably ‫( שׁבניהו‬cf. Wildberger, 836–37). 173 Knobel, 156; J.T. Willis, ‘Historical Issues in Isaiah 22,15–25’, Bib. 74 (1993), 64–65; P.K. McCarter, ‘The Royal Steward Inscription’ (COS 2.54). 174 Cf. Duhm, 163; Wildberger, 833; Clements, ‘Fall of Jerusalem’, 432. 175 ‫ כה אמר אדני יהוה‬is probably a misplaced introductory sentence for the prophecy in 22:16 (which is missing in the present form of the prophecy) and not the introduction to the commission of the prophet. 176 Fohrer suggested that the name of Shebna was filled in from Isa. 36–37, ‘den man dort bereits zum bloßen Schreiber degradiert sah’ (1.253). But how did these editors know that Shebna in Isa. 36–37 was an officer removed from the post of royal overseer if 22:15 had nothing to do with him? 177 Regarding the Assyrian-styled imagery of this seal, see S. Dalley, ‘Recent Evidence from Assyrian Sources for Judaean History from Uzziah to Manasseh’, JSOT 28 (2003–2004), 389. 172

118

chapter three Another text (KAI 1.191B; COS 2.54) is the well-known Silwan inscription, found on a grave hewn from a rock in the Kidron Valley. The inscription reads: ‫[יהו אשר על הבית‬. . . ‫זאת]קרבת‬, ‘This is [the tomb of . . .]yahu, who is over the house’. Kyle dated the inscription paleographically to between the end of the 8th and beginning of the 7th century bc (COS 2.54). Since Eliakim, the steward from Isa. 36–37,178 does not bear a Yahwistic name, the possessor of this grave may have been his predecessor, Shebna also appearing in Isa. 22:15.179

The literary unity of 22:15–25 is a matter of debate. Vv. 15–19 are concerned with Shebna’s fall and deportation, while vv. 20–24 mark the emergence of a new steward, Eliakim, son of Hilkiah. V. 25 then portrays the fall of Eliakim. The question whether these verses could all have been pronounced on one occasion is often answered negatively by exegetes, and not without reason. The least dispute concerns 22:25, which is generally accepted not to be a foreseeable conclusion to the pronouncement on the election of Eliakim. Those who argue for the contrary must make some unwarrantedly daring and unconvincing assumptions that do not appeal to even the least critical scholars.180 Some exegetes maintain that one can also distinguish 22:15–19 from 22:20–23, or 22:15–18 from 22:19–23.181 It should be noted that v. 19 contains a prophecy formulated in the 1st person in contrast to vv. 15–18. Furthermore, the removal of Shebna from his office in 22:19 constitutes an anti-climax to vv. 17–18, which mention his exile.182

178 For Eliakim’s family, one may mention the seal ‘Belonging to Yehozarah, son of Hilqiyahu, servant of Hizqiyahu’ (COS 2.70R). 179 The prophetic question ‘whom do you have here’ in 22:16 (cf. Gen. 25:8, 17; 49:33) suggests that Shebna had no relatives in the necropolis of old Jerusalem. This complies well with the second half of the Silwan-inscription, which mentions only a maid servant buried in the same chamber. Isa. 22:16cd may cite a well-known proverb which was secondarily applied to the situation of the royal steward. But even if Shebna of the inscriptions is different from the person mentioned in Isa. 22:15, one may argue that the name Shebna was not so uncommon that it would require us identifying Shebna in Isa. 22:15 with Shebna of Isa. 36–37. Note also the inscription lnrʾ šbnʾ, ‘belonging to Nera, (son of ) Shebna’, on a private impression among the lmlk stamps dating to a time before 701 (M. Lubetski, ‘Beetlemania of Bygone Times’, JSOT 91 [2000], 24). 180 E.g., Knobel, 159, and Dillmann, 207 (following Rashi and Qimchi), assume that the closing verse(s) refer(s) again to Shebna and not Eliakim. König, 221–22, argued that vv. 24–25 should be interpreted as a conditional prediction: ‘Should it be that . . .’. However, 22:24 and 25 appear as two syntactically unrelated sentences. Cf. also Willis, ‘Historical Issues’, 67 n. 24. 181 For the first view, see Wildberger, 840, 844, although he also considered 22:19 secondary compared to 22:15–18. For the second view, see Duhm, 163. 182 Duhm, 164; Wildberger, 840, 844.

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

119

The interchange of the 1st and 3rd person forms should not, however, lead to the conclusion that 22:15–18 is earlier than the rest of the prophecy. In v. 19, both the 1st and 3rd person forms appear in two parallel verse lines. One argument that would point towards a possible unity of the passage is related to the genre of vv. 15–23 as a destitution oracle. These types of texts not only deal with the removal of an unfaithful official, but in some cases also clarify the identity (though not the name) of the newly elected.183 Nevertheless, two problems regarding this interpretation cannot be overlooked. First, even though v. 19 is not necessarily in logical contradiction with vv. 17–18, the text still sounds strange in its place, suggesting that it is a secondary addition.184 Second, the foreseen fate of Shebna is that he will be cast out and sent into exile. If this prophecy is read as a pre-eventum text (which I believe is most appropriate), the prediction would imply that, by the time Shebna is exiled to Assyria, Eliakim is alive and well. However, it is likely that Shebna’s deportation should be related to the envisaged fate of the entire Judah (cf. Amos 7:17). Assigning Eliakim the function of overseer of the palace might seem odd in a context where Judah is also exiled. This leads us to conclude that 22:19 and following should be read separately from the previous verses. There are two possibilities to explain 22:19–24. If the prophecy is concerned with the person of Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, the text may have functioned similarly to dynastic oracles. In the Near East the installation of officers was more than a political endeavour, and prophets and mantics usually joined other dignitaries in the process of inauguration. Another scenario is also possible, however. Isa. 22:19–24 is not an independent oracle addressed to Eliakim during the ceremony marking his promotion. These verses can only be understood in the context of the earlier prophecy against Shebna. The motifs of 22:19–24 are also directly related to the previous verses.185 This implies that v. 24 belongs

183

Note, e.g., 1 Sam. 15:28–29; 1 Kgs 11:31; 14:7–14; Isa. 3:1–5. V. 19, which mentions the ‘pushing away’ of Shebna and ‘crushing’ or ‘ruining’ him (‫ )הרס‬in his post, does not allow us to assume that he was simply assigned a ‘lower’ office of a scribe (contra Duhm, 164; Wildberger, 840). Being the scribe of a king was still a very significant position at the royal court, incongruent with the fall of Shebna proclaimed in Isa. 22. 185 Eliakim is clearly presented as the countertype to Shebna. Shebna is called ‫קלון‬ ‫בית אדניך‬, ‘disgrace of your master’s house’ (v. 18), while Eliakim is ‫כסא כבוד לבית‬ 184

120

chapter three

to vv. 19–23 and is not an independent addition. Isa. 22:24 does not speak of nepotism in the dynasty of Eliakim, as often understood.186 It assumes that all important and less important affairs of the royal house will rest on the shoulders of Eliakim, as the previous verse ascribes him authority over the palace. Wildberger noted that the firm place (‫ )מקום נאמן‬assigned to this ruler, reminds one of the dynastic promises addressed to David in 2 Sam. 7.187 The relationship between Shebna and Eliakim is similar to the one between Saul and David, or Abiathar and Zadok. Just as in those cases, Isa. 22:19–24 may be concerned with more than just one particular person in the monarchic administration of Judah. It may attest to the divine establishment of and support for a dynasty of royal overseers (servants?) in Judah after the 8th century bc.188 The status of Eliakim, the new ‫אשׁר על־הבית‬, is presented as very significant. ‫ יתד‬and ‫ כסא‬in v. 23 are royal symbols (cf. Zech. 10:14). The idea that Eliakim would become a ‘throne’ may refer to a time when this functionary had to fulfil the duty of a king. There were two periods when the top palace official had such power: during the temporary exile of King Manasseh in Assyria (2 Chron. 33:11–13) and during the rule of Gedaliah, the last overseer of Judah, whose family included three generations of high officials in service of the Judaean royal house (although not ‫ ;אשׁר על־הבית‬2 Kgs 22:3, 12; 25:22).189 The final v. 25, which is introduced by a ‫ביום ההוא‬, was written in response to the end of Eliakim’s dynasty, possibly in the early exilic period. ‫ המשׂא‬may allude ambiguously to the superscription in 22:1, so that 22:25 considered 22:15–24 the fulfilment of the speech concerning the deportation of the leaders mentioned in 22:3.

‫אביו‬, ‘throne of honour of his father’s house’ (v. 23). In contrast to the usual interpretation of this text, I believe ‫ אב‬does not refer to the ancestor father, nor the family of Eliakim, but to the king (Gen. 45:8; 2 Kgs 5:13; Isa. 9:5; cf. also 1 Mac 11:32). ‫בית‬ ‫ אביו‬is in this sense a synonym of ‫( בית אדניך‬v. 18) and ‫ בית־דוד‬in which Eliakim will become the overseer (‫)אשׁר על־הבית‬. 186

Delitzsch, 263; Fohrer, 1.255; Schoors, 137; Willis, ‘Historical Issues’, 67. Wildberger, 845. 188 For suggestions in this direction, see Wildberger, 846. 189 Cf. also the bulla from Lachish, ‘Belonging to Gedalyahu, overseer of the royal house (‫( ’)אשׁר על הבית‬COS 2.70D). With king Jehoiachin as the legitimate heir in captivity, Gedaliah fulfilled the task of a king in Judah. We know from 2 Kgs 25:25 that at least the party of Elishama, of royal origin (‫)מזרע המלוכה‬, was not particularly delighted with the decision of the Babylonians to appoint Gedaliah as governor. This may explain the importance of the legitimising oracle in Isa. 22:19–24. 187

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

121

To recapitulate the above, (a) as it was the case in Isa. 22:1–14, the subsection 22:15–25 is composed of an Isaianic text (vv. 15–18) that was subsequently supplemented by vv. 19–24 and updated by v. 25. (b) From a theological viewpoint, it is important to mention the motif of ‫ כבוד‬in (vv. 18, 23, 24), as well as the theme of hubris (v. 16). The day of judgment will be the day of humiliation for Jerusalem (vv. 1–14), including its most prominent figures (vv. 15–18). (c) From a historical point of view, Isa. 22:15–18 goes back to the 8th century bc, but vv. 19–24 derive from a later period. As has been argued, these verses provide the legitimising background not only for Eliakim but also for his descendants, so that vv. 19–24 may be dated to the 7th or early 6th centuries, at any rate before 587 bc. V. 25 comes from the exilic era. 3.2.9

The Composition of Isaiah 23

Isa. 23, a prophecy concerning Tyre, is one of the most difficult passages in Isa. 13–23 and presents a real challenge to the interpreter, even in places where the reading is fairly clear. Although it is not necessary to take a position on every textual issue, some do have implications for understanding Isa. 13–23. The phrase ‫ כי־שׁדד מבית‬in 23:1 can be rendered as ‘for it is destroyed so that no house is left’, with ‫ מן‬having a privative sense.190 ‫ִמבּוֹא ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ‬ ‫ ִכּ ִתּים‬can only be translated as ‘so that one may not enter from the land of Kittim’,191 but this translation leaves ‫ נגלה־למו‬unexplained. The same is true if ‫ ִמבּוֹא‬is connected to the previous line.192 Therefore, ‫ ִמבּוֹא‬should be changed into ‫ ָמבוֹא‬, ‘entrance’, yielding ‫ָמבוֹא מארץ‬ ‫כתים‬, ‘the entrance/harbour from the land of Kittim’. Approaching from the sea, Tyre was the harbour city of Asia.193 ‫ נגלה־למו‬does not

190

Cf. Isa. 7:8; 17:1; A. van der Kooij, The Oracle of Tyre: The Septuagint of Isaiah XXIII as Version and Vision (VT.S, 71), Leiden 1998, 21, 195. 191 Cf. 1 Sam. 25:33; Isa. 24:10. The temporal translations ‘when/as they came from the land of Kittim’ (NRSV; cf. JPS; Procksch, 295; Kaiser, 130; Wildberger, 855) would require the forms ‫( בבאם‬1 Sam. 16:6; 18:6; 2 Chron. 20:10; Ezra 2:68; Ezek. 44:17, 21; 46:10) or ‫( כבאם‬2 Kgs 6:20; Jer. 41:7). 192 Van der Kooij interprets ‫ מן‬in both cases as privative: ‘it is laid waste, so that there is no house to enter any more’ (Tyre, 21, 195). However, this would require *‫ ִמ ַבּיִ ת ָלבוֹא‬. Isa. 24:10 has a different syntax (contra Van der Kooij). 193 In Ezek. 27:3 Tyre’s location is ‫( על־מבואת ים‬cf. Assurbanipal’s Prism A ii 48–50). Note also that the gate of Jerusalem leading to the land of the tribe of Benjamin was called ‫( שׁער בנימן‬Jer. 37:13).

122

chapter three

refer to the revelation of news to Tyrean seafarers, as this passage is usually explained.194 ‫ גלה‬means ‘to lay bare’ as in Mic. 1:6 or Ezek. 13:14. ‫ נגלה‬offers a good parallel to ‫( שׁדד‬also pass. in sense). ‫למו‬ does not refer to the enemy, seafarers or Tarshish ships, but to Tyre itself: ‫[ נגלה־למו‬. . .] ‫מבוא‬, ‘the entrance / harbour [. . .] was laid bare to them’, i.e.: ‘their harbour was laid bare’.195 Isa. 23:1 is rendered as: ‘Wail is you, ships of Tarshish, for it was destroyed so that no house is left; the entrance (harbour city) from the land of Kittim was laid bare to them.’ The phrase ‫ כאשׁר־שׁמע למצרים יחילו כשׁמע צר‬in v. 5 is also difficult. ‫ כאשׁר‬is usually followed by a verb, but Isa. 26:9 provides one example where the verb is implicit. If this is also the case in 23:5, we have two ways to interpret v. 5. (1) ‘When the news (probably the words of Tyre in v. 4) (comes) to Egypt, they will wail as Tyre (wailed) on account of the news (cf. ‫ חיל‬in v. 4).’ Egypt as an outsider, but in close contact with Tyre (23:3), fulfils a role similar to the other witnesses.196 (2) A further possibility is to take ‫ שׁמע למצרים‬as a genitival construction, ‘the news concerning Egypt’. In this case the meaning of v. 5 would be: ‘As they were wailing (‫ )יחילו‬about the news concerning Egypt, so (will they be wailing) about the news concerning Tyre.’ If we presuppose that ‫ חיל‬in vv. 4 and 5 is used in the same sense,197 then v. 5 may be interpreted as follows: as one (Egypt/Tyre) was wailing when one heard the news of Egypt’s advancing destruction (cf. Isa. 19), so would one (Tyre) be wailing about the news of Tyre’s approaching calamity. This reading would fit v. 4 well, which describes Tyre as the one who has never wailed.

194 Cf. Kaiser, 133; Young, 2.123; Wildberger, 870; R. Lessing, Interpreting Discontinuity: Isaiah’s Tyre Oracle (Ph.D. diss.), Saint Louis 2001, 190. 195 The idea that Tyre is transformed into a bare rock also appears in the Tyrus prophecy of Ezek. 26:4, 14 (cf. ‫)סלע לצחיח‬. 196 This may be compared to Assyrian inscriptions that express the fear felt by a nation when learning about the destruction of others. Sargon’s Nimrud Prism (ln. 35) relates the fear of the Cypriots when they heard of Sargon’s deeds against the Chaldaeans and Hittites by stating that ‘their hearts palpitated, fright fell upon them’. 197 In 23:4 Sidon (Phoenicia) is summoned to be ashamed of what Tyre (‫)מעוז הים‬ has to say: ‘I have never laboured (‫)לא־חלתי‬, never given birth, never raised youths, or reared maidens’. The sentence can hardly refer to childlessness (contra Alexander, 395; Delitzsch, 265; Kaiser, 134; Oswalt, 431). Tyre is presented as a young woman, a virgin (cf. ‫בתולת בת־צידון‬, ‘the virgin daughter of Sidon [i.e. Phoenicia]’ in 23:12) who has not yet experienced the pain of giving birth (‫)חיל‬. The childbirth imagery metaphorically represents a city in anguish before the enemy.

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

123

V. 13, crucial in placing Isa. 23 historically, is the most controversial passage of the entire pericope. its present form, 23:13 refers to the destruction of Chaldea by the Assyrians. The reference to Chaldea is, however, strange in this context. Several solutions have been proposed to make sense of [‫הן ארץ כשׂדים זה העם לא היה ]אשׁור‬. One of the frequent suggestions is that ‫ זה העם לא היה אשׁור‬is a gloss which corrected expectations that Assyria would destroy Tyre.198 However, such a gloss that explicitly denies a previous interpretation in favour of a new one would be unusual for the Old Testament. Furthermore, while the syntax of the phrase ‫ זה העם לא היה אשׁור‬can be interpreted as ‘this is the people, it was not Assyria’ (cf. 2 Chron. 18:32), the remaining ‫ יסדה לציים‬would have no connections in this verse. It is more likely that the phrase division should be located between ‫ אשׁור‬and ‫היה‬. Without emendations and glosses, the expression ‫זה העם לא היה‬ can be interpreted in two different ways. (1) By rendering ‫זה העם‬ ‫ לא היה‬as ‘this (is the) people199 (that) is no more’ (i.e. ceased to exist),200 the destruction of Chaldea is assumed to have been caused by the Assyrians. ‘They (the Assyrians) raised their (?) siege towers and demolished its palaces; it (Assyria) turned it into a desert.’201 Why speak of the destruction of Chaldea in the context of a prophecy against Tyre? LXX provides an attractive way to interpret the passage. The Greek translators connected vv. 12 and 13, and understood ‫הן‬ not as an interjection but a signifier of a conditional clause (which is grammatically possible): ‘If (ἐὰν) you went to Kittim, there would be no rest for you; if (‫ )הן‬to the land of Chaldea, even that is laid waste by the Assyrians and there would be no rest for you (either), for its walls are fallen’. In 23:12b–13, Tyre, the daughter of Sidon (see below), is offered two alternatives to ‘escape’ the disaster. Plan A: Flee to Kittim, but you will not be safe there. Plan B: Behold, the land of Chaldea (as a possible ally?); but Assyria has utterly destroyed it, too. The land of

198

Alexander, 399; Gray, 394; Berges, 158; Gallagher, Campaign, 74. For ‫זה העם‬, ‘this people’, cf. Rendsburg, ‘Linguistic Variation’, 185. 200 For this sense of ‫לא היה‬, observe Isa. 15:6; Jer. 14:5 (cf. ‫ לא־היה דשׁא‬with ‫כי־אין‬ ‫ עשׂב‬in 14:6; for ‫לא היה = אין‬, see also Dan. 8:4, 7); Obad. 16 (?). 201 In this case, the verbs and suffixes referring to Assyria are masc. (sg. and pl.) in contrast to the fem. suffixes referring to ‫ארץ כשׂדים‬. Consequently, the subject of ‫ הקימו‬and ‫( עררו‬pl.) may be the Assyrians (cf. also Van der Kooij, Tyre, 31; Lessing, Tyre, 185 n. 26). ‫ בחוניו‬is assumed to refer to the siege-towers of the Assyrians rather than the watchtowers of Chaldea. 199

124

chapter three

Kittim in the west and the land of Chaldea in the east (cf. Jer. 2:10) offer no way to escape from the hand of Yhwh. The destruction of Tyre is unavoidable. (2) If ‫ זה העם לא היה‬is rendered as ‘this (is the) people (that) was not (before)’, we must assume that Isa. 23:13 refers to the destruction of two different cities: ‘Behold, the land of Chaldaeans!—This people that was not, Assyria had destined it (the land of Chaldea) to the desert animals.—(the Chaldeans) raised (or will raise) their (?) siege towers and demolished (or will demolish) her (Tyre’s) palaces; they turned (or will turn) her into a desert.’ To reiterate, the destruction of Chaldea by the Assyrians mentioned in Isa. 23:13 either exemplifies the future fate of Tyre or explains the sudden emergence of Chaldea threatening the nations of Canaan lying within the domain of its power. The unity of Isa. 23 is almost universally recognised as secondary. Vv. 1–14 discuss the collapse of Tyre; vv. 15–18 relate its re-emergence. The fact that these two texts were written with different concerns is well-recognised. More than that, the coherence of vv. 1–14 has been subject to debate as well. The reason for this is the assumed change in the addressees of vv. 1–14. Some scholars have argued that, in its earlier stage, Isa. 23 was a prophecy concerned with Sidon, but it was later reinterpreted as a prophecy against Tyre, a rereading which left its marks on the composition.202 Other scholars consider 23:1–14 to be directed against the whole Phoenician coast.203 Clearly, the problem concerning the literary unity of 23:1–14 is closely linked with the identity of the addressees. Two issues need to be discussed here: the reference of the name Sidon and the identity of those addressed in the 2nd and 3rd person forms. As for the first question, ‘Sidon’ may be used with two distinctive meanings. It may refer to the city Sidon, or it may designate southern Phoenicia, as evidenced by other Israelite, Phoenician, and Greek sources.204 In Isa. 23, Sidon is not the name of a city alone but of

202

Kaiser, 132; Vermeylen, 1.342. Knobel 163–64; Delitzsch, 265; Dillmann, 210; Wildberger, 860. Fohrer argued that vv. 1b–4 were directed against Sidon, vv. 6–9 against Tyre, and vv. 10–14 against Phoenicia (1.258). See, however, Isa. 23:5, 12. 204 The father of Jezebel, Ethba’al I, is called in 1 Kgs 16:31 ‘the king of the Sidonians’ (‫)מלך צידנים‬, even though he was ruling in Tyre. The same can be observed in the 8th century. Tiglath-pileser III refers to Hiram II (738–730) as the king of 203

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

125

southern Phoenicia, including the cities of the Tyro-Sidonian kingdom (23:2, 4, 12). For a certain period Tyre was the centre of the Sidonian kingdom, which included the territory between Dor in the south and Sidon in the north. Tiglath-pileser III makes no mention of Sidon as an independent state. Sargon II’s inscriptions only mention ‘Shilta of Tyre’, a loyal Assyrian vassal.205 Sidon is referred to by Sennacherib as a city in the position formerly occupied by Tyre. The accounts of Sennacherib’s third campaign mention Lulī šar uru Ṣidunni, ‘Luli king of Sidon’. uru Ṣidunni may be used here as the name of southern Phoenicia.206 Lulī may be identical with Ἐλουλαῖος mentioned by Ant. ix 283–87, a king ruling in Tyre.207 In this case, the territory of Luli included the entire region ascribed to Tyrean kings in other texts: Great and Small Sidon, Ushu (Old Tyre), Akku, Zariptu (both given to Ba’al, king of Tyre by Esarhaddon), Mahalliba (the fortified city of Hiram during Tiglath-pileser III; COS 2.117F). It is possible that the title ‘king of Sidon’ was deliberately chosen by the Assyrian scribes instead of the earlier ‘king of Tyre’, because Sennacherib failed to capture Tyre. Tubaʾalu, the vassal king he installed as Luli’s ‘successor’, is also called the king of Sidon (cf. BAL, 2.67). Bunnens assumes that it is this Assyrian policy which led to a split-up of the former Tyro-Sidonian kingdom.208 Sidon becomes the centre of the proAssyrian government, while the island Tyre retains its independence. In the early years of Esarhaddon, we meet a rebellious but later submissive king of Tyre (Ba’alu) and another anti-Assyrian king of Sidon (Abdimilkutti), who will be decapitated. Abdi-milkutti’s former territories are entrusted to Tyre again.

As for the second question, a close reading of Isa. 23 reveals a distinction between those addressed in the 2nd person and those spoken Tyre, while the same king is called king of the Sidonians (mlk ṣdnm) on a Phoenician inscription (W.A. Ward, ‘Tyre’, OEANE 5.248). 205 Since šlṭ may mean ‘ruler’, ‘Shilta’ could be a title rather than a personal name (cf. Pir’u of Egypt). N. Na’aman, ‘Sargon II and the Rebellion of the Cypriot Kings against Shilta of Tyre’, in: Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction, Winona Lake, IN 2005, 118–28. 206 The determinatives uru, ‘city’ and kur, ‘land’ may occasionally be interchanged. uru Yaḫ udu (Judah) is also attested in the Assyrian inscriptions. 207 This is corroborated by Sennacherib’s Bull Inscription 4 (BAL, 2.69), according to which Luli took flight ultu qereb uru ṣurri, ‘from inside the city Tyre’. Ἐλουλαῖος / Luli may eventually be identical with ‘Shilta’ (contra Na’aman, ‘Shilta’, 125). If Tyre was ruled by another pro-Assyrian ‘Shilta’, a contemporary of Luli, as Na’aman suggested, the act of Sennacherib, nominating a new vassal king, and entrusting him the entire mainland region of the former Tyrean kingdom, would be more difficult to explain. 208 G. Bunnens, ‘L’histoire événementielle partim Orient’, in: V. Krings (ed.), La civilisation phénicienne et punique: Manuel de recherche (HO, 1/20), Leiden 1995, 230.

126

chapter three

of in the 3rd person.209 For the 2nd person (vocative) form, cf. ‫אניות‬ ‫( תרשׁישׁ‬23:1), ‫( ישׁבי אי‬23:2, 6), ‫( מלאוך‬23:2), ‫( צידון‬23:4), ‫( לכם‬23:7), ‫( בת־תרשׁישׁ‬23:10). Tyre, whose fall is pictured in the prophecy, is referred to quite consistently by 3rd person suffixes, prepositions and verbs: ‫( שׁדד‬23:1), ‫( למו‬23:1),210 ‫( תבואתה‬23:3), ‫( ותהי‬23:3),211 ‫אמר‬ (23:4), ‫( קדמתה‬23:7), ‫( יבלוה רגליה‬23:7), ‫( סחריה‬23:8), ‫( כנעניה‬23:8). The metaphors ‫( מבוא‬23:1; emended text), ‫( עבר ים|סחר צידון‬23:2),212 ‫( ים‬23:4), ‫( מעוז הים‬23:4),213 ‫( עליזה‬23:7), ‫( נכבדי־ארץ‬23:9), ‫מזח‬ (23:10), ‫( מעוז‬23:11?, 14) all refer to Tyre. The city Tyre is destroyed and deported to a far off land. But the direct addressees of the text are not identical with those undergoing judgment. The 2nd person message is addressed to Tyre’s former friends and mates, summoned as witnesses to moan, wail, be ashamed, cross over to or go through their land.214 This distinction between Tyre and its friends (larger Phoenicia, the Mediterranean region and Egypt) is essential to understand Isa. 23, and it offers a fairly consistent pattern for reading this prophecy. 209 One exception appears in v. 12, where Tyre is addressed in the 2nd person. This is a particular case, however, for here it is Yhwh (and not the prophet) speaking to Tyre, which means that it belongs to a different rhetorical level. In principle, ‫ בתולת בת־צידון‬can refer to both Sidon and Sidon’s (= Phoenicia’s) ‘daughter’, i.e. Tyre. With ‫ צידון‬as the name of Phoenicia, v. 12 resembles constructions like ‫בתולת‬ ‫( בת־יהודה‬Lam. 1:15), ‫( בת־כשׂדים‬Isa. 47:1; cf. there ‫) בתולת בת־בבל‬. For ‘the virgin daughter of Sidon (Phoenicia)’, see later Phoenician coins referring to Sidon as ʾmṣr, ‘the mother of Tyre’. 210 The fact that the name of Tyre is avoided at the beginning does not pose any problem if the prophecy originally contained a superscription. Note also that 23:1–14 is interpreted as a prophecy on Tyre in 23:15–18. 211 This is a 3rd fem. sg., just like the suffix of the previous ‫בוּא ָתהּ‬ ָ ‫ ְתּ‬. ‘She (Tyre) has become a profit for the nations.’ ‘Merchant of the nations’ would require the vocalisation ‫( ס ֵֹחר גּוֹיִ ם‬cf. Knobel, 164). 212 ‫ ִמ ְלאוְּך‬is a problematic term in 23:2. For the Massoretic ‫ע ֵֹבר יָ ם ִמ ְלאוְּך‬, ‘the one who crosses over the sea has filled you’ (= 1QIsab; cf. Vulg., Syr., Tg. Isa.), 1QIsaa has ‫ עברו ים מלאכיך‬and 4QIsaa ‫עברו ים מלאך‬. 1QIsaa and 4QIsaa are textual corrections rather than representatives of a more reliable textual tradition. The reading provided by MT does make sense in its present form (cf. Van der Kooij, Tyre, 21). However, ‫ עבר ים‬refers here to the Tyrean seafarers (like ‫)סחר צידון‬, while the sg. 2 suffix in ‫ מלאוך‬refers to ‫ישׁבי אי‬, the inhabitants of the coastland (Phoenicia / Sidon), addressed in the second person. This structuring also means that ‫ ובמים רבים‬goes with 23:3 as follows: ‫ ובמים רבים זרע שׁחר‬/ ‫ קציר יאור תבואתה‬/ ‫ותהי סחר גוים‬. 213 ‫ מעוז‬resonates with Uzu of EA 148:11, 30; 149:49 (cf. Ušu in Assyrian and ʿt̠ in Egyptian), the name of Old Tyre. Cf. also ‫ מבצר־צר‬in Josh. 19:29; 2 Sam. 24:7. For ‫ים‬ ‫ מעוז הים‬in 23:4, cf. ‫ על־יאור על־פי יאור‬in Isa. 19:7. 214 The emendation of ‫ עברי ארצך‬into ‫עבדי ארצך‬, ‘till your land’ (cf. 1QIsaa, the LXX) is unnecessary, for ‫ ארץ‬cannot substitute for ‫( אדמה‬Van der Kooij, Tyre, 197). V. 6 also refers to crossing over to Tarshish, and v. 12 to Kittim. Wandering through the homeland is an act of mourning (cf. Isa. 15).

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

127

While 23:1–7, 10, 14 calls Tyre’s friends to lament on the destruction of the city, vv. 8–9, 11, 12a, 13 give a theological explanation for the course of events. With a vocabulary familiar from 14:24, 26–27 and 19:12, 16–17, these verses proclaim that it was Yhwh’s plan that came to be fulfilled: he, i.e. Yhwh (not Tyre!) stretched out his arm over the sea, he made kingdoms quake, he gave command (cf. Isa. 13:3; 2 Sam. 17:14) concerning Canaan to destroy its fortresses. It might be possible that Isa. 23:8–9, 11, 12a, 13 are later than the rest of vv. 1–14 and were written in view of the other FNPs, particularly 14:24, 26–27, as well as 19:12 and 16–17.215 The term ‫ כנען‬in 23:11 can have multiple meanings. In the context of the previous FNPs it may designate the Mediterranean land strip from Phoenicia to Philistia.216 The fate of Tyre is only a small section of a larger plan involving its neighbouring countries. But in v. 8 the merchants of Tyre are called ‫כנעניה‬, so that ‫ כנען‬may refer to Tyre as Canaan par excellence. The prosaic ending, Isa. 23:15–18, is mostly considered a secondary addition to the previous poem. Not only does v. 14 form a concluding inclusio with v. 1, but vv. 15–18 are also demarcated by ‫והיה ביום‬ ‫ההוא‬, a syntactically independent phrase (cf. Isa. 22:20; Hos. 1:5). The message of vv. 15–18 is also different from vv. 1–14. Vv. 15–18 maintain that after 70 years, according to the days (?) of a (?) king,217 the fate of Tyre shall evolve in accordance with the song of a (the?) prostitute.218 Tyre shall return to her former life as a prostitute and ply her job with the kingdoms of the earth. The motif of 70 years destruction also appears in Jer. 25:11; 29:10 (cf. 2 Chron. 36:21; Dan. 9:2; Zech. 7:5), in relation to the captivity of Israel and the nations, as well as the visitation (‫ )פקד‬of Babylon. It is striking that the 70-year-motif is also attested in the description of Esarhaddon’s reconciliation with

215

Vermeylen, 1.342–43 treated vv. 9, 11, 13 (but not 8, 12) as expansions. Cf. Jer. 47:4; Pss 83:8; 87:4 mentioning Phoenicia with Philistia. Sennacherib’s Taylor Prism ii 48–55 refers to the destruction of Tyre in the context of tributes brought by other Canaanite kingdoms, subjugated by Assyria. 217 Or in the days of a king (reading ‫ בימי‬instead of ‫?)כימי‬ 218 Isa. 23:15 may refer to an actual song about a prostitute (for ‫כשׁירת הזונה‬, cf. ‫ שׁירת דודי‬in Isa. 5:1), so that the author compares the life of Tyre with the life of a forgotten prostitute. This interpretation is supported by several parallel elements in the prophecy: as Tyre is forgotten for 70 years (23:15), the prostitute is forgotten and remembered (23:16); as the prostitute receives its reward (‫)אתננה‬, so also the city Tyre after it is remembered; as the prostitute will resume her job (‫)זנה‬, Tyre will also resume its former trading activity. 216

128

chapter three

Babylon, the principle city of Chaldea (also mentioned in 23:13) (cf. IAKA §11 Episode 10). Isa. 23:18 is a rather shocking ending: the prostitute Tyre’s income (‫ אתננה‬and ‫ )סחרה‬will be holy to Yhwh (‫)קדשׁ ליהוה‬, i.e. devoted to those working in the cult centre (cf. Deut. 23:19). According to Fohrer, this verse propagates a ‘perverse Frömigkeit’ (1.263), caring only for profit and being not really interested in the future fate of Tyre. However, Tyre is delivered (‫ )פקד‬by Yhwh (v. 17), restored to its former life, which is a fairly positive message. The fact that Tyre’s income is brought to Yhwh and is accepted by him (‫)קדשׁ ליהוה‬, connects this text with similar pronouncements elsewhere in the Old Testament, the so-called ‘tribute texts’, such as Ps. 45:12; 72:10; Isa. 18:7; 19:18–22; 60:6, 13; Hag. 2:7. When attempting to date Isa. 23, the important question is whether Isa. 23 is predictive or retrospective. Although vv. 1–14 are commonly believed to recount past events,219 vv. 5 and 12b only make sense as predictions. The summons to wail (‫ ילל‬hiph‘il) also appears generally in prophetic descriptions of future calamities.220 The predictive character of the text is also supported by negative evidence. No historical setting would fully comply with the details of this prophecy. Assyrians or Babylonians never managed to destroy the isle Tyre, the stronghold of the sea.221 This was only achieved much later by Alexander the Great.222 If ‫ זה העם לא היה‬in 23:13 is translated as ‘this is the people that is no more’, the destruction of Chaldea by the Assyrians (23:13) may be a historically illuminative though not a particularly specific detail (although in this case the New Assyrian background would of course be assured).223 However, if Chaldea is referred to in v. 13 as the empire 219

Fohrer, 1.257; Wildberger, 861; Clements, 192. Cf. Isa. 13:6; 14:31; Jer. 4:8; 25:34; 48:20 (cf. 48:16); 48:39 (cf. 48:40–42); 49:3 (cf. 49:1–2); 51:8; Ezek. 21:17; 30:2; Zeph. 1:11; Zech. 11:2. Ezek. 29:18–20 on Tyre, though set as a lamentation, is clearly predictive. 221 Sweeney and Lessing’s attempts to soften the meaning of ‫ שׁדד‬in 23:1, 14 are not convincing. 222 Duhm, 166; Fohrer, 1.258; Kaiser, 132, date Isa. 23 to Alexander’s era. For the problems with this view, see Wildberger, 864; Lessing, Tyre, 247 n. 82. 223 Neither Tiglath-pileser III’s war with Chaldea and Tyre nor Sargon II’s peaceful Chaldaean and Tyrean relations give a suitable setting. Although Assurbanipal is known to have punished Ba’al, king of Tyre around 662, his anti-Chaldaean campaigns are more than a decade later than his dealings with Tyre. There are two more probable options. First, vv. 1–14 may have been written during the early days of Sennacherib, perhaps shortly before 701 (Sweeney, 306–8; Lessing, Tyre, 251, 254–56). Before his campaign in Canaan, Sennacherib waged heavy wars with the Chaldaeans. 220

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

129

about to lead Tyre into captivity (see above) then at least vv. 8–9, 11, 12a, 13 must be dated to the early New Babylonian period. To conclude, (a) Isa. 23 can be divided into two pericopes: 23:1–14 is a call to lament in view of an impending attack on Tyre. Despite earlier assumptions, Isa. 23 is concerned with the fall of Tyre only. The other addressees are summoned merely as witnesses. The theological-reflective character of vv. 8–9, 11, 12a, 13 might suggest that they are later additions, although this remains uncertain. At any rate, Isa. 23:15–18 is a later expansion compared to vv. 1–14. (b) Common motifs shared with the other FNPs include the following: the summons to wail (‫ ;)ילל‬the humiliation of the rich and powerful kingdom; the fulfilment of the purposes and plans of Yhwh (‫)צוה‬, stretching out his hands and even extending it beyond the earth to include the sea; Tyre will be restored, but its glory and wealth will be given to Yhwh in Zion. (c) If 23:1–14 is considered one literary unit and if ‫זה העם לא היה‬ in 23:13 is rendered as ‘this is the people that is no more’, 23:1–14 could be dated to 703–671. If ‫ זה העם לא היה‬is translated as ‘this is the people that was not before’, the date of the prophecy should be advanced to the era of Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Ezek. 26). The literary parallels of 23:15–18 suggest that this expansion derives from the late Assyrian or New Babylonian periods, depending also on the dating of 23:1–14.

His texts report massive destruction and deportations of the Chaldaean population (BAL, 2.65–66). His Chaldean campaign was followed by a march against the kingdom of Tyre and Luli, its ruler (Taylor Prism ii 34–64; BAL, 2.67). The mainland kingdom fell, but the isle Tyre was saved. Luli found ‘rest’ in Kittim. Of course, these details do not present any problems if the prophecy is dated before 701. Alternatively, 23:1–14 can be dated to Esarhaddon’s era (Wildberger, 866). Sennacherib assigned the mainland territories of the Tyrean kingdom to Tuba’ilu, whose successor, Abdi-milkutti, rebelled against Esarhaddon (677). Though he fled to the sea (Kittim?), he was captured and decapitated. Sidon was transformed into an Assyrian province. Part of its former territory was given to Ba’al I, king of Tyre, who may have also been among the rebels but surrendered in time to Esarhaddon. We hear again of a rebellion of Ba’al in connection with Esarhaddon’s later campaign to Egypt (674/671?). He appears as an ally of Taharka, for which he is punished, but his life is ultimately spared. Esarhaddon reports to have taken away the cities and possessions of Ba’al. Esarhaddon pursued a Chaldea-friendly policy, but 23:13 could refer Sennacherib’s anti-Babylonian campaigns in his later years.

130

chapter three 3.3

Preliminary Conclusions to Isaiah 13–23

Isa. 13–23 is built around ten ‫משׂא‬-headings. This system of superscription provides a unifying editorial frame for the collection, which bears clear signs of a long process of development (cf. 16:13–14). One can discern three different types of ‫משׂא‬-superscriptions (cf. 13:1; 14:28; 21:1). The typical system of superscription in Isa. 21–22 and the internal thematic connections between these prophecies, as well as the events of 598 and 587 serving as common historical background to the (re)reading of these prophecies, suggest that Isa. 21–22 had already been associated before the two chapters came to be inserted among the other prophecies of Isa. 13–23 during the exilic era (cf. 21; 22:25). The independent origin and later addition of Isa. 21–22 explains the unusual occurrence of two anti-Babylon prophecies in different locations in Isa. 13–23 and the presence of prophecies concerning Jerusalem and two royal palace officials (Isa. 22) among the FNPs. Not only Isa. 13–23 as a whole but also the individual ‫משׂא‬-collections show various signs of editorial activity. As in other collections of FNPs of the Old Testament (cf. §2.4), most ‫משׂא‬-prophecies of Isaiah are composed of more than one literary unit with a complicated redactional history occasionally predating their insertion in the FNP collections (e.g., 15:1–9; 16:1–5; 22:1–25). The connection between individual prophecies of the ‫משׂא‬-collection in this case is provided by thematic resemblances, catchwords, or other theological editorial considerations.224 Some passages may derive from an originally anti-Judaean context, subsequently reapplied against the enemies of Judah (cf. Isa. 13:2–8). The significant idea that Yhwh will interchange the fate of Israel and its enemies also appears in the neighbouring redactional passage, Isa. 14:1–4a. The gradual development of Isa. 13–23 described in this study challenges any suggestion that the prophecies of Isa. 13–23 were collected at a relatively late date. It seems that the book of Isaiah parallels other books insofar as it contains an early collection of FNPs. Beyond the differences and the regularities in the system of superscription of Isa. 13–23, an important sign for the gradual development of the collection is the shifting editorial view regarding the fate of nations. One can observe a move from judgment prophecies to prophecies of hope (cf.

224

E.g., the ‫ יום יהוה‬in Isa. 13, or the divine name ‫ אדני יהוה צבאות‬in Isa. 22.

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

131

14:28–32; 15:1–16:5; 17:1–8; 23). At a later stage, however, prophecies of hope turn back to judgment again (16:6–14; 17:9–11). The sections in which judgment shifts to hope seem to be related to the Assyrian situation, and presuppose that the power and imperial influence in Eber Nāri is weakened if not ceased. Key to this hypothesis was the appearance of two originally Assyria-related prophecies embedded in a passage against Babylon, 14:4b–21 and 14:24–27. Both seem to have once been connected more closely with the anti-Assyrian speech in 10:5–15, 24–27. In this former setting, the judgment of Assyria not only brought an anthology of prophecies against Israel and Judah to a close, but it probably also introduced an early collection of FNPs (cf. 14:24–27), forming a bridge between the two sections. The overarching theme in this primary arrangement of the book was the reiterated motif of the raised hand of Yhwh, first against his own people (Isa. 9:7–20), then against Assyria (10:1–4). In this latter case, the raising of the hand had implications for all nations under Assyrian dominion (14:24–27), a point reiterated at the end of the collection in 23:11. This pre-exilic edition of FNPs may have included most of Isa. 14:4b–21, 24–27, 28–32; 15:1–16:5; 17:1–6(7–8?); 23.225 The judgment of Assyria, which once opened the collection of FNPs, explains the allusions to the vanished oppressor in a period when the Judaean monarchy is still supposed to exist (16:4; cf. 14:29). In a prophecy of central importance comprising Isa. 10:5–15, the Assyrian king appears as a world ruler, boasting about his defeat of various nations. From an editorial point of view, these foreign nations can be identified with those mentioned in Isa. 13–23. ‫ כל־הארץ‬in 10:14, which Assyria occupied, is echoed in 14:26. The staff raised by the hand of the Assyrian king in 10:5, 15, is paralleled by the raised hand of Yhwh in 14:26–27 (cf. 5:25; 9:11, 16, 20) and 23:8. Yhwh makes use of Assyria against these nations (23:8–9, 11), but he cancels the plans of the king of Assur as soon as he moves beyond the predetermined limits (cf. 10:7; 14:24–27). The second shift from prophecies of salvation to prophecies of judgment (16:6–14; 17:9–11) presupposes the post-587 and perhaps even the post-exilic period. The central concern of this edition is the day of Yhwh and its effect on all the presumptuous ones of the earth. Although the additional individual prophecies may derive from the

225

For Isa. 17:12–20:6, see Chapters 4–6 below.

132

chapter three

New Babylonian period, the collection at this editorial stage makes Persia (and not Babylon) into the tool in the hand of Yhwh. At this new stage in the formation of the book of Isaiah, the prophecy concerning the judgment of Babylon is given the role of introducing the new collection of FNPs. The inclusion of 11:11–16, referring to the returnees from exile, and a song of deliverance (Isa. 12) separate Isa. 1–12 from the collection of 13–23.226 The former prophecies on Assyria were partially reinterpreted as referring to Babylon, which is viewed not as a new nation in history but just another contender for power on the mountain of God (14:13). In the redaction performed against a Persian-background, the ‫יוֹם‬ ‫ יהוה‬motif is given an important place. ‫ יום יהוה‬appears in Isaiah only in 13:6, 9 and 2:12 (‫)יום ליהוה צבאות‬.227 In this edition of the book, the motif of the day of Yhwh connects Isa. 2:6–21(22) and Isa. 13. Isa. 2:6–21(22) functions as an editorial introduction to a book which presents the prophecies on Israel and Judah and the prophecies on the nations in the context of the day of Yhwh.228 According to 2:6–21, the day of Yhwh concerns not only Israel and Judah, but also all nations. The text mentions the cedars of Lebanon, the oaks of Bashan (2:13), and the ships of Tarshish (2:16; cf. 23:1), propagating a flavour of foreignness. In 2:6, the people of Yhwh are presented in relation to other nations: Israel has become like the western Philistines and the sons of the East. On the day of Yhwh, the house of Jacob shall be punished with the judgment of those nations (cf. also Isa. 10:9–11). The central event of the day of Yhwh in Isa. 2 is the humiliation of the exalted ones, and the exaltation of Yhwh in judgment. The humiliation of the proud is also a central theme in the FNPs of 13–23. The prophecy against presumptuous Assyria (Isa. 10, 14) and later Babylon (Isa. 13–14) inaugurates a collection that comes to an end by emphasising again the fall of ‘all honoured of the earth’ (23:9; cf. 2:22). The use of impersonal terminology in 2:6–21 and Isa. 13 is in this perspective even more striking.229 The ‫ יום יהוה‬motif acts as an important edito-

226 Note that Isa. 11:11 mentions a second time when Yhwh will raise his hand (‫)יוסיף אדני שׁנית ידו‬, which possibly alludes to the well-known motif, which was an earlier organising principle of the editors but is now a motif used in a positive sense. 227 Cf. Isa. 10:3; 13:13; 17:11; 22:5; 30:25; 34:8. 228 Cf. Hamborg, ‘Reasons’, 157. 229 Cf. ‫אדם‬, ‫אישׁ‬, ‫ הארץ‬in the two texts. Note also the motif of wealth not being a means to avoid the wrath of Yhwh in 2:7, 20 and 13:17.

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

133

rial guideline connecting the Isaianic FNPs with those of Zephaniah, where the same theme also appears (§2.4.4). Allusions to the day of Yhwh in the FNPs also appear in 17:11 (‫יום‬ ‫ )נחלה‬and 22:5 (‫)יום מהומה ומבוסה ומבוכה לאדני יהוה צבאות‬. It is possible that the insertion of 21–22 is related to the ‫ יום יהוה‬edition of the FNPs, which added 13; 14:1–4a; 16:6–12; 17:9–11 to the former pre-exilic collection. The historical background of individual prophecies varies greatly. An 8th or early 7th century text provides the starting point to almost every FNP. This basic layer was expanded in the late 7th century, the early 6th century, the post 587-period, or occasionally the post-exilic era. Explicit support for the idea that the nations are addressed in relation to anti-Assyrian alliances appears thus far only in the prophecy on the Philistines, Isa. 14:28–32.

3.4 Isaiah 13–23 as a Royal Stele of Yhwh The organisation of the FNPs in the collection is obviously not chronological. In the present version of Isa. 13–23, the prophecies are framed by an initial oracle on Babylon and a closing text on Tyre. Kaiser regarded Isa. 23 as a late appendix following the prophecy against Jerusalem in Isa. 22, which in his opinion once rounded off the collection.230 However, as discussed above, there are other more likely explanations for the present position of Isa. 22. The opinion of Delitzsch and Oswalt is more appealing, namely that references to Tyre as the economic power of the world in the west provide an appropriate ending for a collection beginning with Babylon (or in a previous form with Assyria), the military power of the east.231 The intertextual connections between the opening Isa. 13–14 and the closing Isa. 23 suggest an even stronger connection. The revelation of Yhwh’s plan against the world and his purpose concerning all the nations uttered in the first ‫( משׂא‬14:24–27) comes to a close with the reiteration of this purpose and plan in the last ‫( משׂא‬23:8–9, 11). The hand extended by means of the world ruler in 10:5 and against him in 14:26–27 is paralleled in 23:11 by confirming that ‘he (Yhwh) stretched out his

230 231

Kaiser, 133. Delitzsch, 264; Oswalt, 427.

134

chapter three

hands and made kingdoms shake, he has given command concerning Canaan to destroy its fortresses’. It was noted that in the present context Canaan may have a much wider significance. It may symbolise all of the small kingdoms of the Levantine region (much like the New Assyrian māt Ḫ atti). The mention of Chaldea in Isa. 23:13 provides a fitting end to a collection beginning with Assyria / Babylon. The appearance of Assyria (and later imperial powers of the East), the judge and ruler of the entire world (‫ ;כל־הארץ‬10:14) ahead of a collection of FNPs places all the prophecies in the context of a genre particularly related to Assyrian kings: the rhetoric of the Mesopotamian royal inscriptions and stele literature. The motifs connecting Isa. 13–23 to this type of literature are significant. In my view, it is likely that the editors of the book of Isaiah deliberately followed the royal inscription-genre in collecting the FNPs in Isa. 13–23. The Mesopotamian royal inscriptions often begin by re-affirming the world dominance of the Assyrian monarchs.232 It was argued above that Isa. 10:5–15 (cf. also 14:4b–21), introduced an earlier collection of FNPs, but here it functions as an introduction to the Mesopotamian texts. In this case, the Assyrian monarch is presented as an all-powerful ruler of the world who, however, rules through the power of Yhwh. On the inscriptions of Shalmaneser III, Tiglath-pileser III, Assurbanipal and others, this introductory claim is often followed by proofs of the historical reality behind the ideological assertion. They describe campaigns against nations stretching to the four quarters of the world. In this respect Isa. 13–23 with its prophecies picturing the destruction of different nations can be considered the replica of an Assyrian inscription. Isa. 13–23 provides evidence for Yhwh’s dominion over all the nations subjugated by Assyria (and later by Persia). Assyria is not the uppermost ruler, but it is the tool of Yhwh, a staff in God’s hands. Assyrian rulers often maintain that their weapon or sceptre was given to them by Assur. Shalmaneser III says (RIMA 3 A.0.102.5 i 6–ii 1): At that time Assur, the great lord called [my name for shepherdship of] the people, he crowned (me) with the exalted crown, [he . . .] my dominion, (and) placed in my hands the weapon, sceptre, (and) staff appropriate for (rule over) the people.

232 Cf. RIMA 3 A.0.102.1:1–9; A.0.102.2 i 5–10; A.0.102.5 i 1–6; A.0.102.14:15–17; A.0.103.1 i 26–33; A.0.104.1:1–9; A.0.105.1:1–2; IAKA §21:1–14.

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

135

Similarly, ln. 28 of Sargon II’s Tang-i Var inscription maintains: ‘With the power and strength of the great gods, my lords, who raised my weapons, I cut all my enemies.’233 Isa. 10:5 should be understood against this background. Yhwh as the ruler of the world claims to have handed power to the king of Assyria. Yhwh appears in the position of the Assyrian god Assur in Assyrian inscriptions. The way Isaiah portrays Yhwh in 6:3, by whose glory the whole earth is filled, is similar to how RIMA 3 A.0.102.11 refers to the god Assur, ‘whose glory covers the earth’ (ša melammūšu māta katmu) (Left Edge ii 3). The overarching theme of these prophecies, the hand stretched over the nations, may also be inspired by Assyrian texts and iconography. On relief inscriptions and steles, the Assyrian king appears sometimes in a standing position with one hand holding a staff (cf. Isa. 10:5) and the other hand raised.234 Assurbanipal’s Prism A ix 103–104 retells how the king raised his hand against the Arabians, ‘the hands that I used to raise against my enemies’. The raised hand of Yhwh in Isa. 14:26–27 and 23:11 may allude to this portrayal of the Assyrian king.235 The prophecies regarding Babylon and Tyre also form a pair in the sense that Babylon (and its predecessor, Assyria) refers to the distant nation in the East, while Tyre with its Mediterranean colonies represents the end of the world in the West, all subjected to the rule of Yhwh (cf. Isa. 24:15). This geographical setting reminds the reader again of the introduction of Assyrian inscriptions, where the king presents himself as ruler of a world, with its borders defined by the stereotypical formula ‘from the Upper Sea (Mediterranaean) to the Lower Sea (Persian Gulf)’, sometimes followed by a geographical summation of his entire territory:

233

RIMA 3 A.0.102.1:11–12; 57’–58’; A.0.102.2 i 13; IAKA §65:30–34; etc. See for instance the relief of Sargon II from Tang-i Var in G. Frame, ‘The Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-i Var’, Or. 68 (1999), 33, 55, Sargon’s Basalt Stele from Cyprus (AOB 117 Tafel LIX), or Esarhaddon’s Nahr-el Kelb relief (AOB 146, Tafel LXV). Nabonid’s Harran Stele H1 i 39–44 speaks of Ishtar, the mistress of war, who stretched out her hand so that the kings of the land of Egypt, the Medes, the Arabs, and all the enemy kings sent emissaries inquiring for the well-being of King Nabonid (INBK, 490, 497). 235 On presenting Yhwh in parallel with the Assyrian kings, see also S. Parpola, ‘Assyria’s Expansion in the 8th and 7th Centuries and Its Long-Term Repercussions in the West’, in: W.G. Dever, S. Gitin (eds), Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors, from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina, Winona Lake, IN 2003, 104–5. 234

136

chapter three Sennacherib, great king, mighty king, king of the universe (šar kiššati), king of Assyria, king of the four corners of the world (šar kibrat erbetti) (. . .) God Assur, the great mountain, has provided me an unpaired kingdom (. . .) from the Upper Sea on the West (tâmti elēnīti ša šalam Šamši) to the Lower Sea on the East (tâmti šaplīti ša ṣīt Šamši). Every black headed people (i.e. the humanity) he has put under my feet (. . .). (Taylor Prism i 10–16). Assurbanipal, the great king, the legitimate king, the king of the world, king of all the four rims, king of kings, prince without rival, who rules from the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea and has made bow to his feet all the rulers and who has laid the yoke of his overlordship (upon them) from Tyre, which is in the Upper Sea and Tilmun, which is in the Lower Sea, and they pulled the straps of his yoke. (Warka Cylinder of Assurbanipal, ANET, 297).236

This world-wide scope of the FNPs convinces the reader of the collection that Yhwh is the ruler of the earth. History is not simply the course of events unforeseeable and uncontrolled, but the realisation of a plan of Yhwh, a plan now revealed on the ‘stele of Yhwh’, in Isa. 13–23.237 The question is whether we should attribute a direct influence of Assyrian literature on the composition of Isa. 13–23, or there may have been other possible conveyors of this tradition? Though the features noted appear most often in Assyrian literature, the indicated parallels can also be found on the inscriptions of Babylonian and Persian kings.238 The Cylinder Inscription of Cyrus the Great, probably also known by Judaeans (cf. Ezra 1:1), also presents King Cyrus in words similar to the Assyrian steles, as ruler of the entire world, from the Lower Sea to the Upper Sea (TUAT, 1.408–9). Nevertheless, the Cyrus-

236

These motifs are also known from Ps. 72:8; Zech. 9:10. Isa. 2:6–22, the possible introduction to the ‫יום יהוה‬-edition, can also be related to the Assyrian stele-literature. The appearance of the majesty of Yhwh (‫פחד יהוה‬ ‫ )ומהדר גאנו‬causing people to flee to the mountains (2:10, 19, 21) reminds the reader of the melammu (or pulḫ i melammē) of the god Assur, who spreads dread among the enemies of the Assyrian king chasing the people into the mountains (e.g., RIMA 3 A.0.102.14:78–79, 151; A.0.102.16:221–22; A.0.102.17:43–44). The same is true of the motif of excessive wealth that will not save the life of people (Isa. 13:17). Assyrian inscriptions refer to rulers of cities overcome by the fear of Assur and saving their lives by paying fabulous tributes of silver, gold, etc. (RIMA 3 A.0.102.14:134–35; A.0.102.16:219–20). 238 For the Babylonian literature, see the Etemenaki Cylinder of Nebuchadnezzar in Vanderhooft, Babylon, 36–37, the Harran Stele of Nabonid in INBK, 499 [iii 18], the Adad-guppi Stele in INBK, 511 [i 40–44]. 237

the foreign nation prophecies of isaiah 13–23

137

Cylinder may have been modelled on Assurbanipal’s inscriptions,239 so that its ideology is after all Assyrian. Two options remain: (1) The features of Isa. 13–23 modelled on the form and language of royal inscriptions come from a later ‫יום יהוה‬edition of the FNPs. (2) It is also possible that a previous Assyrian inscription-like edition (7th century) was known to the editors compiling the book on the basis of the ‫יום יהוה‬-theme (6th century). They may have adopted this earlier concept for the later edition of this book as well. It was perhaps the realisation of these literary features characteristic of Mesopotamian literature that motivated the editors to insert Isa. 21–22 before and not after Isa. 23.240

239 Cf. M. Dandamayev, ‘Assyrian Traditions during Achaemenid Times’, in: S. Parpola, R.M. Whiting (eds), Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project Helsinki, September 7–11, 1995, Helsinki 1997, 44; see also, Parpola, ‘Assyria’s Expansion’, 105. 240 Note especially the Upper Sea / Lower Sea frame.

CHAPTER FOUR

LANDS OF RIDDLES: THE ANALYSIS OF ISAIAH 18

Chapters 4–6 aim to answer the question how Isa. 18–20 clarifies the formation and function of the collection comprising Isa. 13–23. Below I shall present a thorough exegetical analysis of these three pericopes from Isaiah. Each one of Chapters 4–6 includes a translation with text critical and semantic notes, followed by a detailed exegetical analysis, and rounded off with an overall evaluation of the exegetical results from literary critical, theological and historical perspectives. Isa. 18 is a thematically coherent prophecy supposedly concerned with the African nation of Kush, south of Egypt, who invaded Egypt in the 8th century bc and ruled it for almost a century. Beyond this widely shared opinion, the many details of the text clouded by lexical uncertainties have caused scholars to disagree on the specific ways in which Isa. 18 deals with Kush and how the prophecy is connected to the people of Israel or Judah. The most important problems in Isa. 18 are the identity of the messengers in v. 2, their destination, and the identity of the people whose destruction and humiliation are predicted in vv. 5–6. The thematic coherence of 18:1–7 does not necessarily mean that the literary unity of this prophecy should be taken for granted. Indeed, the authenticity of almost every verse has been questioned at some point in the exegetical literature. The question of literary integrity will be best addressed after a close examination of the text of the prophecy. Beyond the often doubted literary integrity of Isa. 18, scholars have also noted its loose connections to the ‫ משׂא דמשׂק‬in Isa. 17:1. Isa. 18 is frequently considered a misplaced component of the ‫משׂא מצרים‬ in Isa. 19. However, a few exegetes hold that Isa. 17 is positioned in a suitable context. The question is whether there is any justification for the present position of Isa. 18? How can this be related to the formation of Isa. 13–23? Being part of the Isaianic tradition of prophecies concerned with the lands on the Nile, one may ask how Isa. 18 is related to other prophecies in Isaiah dealing with Egypt and how it functions as a prophecy

140

chapter four

concerning the nations. Was its original purpose modified after Isa. 18 came to be part of the present collection? Isa. 18 is most often dated to the Isaianic era, but doubts surround the origin of especially vv. 3 and 7, whose eschatological tone suggests, in the view of many exegetes, that it shares the ‘universalism’ of the post-exilic period. Moreover, there is disagreement concerning the events that would provide a suitable occasion for the deliverance of this prophecy.

4.1

Translation with Text-Critical and Semantic Notes

1a Woea to the land of bthe two-winged beetleb, 1b which is beyondc the rivers of Kush, 2a the one sending emissaries on the sea, 2b and in papyrus vessels upon the waters. 2c Go, swift messengers, 2d to the nation talld and balde, 2e to the people more fearful fbeyond itf, 2f a nation mightyg and htreading downh, 2g whose land the rivers dividei (or: whose country is the riverbedi). 3a All you inhabitants of the world and those dwelling on earth: 3b whenj the signal is raised on the mountains, look, 3c and whenj the horn is blown, listen! 4a For thus spoke Yhwh to me: 4b ‘I shall stay quietly and watch onk my placel, 4c likem scorchingn heat oon daybreak (or: on the dew)o, 4d likem pa cloud of dewp qin the heatq of the harvestr.’ 5a For before the harvest, when buddings is over, 5b and the blossom develops to an tunripe berryt, 5c he will cut off the shootsu with pruning hooks, 5d and the tendrilsv he will remove and hew away. 6a They will be left altogether to the birds of prey of the mountains 6b and to the beasts of the earth. 6c And the birds of prey will summer upon them, 6d and all the beasts of the earth will winter upon them. 7a At that time wwill bringw tributex to Yhwh of hosts, 7b the people tall and bald, y 7c and indeed the peopley more fearful beyond it,

the analysis of isaiah 18 7d 7e 7f

141

a nation mighty and treading down, whose land the rivers divide (or: whose country is the riverbed), to the place of the name of Yhwh of hosts, mount Zion.

1 a ‫הוי‬. ‫ הוֹי‬is translated either as ‘woe (to)!’,1 or as an emphatic vocative interjection ‘ho!’, intended to catch the attention of the audience.2 Assumptions concerning the connotation of ‫ הוי‬have far reaching consequences for understanding the basic character of Isa. 18 (promise, reproach or threat). It is argued sometimes that ‫ הוי‬does not introduce a prophecy of judgment here because Isa. 18 contains no threats against those addressed. On this point the argumentations easily become circular, since our interpretation of the addressees of subsequent threats in the prophecy is largely dependent on presuppositions concerning the meaning of ‫ הוי‬in 18:1. Several studies have been published on the so-called ‫הוי‬-prophecies,3 which were, however, mostly concerned with the original setting of the ‫הוי‬-cry, and little attention was given to the syntactic structure of the ‫הוי‬-formulas.4 Considering the syntax of ‫הוי‬, we arrive at four different groups of ‫הוי‬-texts: (1) To the first group belong texts in which ‫ הוי‬is directly related to a following noun or participle, which functions as the subject, addressed in the 3rd person, as can be inferred from the use of the suffixes or verbal forms. See Isa. 1:4; 5:8, 11, 18, 20, 21, 22; 10:1, 5; 17:12; 28:1; 29:1, 15; 30:1; 31:1; 33:1;5 45:9, 10; Jer. 22:13; 23:1; Ezek. 34:2; Amos

1 Cf. LXX; Vulg.; Targ. Isa.; König, 198; Fischer, 136–37; W. Janzen, Mourning Cry and Woe Oracle (BZAW, 125), Berlin 1972, 60–61; Clements, 164; Blenkinsopp, 308. 2 Ibn Ezra, 85; Gesenius, 572; Gray, 309; Young, 1.474; Sweeney, 257; Motyer, 160. 3 E. Gerstenbeger, ‘The Woe-Oracles of the Prophets’, JBL 81 (1962), 249–63; G. Wanke, ‘‫ אוֹי‬und ‫’הוֹי‬, ZAW 78 (1966), 215–18; R.J. Clifford, ‘The Use of HÔY in the Prophets’, CBQ 28 (1966), 458–64; J.G. Williams, ‘The Alas-Oracles of the Eighth Century Prophets’, HUCA 38 (1967), 75–91; Janzen, Cry; H.-J. Kraus, ‘hôy als prophetische Leichenklage über das eigene Volk im 8. Jahrhundert’, ZAW 85 (1973), 15–46; Wildberger, 182–83; H.-J. Zobel, ‫הוֹי‬, ThWAT 2.383–88; D.R. Hillers, ‘Hôy and HôyOracles: A Neglected Syntactic Aspect’, in: C.L. Meyers, M. O’Connor (eds), The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, Winona Lake, IN 1983, 185–88. 4 An exception to a certain extent is the study Hillers. 5 In Isa. 33:1 appears a combination of second and 3rd person forms.

142

chapter four

5:18; 6:1; Mic. 2:1; Nah. 3:1; Hab. 2:6, 9, 12, 15, 19; Zeph. 2:5; 3:1, 18b (cf. LXX); Zech. 11:17. (2) The 3rd person form is also used in a second group of texts, but ‫ הוי‬is connected to the subject by a preposition. These texts closely resemble group (1). See Jer. 48:1; 50:27; Ezek. 13:3, 18. ‫ הוי‬is here syntactically and semantically similar to ‫אוי‬, which almost always appears with a preposition (‫)ל‬. (3) A third group includes texts where ‫ הוי‬is an independent particle, casually doubled as a summons or an exclamation. In these cases, it is not the impersonal or 3rd person form that is used, but the 2nd person, corresponding to the vocative. Cf. Isa. 1:24; 55:1; Jer. 30:7; 47:6; Zech. 2:10, 11. (4) A fourth group, syntactically related to the previous one, is formed by texts where ‫ הוי‬is a mourning cry by which the deceased is addressed in the 2nd person, with ‫הוי‬, ‘ah’ functioning as a vocative: 1 Kgs 13:30; Jer. 22:18; 34:5. When arguing for a ‘neutral’ translation (‘oh’ / ‘ah’) in Isa. 18:1, exegetes referred to parallel texts from group (3). That is exactly the problem; for syntactically speaking Isa. 18:1 belongs to group (1) where the translation ‘woe’ is evident. Wherever this was questioned (e.g., Isa. 17:12), it was done on grounds similar to 18:1. ‫ הוי‬should therefore be rendered as ‘woe’ in v. 1a. Looking at the contexts in which it appears, ‫ הוי‬is always a cry with negative overtones related either to a disastrous, depressing past or present, or, more frequently, it introduces an unfortunate future.6 b-b ‫ ִצ ְל ַצל ְכּנָ ָפיִ ם‬. Scholars disagree on the meaning of this expression. ‫—צלצל‬if left unvocalised—appears six times in the Old Testament.7 Lexicons generally distinguish four semantic domains: ‫ ִצ ְל ָצל‬, ‘whirring’; ‫ ִצ ְל ָצל‬, ‘spear’, ‘harpoon’; ‫ ְצ ָל ַצל‬, ‘whirring locust’, ‘cricket’; ‫ ֶצ ְל ְצ ִלים‬, ‘cymbal’ (musical instrument of percussion). The last meaning is the least disputed (2 Sam. 6:5; Ps. 150:5). In Deut. 28:42, ‫ְצ ָל ַצל‬ refers to an insect causing agricultural disaster. In Job 40:31, ‫ ִצ ְל ָצל‬is often translated as ‘spear’, ‘harpoon’. However, the rendering πλοῖον

6 HALOT suggests that, in Isa. 18:1; 55:1; Zech. 2:10, ‫ הוי‬is a cry of encouragement. This idea is, however, expressed by the imperatives of ‫( הלך‬Isa. 55:1) and ‫( נוס‬Zech. 2:10) and not by ‫ הוי‬itself. ‫ הוי‬is a cry emerging from by the psychological impact of an existing (Isa. 55:1) or coming (Zech. 2:10) calamity. 7 Deut. 28:42; Isa. 18:1; Job 40:31; 2 Sam. 6:5; Ps. 150:5 (2x).

the analysis of isaiah 18

143

in LXX suggests that ‫ צלצל‬may also designate a kind of boat.8 Even if the ultimate sense of ‫ צלצל‬remains uncertain, its semantic field is in most cases delimited by the context. This does not seem to be the case in Isa. 18:1, however. On top of this semantic difficulty, 1QIsaa also has a variant reading, ‫צל צל‬. Kutscher believes that the word division is intentional here and 1QIsaa might have had ‫ ֵצל‬in mind.9 This reading is supported by Aq.’s σκιά σκιά, and Jerome’s umbra umbra appearing in his commentary. These witnesses are most likely corrective attempts to give sense to an enigmatic phrase. Regarding the translation of Isa. 18:1 the following proposals stand out: (a) land of the whirring (of) wings When translating ‫ צלצל כנפים‬by ‘whirring wings’,10 ‫ צלצל‬is etymologically connected to ‫צלל‬, ‘to tingle’, ‘to quiver’, used of ears (1 Sam. 3:11; 2 Kgs 21:12; Jer. 19:3) or lips (Hab. 3:16; cf. ‫ נוע‬+ ‫ שׂפה‬in 1 Sam. 1:13). ‫ צלצל‬is regarded as an onomatopoeic word derived from a verb connoting repetitive action (JM §59c–d)11 or ‘intensification and strengthening of the action’.12 Cognates of the Hebrew ‫ צלל‬appear in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (‫)צלל‬, Arabic (ṣalla, ṣalṣalla) and Syriac (ṣal), all meaning ‘to ring’, ‘to tinkle’. ‫ צלצל‬is known in post-biblical Hebrew (‘to tinkle’, ‘to whir’) and Aramaic (‘to clap’).13 Commentators assume that ‫ צלצל כנפים‬alludes to the rich fauna of the Equatorial region, particularly the insects with the metallic clang of their wings.14 Sym. translated ‫ צלצל‬by ἦχος, ‘noise’, ‘sound’.15

8 G.R. Driver, ‘Difficult Words in the Hebrew Prophets’, in: Studies in Old Testament Prophecy: Presented to Professor Theodore H. Robinson by the Society for Old Testament Study on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Edinburgh 1950, 52–53; J.V.K. Wilson, ‘A Return to the Problems of Behemoth and Leviathan’, VT 25 (1975), 11. 9 E.Y. Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1 Q Isaa), Leiden 1974, 279. 10 See BDB; RSV; NIV; Gray, 306; D.M. Goldenberg, The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Princeton, NJ 2003, 30–31; Cheyne, 110; Duhm, 137; Marti, 147; König, 198; Procksch, 238; Kaiser, 74. 11 Cf. I. Eitan, ‘La répétition de la racine en hébreu’, JPOS 1 (1920), 174–77. 12 I. Yannay, ‘Augmented Verbs in Biblical Hebrew’, HUCA 45 (1974), 75. 13 NCW 4.195; DTTM 1286; DJPA 466 (‫מצלצלת בכפיה‬, ‘she clapped with her hands’). 14 Cheyne, 160; Duhm, 137; König, 198; Schoors, 116–17; Kaiser, 76. 15 Probably connecting ‫ צלצל‬to ‫ צליל‬and late Hebrew ‫צללה‬, ‘noise’, ‘chattering’.

144

chapter four

(b) ‘land of the shadow of wings’ Some consider ‫ צלצל‬a reduplication of ‫ ֵצל‬, ‘shadow’, thus intensifying its sense (‘deep shadow’) or replicating it (‘double shadow’; cf. ‫פיפיות‬, ‘double edged’).16 The metaphor is thought to refer to Kush shaded by mountains (symbolised as wings; Vitringa) or by the migrating birds gathering over the land (Rashi). However, the intensified form of ‫ ֵצל‬is ‫ ִצ ֲללוֹ‬in Job 40:22 and ‫ ִצ ְל ֵלי‬in Jer. 6:4. Dillmann connected the translation ‘double shadow’ with Strabo’s Geography ii 5.37, recording that ‘in all the regions that lie between the tropic and the equator the shadow falls in both directions, that is toward the north and toward the south’ (according to the seasons, not at the same time). The inhabitants of these regions are called ἀμφισκίοι and are distinguished from the regions of the ἑτεροσκίοι or περισκίοι.17 However, this explanation of ‫ צלצל‬cannot account for ‫ כנפים‬in Isa. 18:1. (c) ‘land of the winged cymbal’ In the Vulg., ‫ צלצל כנפים‬is rendered as cymbalum alarum, ‘winged cymbal’. This interpretation was followed by Lowth and Bochart, who believed that Isa. 18:1 referred to the Egyptian instrument ‘sistrum’ (cf. ‫ מנענעים‬in 2 Sam. 6:5 in the Vulg.). However, ‫ צלצל‬as a musical instrument appears always in pl. Moreover, it is also difficult to explain ‫ כנפים‬in connection with this translation. (d) ‘land of the winged boat’ Based on Job 40:31, ‫ צלצל‬is related to some kind of boat, with ‫כנפים‬ assumed to be the sails. This translation proposed by LXX (πλοίων πτέρυγες) was followed by Theod., Targ. Isa. (‫ )ספינן‬and many recent commentators.18 The interpretation of LXX is supported by Egyptian Aramaic ‫צלצלא‬, ‘boat’.19

16

Cf. Syr. [ʾrʿʾ] dṭllʾ dknpʾ, ‘land of the shadow of wings’. For the division of the celestial zones in antiquity, see the notes of H.L. Jones in his translation of Strabo, Geog. ii 2.3. 18 Driver, ‘Difficult Words’, 56; Kissane, 205; Wildberger, 678–79; Oswalt, 359–60. 19 Cf. ‫אופצרתא עב]דו ע[ל צלצלא ודגיתא‬, ‘the reckoning which was made about the sailboat and the fishing boat’ (Scroll III B 2:24; cf. also Scroll III B 2:18; 3:31; B. Porten, A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt: Literature, Accounts, Lists, vol. 3, Winona Lake, IN 1993, 194–204). ‫ צלצלא‬was probably a boat with a protective deck. Cf. ‫ בית ספינתא‬in the Elephantine documents, as well as Akkadian bīt eleppi, ‘Aufbau auf dem Deck des Schiffes’, ‘Kajüte’. See A. Salonen, Die Wasserfahrzeuge in Babylonien nach šumerisch-akkadischen Qellen (mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der 4. Tafel der Serie har-ra=ḫ ubullu): Eine lexikalische und kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung, Helsingforsiae 1939, 96–98. See also ṣilli eleppi, ṣaluli 17

the analysis of isaiah 18

145

(e) ‘land of the winged beetle’ Several scholars argued that ‫ צלצל‬should be equated with the creature from Deut. 28:42, where it means ‘beetle’, as argued convincingly by M. Lubetski. ‫ צלצל כנפים‬designates the ‘winged beetle’, a prominent pharaonic symbol.20 From these solutions (c) can be excluded from the outset. The main problem with (a) and (b) is that these forms and meanings are unattested in Hebrew. Granting that ‫ כנפים‬would refer metaphorically to the sails of a ship, solution (d) might be possible, though also without precedent. Further arguments discussed in the exegesis support translating ‫ צלצל כנפים‬as ‘two-winged beetle’ (e). c ‫ ֵמ ֵﬠ ֶבר ְל‬. Although elsewhere ‫ מעבר ל‬undoubtedly means ‘on the other side of ’, scholars often translate ‫ מעבר לנהרי־כושׁ‬in 18:1 as ‘alongside / in the region of the rivers of Kush’.21 The alternative translation intends to solve an alleged geographical difficulty. The rivers of Kush are identified with the two main branches of the Nile, the White and the Blue Nile, as well as the Atbara, another tributary of the Nile. It is argued that the Kushite Empire of Isaiah’s time, with its capital at Napata, was located to the north of these branches. This would be incongruent with 18:1 if ‫ מעבר ל‬is translated as ‘on the other side of ’. As the analysis of v. 1 below makes clear, these arguments are highly debatable.

eleppi, rendered by Salonen as ‘Schattendeck (des Schiffes)’ or ‘Schirmdach’ (awning) to protect the sailors from sun and rain (Salonen, Wasserfahrzeuge, 98; cf. ‫ מכסה‬in Ezek. 27:7). Cf. S. Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie, Bd. 2 (GGWJ), Leipzig 1910–1912, 341. The Aramaic ‫ספינא‬, Hebrew ‫ספינה‬, ‘ship’ (Jon. 1:5) is also related etymologically to the verb ‫ספן‬, ‘bedecken’, ‘täfeln’ (Salonen, Wasserfahrzeuge, 19; Krauss, Archäologie, 339, 680 n. 208), which is one of the meanings of ‫ צלל‬as well. 20 M. Lubetski, ‘Beetlemania of Bygone Times’, JSOT 91 (2000), 15–26. For the translation ‘winged beetle’, cf. Schöring (Delitzsch, 350). ‫ צלצל‬was formerly thought to mean ‘locust’, ‘cricket’ (cf. the dictionaries and Fohrer, 1.203; Kilian, 118). A 6th-century-ad medical text (Book of Medicines) written by Asaf Harofeh identifies ‫ צלצל‬with the Syriac ḥbšwšytʾ and Arabic kunfusā, both related to the JudaeoAramaic ‫חיפושית‬, ‘beetle’ (cf. E. ben Yehuda, Thesaurus totius hebraitatis et veteris et recentioris, New York 1960; Lubetski, ‘Beetlemania’, 14). Asaf Harofeh mentions ‫צלצל הבתים שׁאין לו כנפים‬, ‘a house beetle that has no wings’. Another poetic text speaking of natural disasters, enumerates plagues caused by different kinds of insects (Ben Yehuda, Thesaurus, 5507): ‫כרם מתולעת לקש מארבה מגד מצלצל נפש מבהלה‬ ‫שובע מסלעם‬, ‘the vine (has been destroyed) by the worm, the second growth by the locust, the fine fruit by the ‫צלצל‬, the spirit (?) by the disaster, and the abundance by the grasshopper’. 21 B. Gemser, ‘Beʿēber hajjardēn: in Jordan’s Borderland’, VT 2 (1952), 352; Wildberger, 678–79; Watts, 244; Motyer, 161.

146

chapter four

‫ ֵﬠ ֶבר‬appears ca. 70 times in different constructions, most often with geographical connotations as in Isa. 18:1.22 In some geographical texts, the rendering ‘the other side’ is problematic. That is the reason why some consider ‫ עבר‬a neutral term, with a meaning undetermined by the position of the speaker.23 However, cases where the English ‘other side’, ‘opposite side’, ‘beyond’ is regarded as problematic can be grouped into three categories: (a) texts which compare two opposite sides, banks, etc.; (b) texts where ‫ עבר‬appears in some form as a standard terminology; the term is used here regardless of the position of the speaker; (c) it is problematic to decide from whose perspective ‫ עבר‬is used. For (a) see, e.g., Num. 32:19. The adverbial specifications ‫ הלאה‬and ‫ מזרחה‬are added here not because the term ‫ עבר‬is undetermined in itself (as Gemser assumed), but rather to clarify which ‘other side’ is meant. When opposite sides of a river are compared, ‫ עבר‬can refer to both sides. But this does not justify a neutral translation in texts where this opposite aspect is missing. ‫ עבר‬is like the demonstrative pronoun ‫זה‬, ‘this’, which also changes its meaning when used in reciprocal constructions (cf. 1 Sam. 14:4). For (b), the most prominent example is ‫עבר הירדן‬, which is used to designate the Transjordan area from whatever perspective (cf. Num. 32:32; Deut. 3:8; 4:46, 47, and note also Isa. 8:23 along with 2 Kgs 15:29). For (c), note Josh. 5:1 and 9:1, where it is a question from which perspective ‘beyond’ is used. It must be noted that translating ‘beside’ would be inadequate on these occasions, for a neutral connotation would not fit the purpose of an author wishing to communicate geographical information. The question is not whether ‫ עבר‬means ‘beyond’, but rather from which perspective this is meant? Does the author write from the viewpoint of a Babylonian community? Does he identify himself with the people moving across the Jordan? Hebrew has various prepositions and adverbs for ‘beside’: ‫על‬, ‘beside’ (Exod. 2:5; Num. 22:5), ‫אצל‬, ‘side’, ‘beside’ (1 Kgs 20:36; Neh. 4:12), . . .‫על שׂפת‬, ‘beside’, ‘on the bank of ’ (Gen. 41:3, 17; Exod. 2:3; Deut. 2:36), ‫על יד‬, ‘on the river-side’ (Exod. 2:5; Jer. 46:6; Dan. 10:4), 22

Those cases where the geographical aspect is missing are of little relevance to Isa. 18:1 (contra Gemser, ‘Beʿēber hajjardēn’, 351). 23 Gemser, ‘Beʿēber hajjardēn’, 350; J.P.U. Lilley, ‘By the River-Side’, VT 28 (1978), 165–71; H.-P. Stähli, ‫עבר‬, THAT 2.203; H.F. Fuhs, ‫עבר‬, ThWAT 5.1031.

the analysis of isaiah 18

147

‫על גבול‬, ‘in the border of ’ (Num. 22:36; cf. also 34:12), ‫ככר‬, ‘territory’, ‘region’ (Gen. 13:10, 11, 12; Deut. 34:3), ‫קצה‬, ‘side’, ‘end’, ‘border’ (Num. 34:3; Josh. 3:8, 15), ‫גדיה‬, ‘river bank’ (Josh. 3:15; Isa. 8:7). The meaning ‘other side’ or ‘opposite side’ is covered only by ‫עבר‬. ‫מעבר ל‬, the expression in Isa. 18:1 that particularly concerns us now, is syntactically similar to ‫( מקדם ל‬Gen. 3:24; 12:8; Num. 34:11), ‫( מנגב ל‬Num. 34:4; Josh. 15:3), ‫( מצפון ל‬Josh. 8:11; 15:6; Ezek. 8:5), ‫( מחוץ ל‬Lev. 14:8; 24:3; Num. 35:27), or adverbial constructions ‫( מהלאה ל‬Gen. 35:21; Jer. 22:19; Amos 5:27), ‫( ממעל ל‬Exod. 28:27; Lev. 11:21; Isa. 14:13), ‫( מסביב ל‬Num. 16:24). The referential point is provided by the word attached to ‫ל‬. These related expressions make a neutral translation for ‫ מעבר ל‬even less unlikely. To conclude, the translation ‘other side’, ‘opposite side’ or the adverbial ‘beyond’, ‘on the other side’ clearly applies to most cases where ‫ עבר‬appears. It is, however, doubtful that such a biased expression with clear geographical and topographical undertones could have become a neutral expression in other cases. A neutral meaning would be impossible or superfluous on most occasions. Specifically, the syntagmatic construction ‫ מעבר ל‬can only be translated as ‘on the other side of ’, ‘opposite to’. How this fits Isa. 18:1, will be discussed below. 2 d ‫מ ֻמ ָשְּׁך‬. ְ ‫ משׁך‬qal is usually rendered in lexica as (1) ‘to seize’, or (2) ‘to draw’, ‘to pull’, ‘to stretch out’; ‘to carry along’.24 The passive translation of the pu‘al part. in Isa. 18:2, 7, ‘(to be) drawn out’, is generally accepted, but opinions differ on both the derivation and the exact meaning of the text. ‫ ממשׁך‬is most often explained to refer to physical appearance, to a nation ‘drawn out’, i.e. ‘tall’.25 Others understood 18:2, 7 to refer to Israelites, and translate ‘uprooted’, ‘pulled out’.26 Vitringa considered that ‫ ממשׁך‬describes the geographical characteristics of the country and rendered accordingly ‘extended nation’.27 Hitzig believed that the verb ‫ משׁך‬alludes to the long life of the Ethiopians as

24 GesB 468–69; BDB 604; HALOT. Torczyner defends only one sense, ‘to seize’, ‘to grasp’, ‘to hold’. He maintains that ‘to draw’, ‘to pull’ is a late development of ‫ משך‬in post-biblical Hebrew (H. Torczyner, ‘‫ משך‬eine mißverstandene hebräische Vokabel’, MGWJ 33 [1889], 401–12). His views are not convincing, however, since the verbal parallels of ‫ משך‬support the translation ‘to draw’, ‘to pull’. 25 Cf. ἔθνος μετέωρον in LXX, and see further Delitzsch, 351; Gray, 312; Young, 1.476; Kaiser, 77; Wildberger, 689; Blenkinsopp, 308; Goldenberg, Curse, 32. 26 For instance, Vulg., Syr. and some medieval Jewish commentaries. 27 Vitringa, 846–47; cf. also Lowth and Dathe according to Gesenius, 581.

148

chapter four

also mentioned by Herodotus (Hist. ii 17, 22–23; iii 20). Lubetski and Gottlieb believe that beyond the connotation ‘tall’, ‫ ממשׁך‬also means ‘bow drawers’.28 The pu‘al part. of ‫ משׁך‬appears only once more in Prov. 13:12 in a different syntagmatic relationship, mentioning ‫תוחלת ממשׁכה‬, ‘deferred/ delayed hope’. In lack of parallels for the pu‘al, the qal form should be examined more closely, assuming that the pu‘al is the passive to qal.29 One should probably distinguish between a more general transitive and a more rare intransitive meaning. The intransitive meaning, ‘to draw up’, ‘to depart’, appears in Judg. 4:6 (with ‫ לקח‬as in Exod. 12:21); 20:37.30 The transitive form—which is more important for the present case, since the pu‘al requires an object—means: (1) ‘to seize’, (2) ‘to draw’, ‘to pull’; ‘to carry along’. Looking at ‫ משׁך‬from a syntagmatic point of view, the objects of the verb may be people (Gen. 37:28; Judg. 4:7; Job 24:22; Song 1:4; Ezek. 32:20; Hos. 11:4), animals (Job 40:25), bow (1 Kgs 22:34; Isa. 66:19), yoke (Deut. 21:3), or evil (in metaphorical sense; Isa. 5:18).31 ‫ ממשׁך‬in 18:2 is best understood as a passive form of ‫ משׁך‬with a person as its object. As a passive, ‫ ממשׁך‬cannot mean ‘bow drawer’. Otherwise, ‫ משׁך‬could have this sense only in relation with ‫קשׁת‬ (1 Kgs 22:34; Isa. 66:19). A similar objection applies to the proposal of Hitzig (‘prolonged life’). The approach of Vitringa can be justified from a geographical perspective, but it is difficult from a grammatical point of view, since ‫ משׁך‬would have to be connected to ‫ ארץ‬rather than ‫גוי‬. The parallel ‫ מורט‬referring to the appearance of the nation would further question the geographical connotation of ‫ממשׁך‬. The assumption that ‫ ממשׁך‬refers to physical stature finds further support in post-biblical Hebrew. In b. Ketub. 10b we read: ‘(the rain) gives beauty and enlargement (‫ )ממשיך‬to the fruits’, while in b. Ber. 54b we

28 M. Lubetski, C. Gottlieb, ‘Isaiah 18: The Egyptian Nexus’, in: M. Lubetski et al. (eds), Boundaries of the Ancient Near Eastern World: A Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon (JSOT.S, 273), Sheffield 1998, 373–74. 29 The niph‘al stem (Isa. 13:22; Ezek. 12:25, 28) should also be translated as passive to qal (DCH 5.524–25). Cf. Isa. 13:22 niph‘al and Prov. 13:12 pu‘al. 30 Less probable is Job 21:33, where ‫ אדם‬may perhaps be the object of ‫משׁך‬. 31 In some less important cases, the verb has abstract objects: ‘to hold on / to prolong / to extend ‘years’ (Neh. 9:30 [unlike HALOT; H. Ringgren, ‘‫’משׁך‬, ThWAT 5.60; DCH 5.524 §16]), ‘kindness’ (Ps. 36:11; 109:12; Jer. 31:3), ‘anger’ (Ps. 85:6). With ‫יובל‬, ‘horn’, ‫ משׁך‬means the prolonging of its sound (Exod. 19:13; Josh. 6:5).

the analysis of isaiah 18

149

find: ‘his teeth were prolonged’ (‫)משכי שיניה‬. Both picture the size of the object of ‫משך‬.32 e ‫וּמוֹרט‬ ָ . Both ‫ מורט‬and the variant ‫ממורט‬, which appears in 1QIsaa and several Massoretic manuscripts, are pu‘al participles (cf. GKC §52s), frequently translated as ‘plucked out’ or ‘torn’. In medieval Jewish exegesis this verse was assumed to refer to Judaeans.33 More often, however, following Herodotus’ description of the Ethiopians (Hist. iii 20), ‫ מורט‬is rendered as ‘polished’, or ‘smooth-skinned’, and was supposed to refer to the shining dark-coloured skin salved with oil.34 The qal and pu‘al of ‫ מרט‬appear 14 times in different constructions. If the object of the verb is a person, ‫ מרט‬is translated as ‘to make bare’ (or with hair or beard as ‘to tear out’).35 When the verb is used in connection with some kind of metallic object, ‫ מרט‬is rendered as ‘to polish’, ‘to burnish’.36 Etymological cognates of ‫ מרט‬also give us a similar picture.37 Given that the object of the verb in Isa. 18:2 is a nation (people), ‫ מרט‬must refer to the hairlessness of peoples of this nation and not their shining appearance. In the Talmud ‫ ממורט‬is also used in connection with the bald Nazirite (b. Naz. 46b; b. Yom. 61b; cf. also ‫ המורט‬in t. Naz. i, 6). f-f ‫ ִמן־הוּא וָ ָה ְל ָאה‬. The construction ‫מן־הוא‬, a very problematic hapax legomenon, is interpreted either in a geographical or in a temporal sense.38 Following the more widely accepted geographical reading, one 32 ‫ משׁך‬in Tanh. Noah 13 is substituted in another version with ‫( גדל‬cf. Goldenberg, Curse, 189–90), which suggests that the two verbs can be used as synonyms. 33 Cf. Vulg., Syr. Targ. Isa. has ‫]עמא[ אניסא ובזיזא‬, which is hardly a translation of ‫]גוי[ ממשׁך ומורט‬, since the same phrase also renders ‫קו־קו ומבסה‬. The word pair is imported from Isa. 17:14, which is regarded as closely related to Isa. 18. 34 Knobel, 123; Delitzsch, 351; Cheyne, 111–12; Gray, 312; Procksch, 239; Young, 1.476; Hayes & Irvine, 255; Fohrer 1.205; Kaiser, 74, 77; Wildberger, 689; Watts, 245. 35 Ezra 9:3 (cf. Job 1:20; Ezek. 27:31); Neh. 13:25; Isa. 50:6; Ezek. 29:18. See also the niph‘al form (functioning as passive to qal) in Lev. 13:40, 41. 36 1 Kgs 7:45; Ezek. 21:14, 15, 16, 33. 37 See Akkadian marāṭu, muruṭtu ̣ , ‘to rub’, ‘scratch’ (CAD m 276–77); Eg. Aramaic ‫מרט‬, ‘pull out’ (of wool) (DNWSI 693), Biblical Aramaic ‫( מרט‬Dan. 7:4), Syriac mrṭ, ‘to pluck’, ‘to pull’, ‘to tear out’ (hair, feather, vegetables). In the Syr. of Mic. 1:6 mrṭʾ equates ‫קרחה‬, ‘baldness’ (CSD 301). The Targumic Aramaic ‫ מרט‬renders ‫קרחה‬, ‘baldness’ in Deut. 14:1 and Isa. 15:2. For the verbal form, see Targ. Onq. for Lev. 21:5, Targ. Jon. for Jer. 16:6 and Ezek. 27:31. Cf. also the parallelism ‫ קרח | מרט‬in Ezek. 29:18. 38 Kissane, 206, and Marti, 148, regarded ‫ מן־הוא‬as a corrupted word or name. A few render ‫ עם נורא מן־הוא והלאה‬by ‘a nation feared from/by itself and beyond’.

150

chapter four

would have ‘from here / there and beyond’, or ‘everywhere’.39 According to the temporal interpretation, ‫ מן־הוא והלאה‬is rendered by ‘from this time and onward’, or ‘since its existence’.40 However, both interpretations lack satisfactory grammatical support. It is true that the expression ‫ והלאה‬X ‫ מן‬appears several times in the Old Testament with both temporal and local meanings.41 Nevertheless, attributing a local / geographical significance to ‫ מן־הוא והלאה‬in the sense of ‘from there and beyond’ runs into difficulties as the adverb ‫ שׁם‬is required in combination with ‫( מן‬cf. 1 Sam. 10:3) in order to convey proximity. Similarly, the idea of ‘from this time and onward’ would demand some other noun expressing time beside ‫מן‬, such as ‫יום‬, for instance.42 At any rate, ‫ הוא‬is a problematic syntactical element which can hardly be taken as an adequate substitute in this regard. One possible alternative to solve the problem posed by the pronoun ‫ הוא‬in Isa. 18:2 is to consider its predicative function and translate: ‘from where it is and further on’ or ‘since it is (i.e. it exists) and onwards’. This path is also followed by BDB, for instance, which argues that ‫ מן־הוא‬is a variant of ‫מאשׁר הוא‬.43 Nevertheless, the soundness of this explanation is also doubtful from a grammatical and semantic point of view. Not only is the construction ‫ מאשׁר‬+ pers. pron. unknown in the Hebrew Bible,44 but the very idea of the interchangeability of ‫ מן־הוא‬and ‫ מאשׁר הוא‬also remains suspicious.

But that neither gives any sense, nor is it possible grammatically. In 1 Sam. 20:22, mentioned in support of this theory, ‫ ממך והלאה‬is paralleled by ‫ממך והנה‬, ‘hither from you’ (20:21). See discussion of this text below. 39 Sym. (μεθ᾽ ὃν οὐϰ ἔστιν ἐπέκεινα); Ibn Ezra, 85; Dillmann, 166; Von Orelli, 74–75; Schmidt, 119; Wildberger, 680; Clements, 165; Blenkinsopp, 308. 40 Cf. the Vulg.; Targ. Isa.; Sa’adya and Lowth (according to Gesenius, 583); Vitringa, 848; Cheyne, 111; Ehrlich, 68. 41 For the temporal usage, cf. Lev. 22:27; Num. 15:23; 1 Sam. 18:9; Ezek. 39:22, for local usage, see Num. 32:19; 1 Sam. 10:3; 20:22, 37. Cf. also ‫( מהלאה ל‬Gen. 35:21; Jer. 22:19; Amos 5:27). Ezek. 43:27 uses ‫ ב‬instead of ‫מן‬. 42 This is also the case in Nah. 2:9, where ‫מימי היא‬, ‘from the time she exists’, was argued by Gesenius to support a temporal translation in Isa. 18:2 (Gesenius, 581–82; GKC §103m). In its present vocalisation, the temporal aspect is assured by ‫ יום‬and not by ‫היא‬. On the problems of this text, see further K. Spronk, Nahum (COT), Kampen 1999, 127–28; A. Pinker, ‘Nineveh—An Isle is She’, ZAW 116 (2004), 402–5. 43 Cf. BDB 214: ‘from (the time that) it was’. 44 BDB calls attention to ‫ כאשׁר־היא‬and ‫ כאשׁר־המה‬from 2 Kgs 7:7, 10, but these are different. In contrast to countless appearances of ‫כאשׁר‬, ‫ מאשׁר‬appears merely 17 times in the Old Testament, in each case with the sense ‘from (that) which’ (or ‘compared to / except for which’) and not only ‘from’. I doubt that this semantic aspect would coincide with the context of Isa. 18:2.

the analysis of isaiah 18

151

There appears to be yet another solution, however. In the context of a possible local interpretation of ‫ מן־הוא והלאה‬support has often been derived from 1 Sam. 20:22, 37. Indeed, in 1 Sam. 20:22, 37 ‫ממך והלאה‬ means ‘further than you’, or ‘beyond you’, where ‫ ]ממך[ והלאה‬is the predicate of the nominal sentence (the arrow ‘is beyond you’). Nevertheless, in this case one has to observe a clear distinction between the thing which is referred to (the arrow) and the referential point (the person involved). If we transfer this function of the pronominal suffix to the pronoun of Isa. 18:2, we would have to translate ‫אל־עם נורא‬ ‫ מן־הוא והלאה‬as [go] ‘to the fearful nation, which is beyond it’, where ‘it’ (‫ )הוא‬refers to ‫ גוי ממשׁך ומורט‬in the previous verse line and not ‫עם נורא‬. In case of Isa. 18, this would mean that v. 2 refers to two different nations: one described in v. 2d as tall and bald and another, fearful one, which is located beyond the first nation (v. 2e–g). This is a highly important point for Isa. 18, mentioned in passing only by Gesenius and Young. Gesenius’ exegesis at this point is rather messy, but he translates: ‘und zu dem furchtbaren Volke weiter jenseits’. Young has: ‘to a people terrible even farther than that one’.45 The Syr. appears to have followed a similar line of thought, for mnh wlhl suggests that ‫ מן־הוא‬was considered a variant of the usual contracted form ‫ממנו‬. Admittedly, the form ‫מן־הוא‬, i.e. a pronoun following the preposition ‫ מן‬instead of the general suffixed form, ‫ממנו‬, still remains unusual in Hebrew. The fact that this would have anyway been the case with all alternative suggestions mentioned above will hardly free us from the burden of providing some additional clarification for this particular interpretation. Two further modest notes may support the proposal presented above. First, we have a few other examples of irregular constructions with the preposition ‫מן‬: e.g., the pl. 3. m. personal pronoun is used with ‫ מן‬in the irregular variant ‫( ֵמ ֵה ָמּה‬Jer. 10:12; Eccl. 12:12) instead of the far more usual suffixed form ‫( ֵמ ֶהם‬cf. GKC §103m). Second, even more significant parallels to Isa. 18:2 appear in the poetic texts of Job 4:12, having ‫ ֶמנְ הוּ‬for ‫ ִמ ֶמּנּוּ‬and of Job 11:20, where we 45 Gesenius, 582; Young, 1.476. This might also be in the background of LXX: τίς αὐτοῦ ἐπέκεινα, ‘which is beyond it’. αὐτοῦ can be masculine as well as neutral (referring to ἔθνος). Cf. also LXX version of 1 Sam. 20:22, 37: ἀπὸ σοῦ καὶ ἐπέκεινα. It is

also possible, however, that the LXX translates ‫מי־הוא‬, ‘who / which is beyond it?’, as a rhetorical utterance. Alternatively, the LXX considered ‫ מן‬the Aramaic form of Hebrew ‫מי‬. Or ‫ מן־הוא‬was actually read as ‫( ָמן־הוא‬cf. MT of Ezek. 8:6 for a similar error of ‫ ֵמ ֶהם‬/ ‫ ?) ָמה ֵהם‬Cf. Sym.: μεθ᾽ ὃν οὐϰ ἔστιν ἐπέκεινα.

152

chapter four

find the form ‫( ִמנְ ֶהם‬instead of ‫) ֵמ ֶהם‬. In both cases the preposition ‫מן‬ has been preserved in a particular way. ‫ מן־הוא‬could be just another irregular form conserved by the Massoretic tradition in a poetic verse line of Isa. 18:2. In the context of a prophecy which otherwise delights in making use of exotic vocabulary and hapax legomena, this hypothesis should gain at least some additional plausibility. In conclusion, vv. 2d and 2e–g apparently refers not to one, but two different nations. This interpretation is also favoured by the additional ‫אל‬, as well as the emphatic ‘‫ ומ‬in v. 7 (on which see note y). g ‫ו־קו‬ ָ ‫ ַק‬. The oriental Ketiv and 1QIsaa suggest reading ‫קוקו‬. Root repetition in Hebrew can take both forms, but reduplication written as one word is more frequent in the case of verbs, while superlatives of adjectives and adverbs are in general written separately both with and without a maqqeph.46 The Targ. interpreted Isa. 18:2 as describing Israel. The words ‫אניסא‬ ‫ ובזיזא‬also appear in Isa. 17:14.47 LXX connected ‫ קו‬to the Hebrew ‫קוה‬, ‘to hope’, rendering ἔθνος ἀνέλπιστον, ‘hopeless, desperate nation’.48 The Vulg. translated (gentem) expectantem, while Aq. (ἔθνος) ὑπομένων, ‘enduring [nation]’ (cf. the LXX of Ps. 40:2). Medieval exegetes derived the meaning of ‫ קו־קו‬from ‫קו‬, ‘measuring line’, ‘cord’.49 Delitzsch translated ‫ קו‬by ‘command’, arguing that the Kushites were a commanding nation.50 Others take the repetition ‫ קו־קו‬as a reference to the unintelligible speech of the nation, a view assumed to be supported by Isa. 28:10, 13.51 However, it is questionable if ‫ קו‬may be an

46 See further Eitan, ‘Répétition’, 171–86. Cf. Gen. 25:30; Deut. 16:20; Judg. 5:22; 1 Sam. 2:3; Prov. 20:14; Eccl. 7:24. 47 P.A.H. de Boer, ‘Etude sur le sens de la racine QWH’, OTS 10 (1954), 233. 48 The use of the negative form in Isa. 18:2 is particularly striking, but note ἐλπίζον in Isa. 18:7, and see also 28:10, 13. 49 In 1QH i 28 and Sir. 44:5 ‫ קו‬probably means ‘verse meter’ (cf. HALOT). Qimchi believed ‫ גוי קו־קו ומבוסה‬referred to ‘a nation (Israelites) trampled little by little’. Ibn Ezra understood ‫ גוי קו־קו‬to mean ‘a nation line by line’, referring to the intellect of the child, who is taught gradually (Ibn Ezra, 85; cf. Isa. 28:10, 13). 50 Delitzsch, 351. See also Von Orelli, 75; Ridderbos, 134. Cf. Vitringa, 849–50. 51 Fischer, 138; Hayes & Irvine, 255; Goldenberg, Curse, 35–36. For Isa. 28:10, 13, see J.A. Emerton, ‘Some Difficult Words in Isaiah 28.10 and 13’, in: A. RapoportAlbert, G. Greenberg (eds), Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman (JSOT.S, 333), Sheffield 2001, 39–56.

the analysis of isaiah 18

153

onomatopoeic word in 28:10 and 13.52 At any rate, ‫ קו לקו‬in 28:10, 13 is different from ‫ קו־קו‬appearing in Isa. 18:2. To sum up, bringing ‫ קו‬in connection with ‫ קוה‬in the sense of ‘a nation of hope’, i.e. one of great expectations in whom others put their trust, as LXX and the Vulg. probably infer, can be explained historically (cf. Isa. 20:6). However, in view of the following ‫מבוסה‬, the derivation of ‫ קו־קו‬from Arabic qawiya, ‘to be strong’, ‘to be mighty’ (cf. qūwat, ‘strength’, ‘might’) is more attractive.53 The reduplication should be interpreted as a sign of superlative: ‘a nation of might’, i.e. ‘a mighty nation’ (cf. Akkadian dandannu, ‘very strong’). h ‫בוּסה‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬. ‫ מבוסה‬is derived from ‫בוס‬, ‘to trample down’,54 and it appears once more in Isa. 22:5 in the expression ‫יום מבוסה‬. Driver doubted that fem. ‫ מבוסה‬could be attached to the masc. ‫גוי‬, and emended ‫ מבוסה‬to ‫ ְמ ַב ֶסּה‬, ‘contemptuous’.55 However, ‫בסה‬, ‘to be contemptuous’ is unknown in Hebrew. Moreover, ‫ מבוסה‬is not an adjective, but a noun (epexegetical genitive; cf. also the masc. ‫ יום‬in Isa. 22:5). The present form of MT is supported by LXX (καταπεπατημένον), Aq. (συμπεπατημένον) and the Vulg. (conculcatam). i ‫ ָבּזְ אוּ‬. ‫ בזאו‬is derived from ‫בזא‬, which is often identified with ‫בזז‬, ‘to spoil’, ‘to plunder’.56 According to the Targ., v. 2 refers to Israel, ‘the nation robbed and plundered, whose land the gentiles plundered’. ‫ נהרים‬was interpreted allegorically as a symbol for the gentiles. More often, however, exegetes relate ‫ )בזא =( בזז‬to the Nile inundations. But unlike what a negative term such as ‫ בזז‬might suggest, this natural phenomenon was considered beneficial by the Egyptians. The same can be said with regard to deriving ‫ בזא‬from Arabic bazza, ‘to carry

52 Note that, beside ‫ קו‬and ‫צו‬, we also find ‫זעיר שׁם‬, which can hardly be onomatopoeic. Moreover, the preposition ‫ ל‬cannot be explained in an onomatopoeic expression. In view of Isa. 28:14, it is also possible that vv. 10 and 13 cite Isaiah’s opponents, the scoffers who do not want to listen to the prophet’s words. Through their mockery, these people typify the Isaianic message as ‫ צדקה‬and ‫( משׁפט‬28:17), as ‘always commandments, and always rules’. Despite Emerton’s reservations (‘Some Difficult Words’, 44), ‫ קו‬in this text possibly stands for ‘measure’, ‘gage’. 53 Knobel, 124; Gesenius, 585–86; Alexander, 344; Cheyne, 112; Dillmann, 166; Marti, 147; Duhm, 137; Gray, 317; Procksch, 239; Van Hoonacker, 105; Kissane, 206–7; G.R. Driver, ‘Linguistic and Textual Problems: Isaiah I–XXXIX’, JThS 38 (1937), 46; Wildberger, 680; Kaiser, 74; Watts, 243–44; Blenkinsopp, 308. 54 Ps. 44:6 (|‫ ;)נגח‬60:14; 108:14; Isa. 14:19, 25 (|‫ ;)שׁבר‬63:6. Cf. Ezek. 16:6, 22. 55 Driver, ‘Isaiah I–XXXIX’, 46. 56 Cf. the Vulg., Syr., Targ. For ‫ בזז‬see Isa. 10:2, 6; 11:14; 17:14; etc.

154

chapter four

away (by force)’.57 It is more convincing to connect ‫ בזא‬in Isa. 18:2, 7 to Aramaic ‫בזא‬/‫בזי‬, ‘to perforate’; ‘to divide’, ‘to split’.58 This connection gives a clear translation for these verses: ‘whose land is divided by the rivers’. There is a noteworthy textual variant for Isa. 18:2 and 7 in 1QIsaa, which reads ‫ בזאי‬instead of ‫בזאו‬. ‫ בזאי‬appears once more in 1QHa xvi 14–15 similarly with ‫נהרות‬: ‫ואני הייתי ל]ב[זאי נהרות שוטפים‬. ‫ בזאי‬is connected with ‫בזה‬, ‘to mock’,59 with ‫בזז‬, ‘to rob’, ‘to plunder’,60 or else it is left untranslated.61 The interpretation provided above for Isa. 18:2 and 7 may also throw new light on the background of 1QIsaa, as well as 1QHa xvi 14–15. It is possible that ‫ בזאי‬stands for ‘riverbed’62 where the sediment is deposited (cf. 1QHa xvi 14–15; xvi 4!). If the reading ‫ בזאי‬from 1QIsaa is applied to Isa. 18:2, 7, this would yield the translation: ‘(go to the people . . .) whose land is the riverbed (‫’)בזאי נהרים‬. The imagery is well suited for the Kushites and Egyptians inhabiting the small fertile strip along the Nile, living almost literally on the river sediment (cf. 1QHa xvi 14–15). The Egyptians are called ‘the valley dwellers’ in Piye’s Victory Stele (FHN 1.9:158; COS 2.7:158). Although this reading of 1QIsaa is unattested in other manuscripts, it cannot be excluded that the Greek version of v. 7 (which is a more accurate translation of MT than v. 2) goes back to this variant. The sentence ὅ ἐστιν ἐν μέρει ποταμοῦ τῆς χώρας αὐτοῦ, ‘(a nation) which lives on the side of the river of his region’, is close to 1QIsaa.63

57

ArEL 198; L. Köhler, ‘Bāzāʾ = fortschwemmen’, ThZ 6 (1950), 317. NCW 1.205; DTTM 153; DJBA 194. ‫ בזא‬is basically identical with ‫( בזע‬Cheyne, 112; Dillmann, 167; Procksch, 239; Wildberger, 680). For the ‫ א‬/ ‫ ע‬change, see Hebrew ‫ גמא‬/ ‫גמע‬, ‫ פתע‬/ ‫פתאם‬, ‫ גאל‬/ ‫געל‬, ‫ אגם‬/ ‫עגם‬. See further Official Aramaic bzʿ (DNWSI 149) and Syriac bzʿ, ‘to cleave’ (CSD 40; LS 64). A synonym of ‫ בזע‬/ ‫ בזא‬is ‫בקע‬. Cf. Hab. 3:9 (‫ ;)נהרות תבקע־ארץ‬Job 28:10; Ps. 74:15; Num. 16:31; 1 Kgs 1:40. 59 ‘But I had become a mockery of the raging torrents’; F. García Martínez, E.J.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition, vol. 1, Leiden 1997, 181. 60 ‘And I have become robbed by the scourging rivers’ (J. Mansoor, The Thanksgiving Hymns, Leiden 1961, 155). 61 J. Maier, Die Qumran-Essener: Die Texte vom Toten Meer, Bd. 1, München 1995, 90. 62 Cf. the Aramaic ‫ בזא‬and ‫‘ בזאי‬cleft’, ‘breach’, also in the ground. 63 HUB suggests that LXX gives a geographical exegesis in Isa. 18:2, 7, but that is not necessarily the case. μέρος, ‘part’, ‘border’, ‘side’ frequently renders Hebrew ‫קצה‬, a synonym of ‫ קצה( בזאי‬also means ‘to break off ’ or ‘to divide’, like Aramaic ‫ ;בזא‬cf. 2 Kgs 10:32; Prov. 26:6). For μέρος, used with rivers, see Josh. 3:8, 15. 58

the analysis of isaiah 18

155

3 j ‫ ִכּנְ שֹׂא‬and ‫כתקע‬. Some argued for the modal interpretation of ‫כ‬: ‘as if one raised a sign, look!’.64 The purport of this interpretation is that the audience of the prophet should listen attentively, as if someone had raised a sign or blown a horn. However, examples where ‫ כ‬is translated ‘as if ’ imply that the action in the comparison and the act compared are expressed by two identical verbs.65 As a consequence, one would expect here ‫ תראו‬. . . ‫כראות‬, or ‫ תשׂאו‬. . . ‫כנשׂא‬, but in no way ‫ תראו‬. . . ‫כנשׂא‬. For the temporal meaning of the preposition ‫כ‬, cf. GKC §164g; JM §166m. 4 k ‫ ְבּ‬. ‫ נבט‬can be both transitive (‘to look at’)66 and intransitive (‘to look [around]’; cf. Ps. 13:4; 33:13; 80:15). In the latter case, ‫ ב‬is supposed to be semantically similar to ‫מן‬, ‘from’.67 It is, however, more attractive to explain ‫ ב‬as the preposition required by ‫שׁקט‬: ‘I shall stay calm in my place and watch’. l ‫ ָמכוֹן‬. Aq. translates ‫ מכון‬by firmament (according to Jerome), LXX by πόλις, ‘(fortified) city’, identifying the place with Jerusalem. Nevertheless, ‫ מכון‬probably means here ‘place’, ‘site’, as most commonly attested in the Bible.68 ‫ מכון‬is synonymous with ‫מקום‬, though lacking its geographical connotation.69 m ‫ ְכּ‬. Some translate these sentences temporally,70 but it is more convincing to regard ‫ כ‬as a comparative.71 ‫ כ‬can be used in a temporal sense only before an infinitive, not with a noun.72 While ‫ חם‬could also be an infinitive, ‫ עב‬is a noun.

64

Ibn Ezra, 85; Alexander, 345; Von Orelli, 75; König, 199; Young, 1.474. Cf. Gen. 33:10; Num. 22:4; 2 Sam. 3:34; 17:3; Job 10:4. 66 E.g., LXX; Qimchi; Duhm, 138. 67 For ‫מן‬, cf. Ps. 33:13; 80:15; 102:20; Isa. 63:15. See further the Targ.; Gesenius, 587; Procksch, 236; Lubetski & Gottlieb, ‘Isaiah 18’, 376 n. 63. 68 Exod. 15:17; 1 Kgs 8:13, 39; Ps. 33:14; Isa. 4:5. Occasionally ‫ מכון‬means ‘base’, ‘fundament’ (Ps. 89:15; 97:2; Ezra 2:68). Cf. ‫( מכונה‬1 Kgs 7:27; Ezra 3:3; Zech. 5:11). 69 Compare 1 Kgs 8:13 | 1 Kgs 8:29, 30; Ps. 104:5 | Job 9:6; Dan. 8:11 | Jer. 17:12. 70 E.g., Gesenius, 588; Delitzsch, 352; Von Orelli, 75; Blenkinsopp, 308. 71 Dillmann, 167; Gray, 313, 318; Wildberger, 678. 72 Gesenius, 588, referred to ‫ כעת הראשׁון‬in Isa. 8:23, claiming that it supported his temporal translation. However, ‫ כ‬is there a contraction of ‫ ב‬+ ‫( כ‬cf. Isa. 9:3, where ‫ ביום מדין = כיום מדין‬+ ‫ ;כ‬see GKC §118u; JM §133h). In Isa. 8:23 ‫ כ‬is clearly comparative. 65

156

chapter four

n ‫ ַצח‬. ‫ צח‬derives either from ‫צחח‬, ‘to shine’, ‘to glow’,73 or it may be related to ‫צחה‬, ‘to be dry’, ‘to be thirsty’.74 As a result, ‫ חם צח‬should be rendered as ‘glowing heat’, or ‘scorching heat’. It is not likely that ‫ צח‬would have anything to do semantically with the Arabic ḍiḥḥ and Ethiopic ḍaḥāy, ‘sun’,75 nor is it correct to see an ancient Canaanite month name behind this term.76 o-o ‫ ֲﬠ ֵלי־אוֹר‬. The Syr. ʿal nhrʾ presupposes the reading ‫על־יאור‬, ‘on the Nile’,77 but this is not supported either by other witnesses or the parallelism. ‫ אור‬usually means ‘light’,78 and some have felt free to render it as ‘sunlight’ or ‘sunshine’.79 However, this sense of ‫ אור‬in combination with ‫ על‬is so problematic that other exegetes have suggested translating ‫ אור‬as ‘herbage’.80 Nevertheless, 2 Kgs 4:39, where ‫אורה‬ (fem!) appears, refers to a specific kind of plant rather than herbage in general. Furthermore, contextually speaking, ‫ אור‬as a kind of plant fails to explain the comparative aspect of Isa. 18:4 and it would similarly corrupt the parallelism. ‫ אור‬frequently designates the morning light after the night, specifically the dawn or early morning. The expression ‫עד־אור הבקר‬, lit. ‘until the morning becomes light’ (qal inf.) is common.81 ‫ אור‬may have

Cf. ‫ צח ואדום‬in Song 5:10 and ‫ צחו מחלב‬in Lam. 4:7. ‫רוח צח‬, ‘scorching wind’ (Jer. 4:11), is the dry, hot wind from the desert. Contrast this with ‫צינה רוח צפון‬, ‘the coolness of the north-wind’ in Sir. 43:20 (cf. Prov. 25:23). In Isa. 32:4 ‫צח‬, ‘clear’, probably derives from a different root which may be related to the Old South Arabic and Classical Arabic *ṣḥḥ, ‘to be healthy’. 75 Contra I. Eitan, ‘Contribution to Isaiah Exegesis (Notes and Short Studies in Biblical Philology)’, HUCA 12–13 (1937–1938), 65; J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament, Oxford 1968, 334. For Hebrew terms designating the sun, see ‫שׁמשׁ‬, ‫חרס‬, poetical ‫( חמה‬Isa. 24:23; 30:26; Song 6:10; cf. ‫ חם‬in Isa. 18:4), ‫אור‬. 76 J.A. Soggin, ‘Zum wiederentdeckten altkanaanäischen Monat ‫’צח‬, ZAW 77 (1965), 85, followed by Kaiser, 74; Lubetski & Gottlieb, ‘Isaiah 18’, 377. In the disputed documents, the reading ‫ צח‬was questioned by A. Lemaire, ‘Note épigraphique sur la pseudo-attestation de mois ‘ṣḥ’’, VT 33 (1973), 243–45. 77 Cf. also E. Baumann, ‘Zwei Bemerkungen’, ZAW 21 (1901), 266–68; Lubetski & Gottlieb, ‘Isaiah 18’, 377–78. 78 In Isa. 18:4, cf. the LXX; the Vulg.; Gray, 314; Procksch, 240. 79 Targ. Isa., Gesenius, 588; Marti, 149; Cheyne, 112; Duhm, 138; Van Hoonacker, 106; Fisher, 138; Kissane, 203; Penna, 180; Wildberger, 691; Blenkinsopp, 308. 80 Cf. Rashi; A. Elmaleh, Nouveau dictionnaire complet hébreux-français, t. 1, TelAviv 1950, 93; Alexander, 345; NIV. See the philological notes on Isa. 19:7 m-m. 81 Judg. 16:2; 1 Sam. 14:36; 25:34, 36; 2 Sam. 17:22; 2 Kgs 7:9. In all cases ‫ אור‬is a qal inf., syntactically equivalent to ‫( עד־יאור הבקר‬niph‘al impf.), or ‫עד אשׁר יאור הבקר‬ (see JM §124k). Cf. also Gen. 44:3; 1 Sam. 29:10; 2 Sam. 23:4; Mic. 2:1. 73 74

the analysis of isaiah 18

157

a connotation similar to ‫ בקר‬even when used on its own.82 The question is, of course, whether it is possible to use ‫ אור‬in the sense of ‘morning’ or ‘daybreak’ with the preposition ‫ ?עלי‬Emending ‫ עלי‬to ‫ עד‬would be much easier to translate, but we lack concrete evidence for a scribal error at this place.83 Nevertheless, it seems that ‫ על‬can sometimes be interchanged with ‫ב‬84 in similar constructions. Consequently, ‫עלי־אור‬ could be translated as ‘upon daybreak’ (see discussion below). Another possibility is to regard ‫ אור‬as a synonym for ‫טל‬, ‘dew’.85 In addition to Arabic ʾary, ‘dew’, one could mention Ugaritic ʾar, ‘(a certain type of) dew’ or ‘(night) mist’, closely connected to ṭly (‫)טל‬.86 ‫ אור‬probably also appears with this meaning in Isa. 26:19.87 p-p ‫ ָﬠב ַטל‬. This expression can only have the connotation ‘cloud of dew’.88 ‫טל‬, ‘dew’, appears frequently in connection with the dawn (Exod. 16:13; Ps. 110:3; Isa. 26:19), and the same may be the case here (cf. the parallelism with ‫ אור‬as interpreted above). ‫ עבי טל‬appears also

82 Cf. DCH 1.161. For ‫ אור‬and ‫בקר‬, cf. Judg. 19:26 (‫עד־האור | לפנות הבקר‬, ‘until daybreak’; cf. ‫ עד־הבקר‬and ‫ כעלות השׁחר‬in v. 25). For ‫ אור‬paralleled by ‫שׁחר‬, see Job 3:9; 41:10; Isa. 58:8; Hos. 6:5. ‫ אור‬as ‘daybreak’ appears in Neh. 8:3 (‫מן־האור‬ ‫עד־מחצית היום‬, ‘from early morning until midday’; cf. Neh. 7:3). Cf. J. Day, ‘‫טל‬ ‫ אורת‬in Isaiah 26 19’, ZAW 90 (1978), 265–69, esp. 267–68; he argues that ‫ אור‬means ‘morning’ in Isa. 26:19 (see however below). ‫ אור‬as ‘daybreak’ is attested in postbiblical Hebrew (NAW 1.45; DTTM 32; cf. ‫לאור‬, ‘upon daybreak’ [b. Pes. 2b], ‫ביאת‬ ‫אורו‬, ‘the entrance of his daybreak’ [b. Ber. 2b]. Akkadian urru means ‘early morning’, ‘daybreak’. urru also refers to the ‘day’ as opposite to night (cf. Job 24:14). 83 Cf. ‫עד יאור‬, ‘until the dawn breaks’. For the ‫ עד‬/ ‫ על‬interchange as scribal error, see 1 Chron. 5:16; Ezek. 41:17, and eventually Pss 19:7; 48:11, 15 (cf. BHS). 84 1 Sam. 25:8 (‫ ;)על־יום טוב‬Job 3:4 (‫ ;)עליו|יום‬18:20 (‫ ;)על־יומו‬Jer. 47:4 (‫)על־היום‬. 85 The meaning ‘rain’ also mentioned as a derivation from Arabic ʾary (b. Ta’an. 7b, Judah ben Karish and Sa’adya cited by Gesenius, 588; Vitringa, 861; Eitan, ‘Contribution’, 65; Barr, Comparative Philology, 321) is less likely. The biblical evidence for such a translation is lacking. In Job 37:11, one of the texts commonly referred to in this respect (cf. the Targ.), ‫ אור‬does not mean ‘rain’. Gesenius, 588–89, pointed to similarities between ‫ ענן אורו‬in Job 37:11 and ‫ אור עננו‬in 37:15. ‫ אור‬is used in Job 37:15 with ‫יפע‬, ‘to shine forth’, suggesting that ‫ אור‬rather refers to ‘lightning’, as it is usually interpreted (cf. Job 36:30, 32; 37:3, 15, 21). This view is further strengthened by the fact that ‫ פוץ‬hiph‘il appearing with ‫ אור‬in Job 37:11 is also used with ‫ברק‬, ‘lightning’ in Ps. 18:15. 86 ʾar (Aru) appears in relation to the weather god Ba‘al, as well as ṭly in KTU 1.3 i 22–25: ‘Ba‘alu sees his daughters, eyes Pidray, daughter of Aru, even Tallay (ṭly), daughter of Rabbu (cf. ‫רביבים‬, ‘[spring] shower’ or ‘mist’).’ See also KTU 1.3 iii 5–8. 87 Cf. J. Barth, Etymologische Studien, Leipzig 1893, 60. Barth compares ‫טל אורת‬ to ‫ גשׁם מטר‬and ‫ גשׁם מטרות‬in Job 37:6. For another view on Isa. 26:19, see Day, ‘‫’טל אורת‬, 265–69. 88 Contra Blenkinsopp, 309 (‘while the dew covers the ground’); Lubetski & Gottlieb, ‘Isaiah 18’, 378 (‘heavy rain’).

158

chapter four

in 1QM xii 9–10: ‘our horsemen are like clouds (‫)ענן‬, and like clouds of dew (‫ )וכעבי טל‬that cover the earth, like a rain shower that sheds justice on all its sprouts’. Similarly, in the Targ. of Job 38:28 and in 11Q10 xxxi 6, the Hebrew ‫ אגלי־טל‬is rendered by ‫( ענני טלא‬cf. ‫טל ענן‬ in Sir. 43:22 and the Targ. of Isa. 18:4). q-q ‫ ְבּחֹם‬. MT is supported by the majority of manuscripts, as well as 1QIsaa and Targ. Isa. However, twelve manuscripts, LXX,89 the Syr., and the Vulg.90 suggest a reading of ‫ ביום‬instead of ‫בחם‬. The formal resemblance between ‫ יו‬and ‫ ח‬may explain the textual corruption, but it is hard to say which might have been the original reading. The construction ‫ ביום קציר‬appears once more in Prov. 25:13, but ‫בחם קציר‬ also makes perfect sense. r ‫ ָק ִציר‬. Instead of its usual meaning, ‘harvest’, ‫ קציר‬is occasionally rendered as ‘vintage’.91 However, the two texts on which this suggestion relies, Isa. 16:9 and 17:11, offer no support for this translation. In Isa. 17:11, ‫ קציר‬means ‘bough’ or ‘branches’ (cf. JPS). In Isa. 16:9, ‫קציר‬ is probably a textual error for ‫בציר‬, ‘vintage’, attested in Jer. 48:32, the literary parallel to Isa. 16:9. 5 s ‫ ֶפּ ַרח‬. The verbal form ‫ פרח‬means ‘to bud’, ‘to sprout’, ‘to blossom’. In Gen. 40:10, ‫ פרח‬is a stage in the development of the grapes before blossoming: ‘as soon as it budded (‫)פרח‬, its blossom shot forth (‫ )עלתה נצה‬and the clusters ripened into grapes’. Song 6:11 mentions the time of budding of the vine in the spring, when everything is fresh green and the pomegranates are in blossom. In Song 7:13, ‫פרחה הגפן‬ is paralleled by the opening of buds (‫ )פתח הסמדר‬and the blooming (‫ )נצץ‬of the pomegranates. t-t ‫בּ ֶֹסר‬. The reading ‫ ) ָבּסוֹר( בסור‬in 1QIsaa appears to be an Aramaic form.92 ‫ בסר‬appears in Job 15:33; Jer. 31:29, 30; Ezek. 18:2 specifically

89 To avoid repetition, LXX ‘corrects’ words that appear double in a parallelism. See I.L. Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of Its Problems (MVEOL, 9), Leiden 1948, 69. 90 Jerome’s commentary on Isaiah implies that he was aware of both variants: quomodo nubes roris in die messis ([‫ )ביום ]קציר‬et in ferventi aestate (‫ )בחם‬gratissima est. 91 Gesenius, 588–89; Procksch, 240; Blenkinsopp, 308. The rendering of ‘vintage’ for ‫ קציר‬in v. 5 is even more widespread (cf. Duhm, 139; Penna, 181; Kissane, 207). 92 Kutscher, Isaiah Scroll, 201.

the analysis of isaiah 18

159

related to the vine (‫)גפן‬. ‫ בסר‬probably means the ‘(unripe) berry’.93 Rashi identifies ‫ בסר‬in Isa. 18:5 with ‫‘ גרוע‬formation of kernels’ (cf. b. Pes. 53a). ‫ בסר‬is well-represented in cognate Semitic languages.94 u ‫זַ ְלזַ ִלּים‬. Wildberger related ‫זלזלים‬, a hapax legomenon, to ‫זלל‬, which he translated as ‘to (idly) move’. He goes too far, however, in concluding that ‫ זלזלים‬are the lengthy, idly moving fruitless sprouts that were cut off so that the vine yields more fruit.95 Høyland Lavik believes that ‫ זלזל‬is the term for those parts of the vine by means of which it attaches itself, here used in a political sense.96 Rüthy considered ‫ זלזל‬as a mere phonetic variant for ‫סלסלה‬, which appears in Jer. 6:9.97 It is more likely, however, that ‫ זלל‬is etymologically related to Hebrew ‫דלה‬, ‘to dangle’, Arabic d̠ald̠ala, ‘to sway’, ‘to dangle’. The Hebrew derivate ‫ דלית‬is a possible synonym of ‫זלזל‬. ‫ דלית‬appears in a metaphorical sense in different prophecies, denoting the fruit-bearing branches of the vine.98 Cognates to the Hebrew ‫ דלית‬are the Demotic d̠r (variants d̠rd̠r, d̠nn), as well as the Coptic dal all meaning ‘branch’, ‘stick’.99 v ‫ישׁה‬ ָ ‫נְ ִט‬. ‫ נטישׁה‬also appears in Jer. 5:10 (similarly with ‫ סור‬hiph‘il) and 48:32 denoting the spreading branches of the vine (cf. the parallel text of Jer. 48:32 in Isa. 16:8 having ‫שׁלחות‬, ‘shoot’).

93

I. Löw, Die Flora der Juden, Bd. 1, Leipzig 1881, 77–78; G. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, Bd. 4: Brot, Öl und Wein, Gütersloh 1935, 303; O. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, Winona Lake, IN 1987, 110 n. 13. 94 Cf. Arabic busr or bisr, ‘unripe datteln’, Syr. besrē, and Aramaic ‫בוסרא‬, with similar meaning. The lexeme busraʾ also appears in an Aramaic-Persian glossary (Frahang-i-pahlavik) with the meaning ‘vine’. See also HSED 73–74. 95 Wildberger, 692. 96 M. Høyland Lavik, A People Tall and Smooth Skinned: The Rhetoric of Isaiah 18 (VT.S, 112), Leiden 2007, 184. 97 A.E. Rüthy, Die Pflanze und ihre Teile im biblisch-hebräischen Sprachgebrauch, Bern 1942, 60–61. Cf. also Dalman, Brot, 301. ‫ סלסלה‬appears only once, and its meaning is debated. LXX and the Vulg. translate this term as ‘basket’ (cf. Aramaic ‫סל‬, ‘basket’). 98 Jer. 11:16; Ezek. 17:7, 23; 19:11; 31:7, 9, 12. On ‫ דלית‬see also I. Löw, Aramäische Pflanzennamen, Gütersloh 1936, 65; Dalman, Brot, 301; Rüthy, Pflanze, 56–57. Dalman also refers to Arabic dālie, the name of the lying vine (Dalman, Brot, 314), a term Delitzsch also mentioned in relation to Hebrew ‫( זלזל‬Delitzsch, 353). 99 J.E. Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, Princeton, NJ 1994, 389–91; CDD d̠ 66–67; Lubetski & Gottlieb, ‘Isaiah 18’, 379.

160

chapter four

7 w-w ‫יוּבל‬ ַ . For a discussion on the vocalisation ‫יוֹבל‬ ִ , see note y-y below. x ‫ ַשׁי‬. ‫ שׁי‬means ‘tribute’, ‘gift’ (cf. Ps. 68:30; 76:12),100 being synonymous with ‫( מנחה‬cf. Zeph. 3:10 citing Isa. 18:7). ‫ שי‬also appears in Aramaic on the Zenjirli-Stele: ‫שי להדד ולאל ולרכבאל ולשמש‬, ‘a gift to Hadad, El, Rachabel, and Shemesh’,101 designating gift offerings to the gods, just like Ugaritic t̠y in KTU 2.13:14–15; KTU 2.30:13–14: t̠y . ndr . it̠t, ‘tribute, vow, generous gift’.102 y-y ‫וּמ ַﬠם‬ ֵ . . . ‫ ַﬠם‬. The present form and vocalisation of MT is difficult. Scholars often explain Isa. 18:7 in the sense that the people will be brought as a tribute to Jerusalem.103 This is, however, improbable in the context (see next section) and it cannot explain the preposition ‫מן‬. Most often exegetes include an additional preposition before ‫עם‬ in v. 7b: ‘a tribute will be brought (‫יוּבל‬ ַ ) from a people (‫ )מעם‬tall and shaved . . .’ (cf. also LXX, Vulg., 1QIsaa). In the translation above I followed the proposal put forward by Lubetski & Gottlieb to take ‘‫ ומ‬as an emphatic conjunction. The emphatic conjunction, to be rendered as ‘and also’, ‘and indeed’ (cf. ‫)וגם‬, most likely also appears in Ruth 4:5 and Neh. 5:11 (‫)ומאת‬, two further texts which can otherwise only be clarified by emendation.104 Lubetski & Gottlieb interpret the verb ‫ יבל‬as a hoph‘al form, as in MT. But that would imply that the foreign nation itself will be brought as a tribute to Yhwh, which is unlikely. Taking ‘‫ ומ‬as an emphatic conjunction and vocalising the verb as ‫יוֹבל‬ ִ (hiph‘il) (cf. Syr.) would perfectly fit the context.

100 Some reconstruct ‫ שׁי‬in Gen. 49:10 (‫)שׁי לו > שׁילה‬. The reading of this text remains controversial, however. ‫ שׁי‬also appears in post-biblical Hebrew (DTTM 1556). 101 KAI 214:18; COS 2.36:18. ‫ שי‬might appear in KAI 215:6 in damaged context. 102 Strikingly, Ps. 76:12 also mentions ‫ נדר‬and ‫ שׁי‬in one place. For it̠t as ‘generous gift’, cf. G.R. Driver, ‘Ugaritic and Hebrew Words’, Ugaritica 6 (1969), 181–84. 103 Delitzsch, 353–54; Blenkinsopp, 309, with reference to Isa. 49:22; 60:4, 9; 66:20. 104 Lubetski & Gottlieb, ‘Isaiah 18’, 382. This grammatical phenomenon pointed out in Hebrew first by F. Andersen was subsequently reinforced by evidence from Eblaite texts, discussed in three articles in C.H. Gordon et al. (eds), Eblaitica: Essays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite Language, vol. 1, Winona Lake, IN 1987, 29–41. See also J.P. Lettinga, Jona / Ruth: Notities bij de Hebreeuwse tekst en proeve van vertaling, Kampen 1996, 31. Lettinga compares the construction ‘‫ ומ‬to ‫כמו‬, ‫ במו‬and ‫למו‬.

the analysis of isaiah 18 4.2 4.2.1 1a 1b 2a 2b

161

Exegetical Section

Verses 1–2b

Woe to the land of the two-winged beetle, which is beyond the rivers of Kush, the one sending emissaries on the sea, and in papyrus-vessels upon the waters.

Isa. 18 begins with a ‫הוי‬-cry, setting in advance the basic tone of this prophecy as an ominous pronouncement. As mentioned in the notes above, it is often believed that ‫ הוי‬is merely a sign of the vocative in a prophecy intended to offer a gleam of hope, express compassion and assure the people of Yhwh’s intervention in their conflict with Assyria. The Egypto-Canaanite anti-Assyrian alliance (assumed to be the addressees of Isa. 18) is promised that it is not their efforts but Yhwh’s intrusion and help that will bring victory against Assyria. Beside the syntactical objections against a neutral rendering of ‫הוי‬ mentioned above, it is difficult to reconcile this view with the description of the people of the land of the beetle as a mighty and militant nation. If Isa. 18 was delivered to offer hope, one would anticipate here a desperate audience in need of a message of assurance. The heroic people of vv. 1–2 need no compassion, no exterior divine help. A frequent feature of judgment prophecies in general (including ‫הוי‬speeches) is the reversal of fortunes.105 Evoking sufficient danger to pose a real threat to the land of the two-winged beetle is probably also envisioned by this prophecy.106 The land in 18:1 is called ‫ארץ צלצל כנפים‬. In Isa. 18:1 (cf. Deut. 28:42) ‫ צלצל‬refers to the scarabeus sacer, the holy beetle, a prominent pharaonic symbol.107 In its Egyptian setting, the scarab beetle represents the sun-god with the sun disk symbolised by the dung ball.

105

Janzen, Cry, 35. Høyland-Lavik, who also interprets ‫ הוי‬as the sign of the vocative (‘ah!’), acknowledges that Isa. 18 is an oracle of doom. Yet she argues that 18:1a does not reveal the identity of those under judgment (Isaiah 18, 48–49). However, prophetic ‫הוי‬ cries of doom generally identify to whom the ‫ הוי‬refers in the first introductory line. 107 Lubetski & Gottlieb, ‘Isaiah 18’, 364–84; Lubetski, ‘Beetlemania’, 15–26. The beetle as a royal symbol was also adopted by the Kushite pharaohs of Egypt. See D. O’Connor, Ancient Nubia: Egypt’s Rival in Africa, Pennsylvania, PA 1993, Plate 12. See also Figure 1 below. 106

162

chapter four

Nation-specific elements also appear in other prophecies.108 Illustrations of two- and four-winged beetles on amulets or other objects were discovered in Phoenicia, Judah and Ammon in great number, testifying to the acquaintance with the scarab as an Egypt-related motif beyond the borders of Africa. In view of Isa. 18, the most intriguing archaeological finds are several seal impressions of King Hezekiah containing the two winged beetle symbol, as well as numerous scarab impressions on the so-called lmlk-jars from Judah, generally dated to the end of the 8th century bc.109 The addressee of Isa. 18 is an empire stretching even beyond the rivers of Kush.110 Hebrew ‫כושׁ‬, etymologically related to Egyptian Kš,111 108 Cf. Jer. 46:7–8 (cf. Isa. 8:7); Ezek. 29:3; 32:2. Note also PPANE 93 describing Elam as a snake, one of the well-known symbols of this country. 109 For the historical significance of the metaphor of the two-winged scarab in Isa. 18:1, see §4.3.3 below. 110 Cf. Schoors, 116: ‘het land dat zich uitstrekt tot over de rivieren van Koesj’. For the semantic discussion on ‫מעבר ל‬, see note 1 c. It may also be noted that the often proposed translation ‘alongside the rivers of Kush’ makes little sense with the pl. ‫לנהרי‬. ‘Rivers’ is strange if the Kushites were settled only along a single river, the Nile, as believed. Moreover, the same African empire is described in v. 2 as divided by ‫נהרים‬, likely identical with ‫נהרי־כושׁ‬. 111 For variant spellings, cf. K. Zibelius, Afrikanische Orts- und Völkernamen in hieroglyphischen und hieratischen Texten (BTAVO, B/1), Wiesbaden 1972, 166–69; L. Török, The Kingdom of Kush: Handbook of the Napatan-Meroitic Civilisation (HO, 1/31), Leiden 1997, 1–2. Other frequently used Egyptians terms are T¡ nḥsj, ‘Southland’ and T¡ stj, ‘Bow-land’. El-Amarna texts refer to Kush as Meluḫ ḫ a (e.g., EA 70:19; 95:40; 108:67; etc.) or Kaši / Kaša (cf. EA 49:20; 127:22, 36; 131:13; 133:17; 287:33, 72, 74. See H. Klengel, ‘Das Land Kusch in den Keilschrifttexten von Amarna’, in: E. Endesfelder et al. (eds), Ägypten und Kusch (SGKAO, 13), Berlin 1977, 227–32. Meluḫ ḫ a was the Akkadian name of the country, while Kaši the Egyptian term (cf. Mitanni / Naḫ rima in the Amarna letters). Meluḫ ḫ a (with Magan) actually designated all far southern countries whether on the east beside the Persian Gulf or on the west in Africa (cf. D. Potts, ‘The Road to Meluhha’, JNES 41 [1982], 279–88; W. Heimpel, ‘Das Untere Meer’, ZA 77 [1987], 22–91; M. Liverani, ‘The Sargon Geography and the Late Assyrian Mensuration of the Earth’, SAAB 13 [1999–2001], 70–71; cf. the two Aἰθιοπία in Homer, Odyss. i 22–23; Herodotus, Hist. vii 70; Josephus, Ant. i 135). The Assyrian term Kūsi, appearing first in the Nimrud Wine Lists dated to 732 (cf. J.V.K. Wilson, The Nimrud Wine Lists: A Study of Men and Administration at the Assyrian Capital in the Eighth Century bc [CTN, 1], London 1972, 91, 93, 138) and on a regular bases from the time of Esarhaddon, the first king to have conquered Egypt, replaced the formerly used Meluḫ ḫ a, as implied by IAKA §76:6–11: ‘On my 10th campaign Aššur [encouraged me] (. . .) and directed my attention towards the lands Magan and Meluhha (. . .) which people call Kush and Egypt (māt Kūsi u māt Muṣur) (. . .)’. For further discussion, see Cs. Balogh, ‘Kús földje és kúsiták az Ószövetségben’, Református Szemle 103 (2010), 577–604. In modern literature, the geographical area under discussion is also referred to as ‘Nubia’. It is common to distinguish between Lower Nubia (between the first and second cataracts) and Upper Nubia (from the second cataract upwards). To avoid

the analysis of isaiah 18

163

was the name of the territory located along the Nile, south of ancient Egypt’s southernmost city Aswan, beginning at the natural border created by the first Nile cataract.112 The rivers of Isa. 18:1 could refer to the Blue and White Niles and the Atbara, a major tributary of the Nile.113 In spite of frequent assumptions to the contrary, there is sufficient archaeological evidence to maintain that, even in the 8th century, the kingdom of Kush extended far beyond the fifth cataract (just above the meeting point of the Nile and the Atbara).114 References to Kushites are frequent in the Old Testament, but only Gen. 2:13 mentions a river in connection with this country: Gihon, encircling all the land of Kush.115 The presumption

confusion with Abyssinia, the once frequent ‘Ethiopia’, taking its origin in the works of classical authors, is to be avoided. 112 In the Old Testament, ‫ כושׁ‬refers mostly to this African region. Cf. Gen. 10:6, 7; 2 Kgs 19:19; 1 Chron. 1:8, 9; 2 Chron. 12:3; Est. 1:1; 8:9; Job 28:19; Pss 68:31; 87:4; Isa. 11:11; 20:3, 4, 5; 37:9; 43:3; 45:14; Jer. 13:23; 38:7, 10, 12; 39:16; 46:9; Ezek. 29:10; 30:4, 5, 9; 38:5; Dan. 11:43; Amos 9:7; Nah. 3:9; Zeph. 3:10. Exceptions are rare. In Num. 12:1 ‫ כושׁ‬is probably a synonym for Midian, and a variant of ‫( כושׁן‬cf. Hab. 3:7). This is supported by Egyptian texts which mention Kws in the region south of Judah (cf. S. Ahituv, Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents, Jerusalem 1987, 85). For Num. 12:1, see also b. Mo‘ed Qat. 16b; A. Shinan, ‘Moses and the Ethiopian Woman: Sources of a Story in The Chronicles of Moses’, in: J. Heinemann et al. (eds), Studies in Hebrew Narrative Art through the Ages (Hierosolymitana, 27), Jerusalem 1978, 66–78; D.M. Goldenberg, Curse, 20–21. The meaning of ‫ כושׁ‬may be the same to Num. 12:1 in 2 Chron. 14:8, 11–12; 21:16. In Gen. 10:8 ‫ כושׁ‬probably alludes to the Kassites (cf. the subtle difference in Amarnaic Kaši / Kaša and Kaššu). See Balogh, ‘Kús’, 578–83. 113 These rivers were well-known in antiquity. Cf. Strabo, Geogr. iv 7; xvi 4; xvii 1; Diodorus Siculus i 37.9; Pliny, Nat. Hist. v 8; Josephus, Ant. ii 243. 114 Meroë, the city between the Nile and the Atbara, centre of the later Meroitic Nubian civilisation, is at least as ancient as the time of the Kushite pharaoh Piye (747–717). Cf. D. O’Connor, Ancient Nubia: Egypt’s Rival in Africa, Pennsylvania, PA 1993, 68–69; Idem, ‘Meroë’, OEANE 3.472; R. Morkot, Black Pharaohs: Egypt’s Nubian Rulers, London 2000, 2, 5, 155, 204. According to Török, Kush, 129, 152, 232, Meroë functioned as a government centre during the 25th Dynasty (8th–7th centuries bc). Different objects containing the name of pharaoh Shabaka (717–703) were recovered even as far as Sennar and Gebel Moya in the region of the Blue and White Niles (cf. J. Leclant, ‘Schabaka’, LÄ 5.500; Morkot, Black Pharaohs, 7). 115 Kush in Gen. 2:13 was located east of Mesopotamia, in Eastern Anatolia, or in Arabia, but associating it with African Nubia is still more convincing. The river Gihon encircling Kush is identified in LXX with ‫שׁחור‬, (part of) the Nile (cf. Jer. 2:18; Sir. 24:27). Cf. M. Görg, ‘Zur Identität des Pischon (Gen. 2,11)’, in: Idem, Aegyptiaca— Biblica: Notizen und Beiträge zu den Beziehungen zwischen Ägypten und Israel (ÄAT, 11), Wiesbaden 1991, 13–15; Goldenberg, Curse, 20–21. For Pishon and Gihon as the ‘two rivers’ of Egypt and Kush, see R.S. Sadler, Can a Cushite Change His Skin: An Examination of Race, Ethnicity, and Othering in the Hebrew Bible (JSOT.S, 425), London 2005, 24–25.

164

chapter four

behind this text, namely that Gihon, apparently the southern part of the Nile, is a river distinctive from the upper part of the Nile (Pishon?), corresponds to Egyptian beliefs distinguishing the Nile of Egypt and the Nile of Kush, both originating from two caves at the border city Aswan from the subterranean ocean Nun.116 The fact that Isa. 18:1 uses ‫ נהרים‬rather than ‫יארים‬, the biblical name for Egypt’s Nile, may also suggest an awareness of the distinction between the Kushite and the Egyptian Niles.117 Nevertheless, Isa. 18 is not concerned with geographical accuracy. The prophecy abounds in theologically significant symbols dealing with a nation on the edge of the most distant horizon of the author.118 The rivers of Kush delimit the furthest coordinates of the earth. The northern borders of the country are not mentioned here, but as it will be shown below, Isa. 18 may have included Egypt as well.119 It is important to note that ‘the two winged beetle’ is primarily an Egyptian symbol, adopted subsequently by Kushite pharaohs. Some exegetes assume that the ‘sea’ (‫ )ים‬on which the messengers of this far country are sent, refers to the Mediterranean Sea.120 It would be more convincing, however, to relate ‫ ים‬to the Nile.121 While using poetic parallelism in describing the movement of these distant messengers, the prophet refers first to their travel on the Nile. The fragile papyrus vessels mentioned as the means of transportation were only capable of sail on still waters.122 But can ‫ ים‬refer to the river Nile? Some texts in the Old Testament allow this interpretation. No-Amon (Thebes) is described by Nah. 3:8 as built by the Nile, with waters as her wall and the ‫ ים‬as her rampart.123 Here ‫יארים‬, ‫ מים‬and ‫ ים‬refer to the Nile encompassing Thebes. In Ezek. 32:2, ‫ ים‬is the dwelling-place

116 ‘The two caves (qrtj) of Elephantine’ are mentioned in an inscription of Seti I (ARE 3.171); Book of Dead (149 14:4); Famine Stele (AEL 3.97; COS 1.53); Dream Stele of Tanutamani (FHN 1.29:11); etc. Cf. K.W. Butzer, ‘Nilquellen’, LÄ 4.506–7. 117 Classical authors were also aware of this tradition. Cf. Homer, Odyss. iv 477; Herodotus, Hist. ii 28; Diodorus, i 32.1; Pliny, Nat. Hist. vi 65. 118 For Kush as the most distant southern corner of the earth, see Goldenberg, Curse, 23–25. For remote nations as a biblical symbol, cf. Deut. 28:49; Ps. 72:10; Isa. 5:26; Joel 4:8; Hab. 1:8; etc. 119 In the Assyrian inscriptions of Esarhaddon, the dominion of the Kushite King, Taharka, is described as Lower Egypt (māt Muṣur), Upper Egypt (māt Paturisi) and Kush (māt Kūsi) (IAKA §57:8–9; §65:37–38). 120 Clements, 164; Hayes & Irvine, 254; Watts, 244; G. Pfeifer, Ägypten im Alten Testament (BNB, 8), München 1995, 15; Blenkinsopp, 309. 121 Cf. Gesenius, 577; Dillmann, 166; Marti, 148; Gray, 311; Kaiser 76. 122 Dillmann, 166; Gray, 311; Young, 1.475; Penna, 179; Kaiser, 77. 123 Cf. Esarhaddon’s portrayal of the Mediterranean kingdoms (IAKA §57).

the analysis of isaiah 18

165

of the ‘dragon’, i.e. the pharaoh.124 The relationship between Ezek. 32:2 and 29:3 suggests that ‫ ים‬in Ezek. 32:2 refers to the Nile, just like ‫יארים‬ in Ezek. 29:3.125 ‫ציר‬, ‘emissary’ is a New Assyrian loan word, derived from ṣīru and etymologically connected to ṣīru, ‘first-rank’, ‘outstanding’. As also implied by the logogram form lú.mah, ṣīru was not a simple messenger, but a special, high-ranking emissary.126 The title ṣīru is given

124

Cf. Exod. 7:9; Deut. 32:33; Ps. 74:13; 91:13; Job 7:12; Isa. 27:1; 51:9. This symbolic identification of the Nile with ‫ ים‬appears to be restricted to the river Nile. ‫ ים‬in Jer. 51:36 does not refer to the Euphrates as occasionally suggested. ‫ ים‬and ‫ מקור‬are here the two extremities of the Euphrates. It is noted that the Arabic name for the Nile is al-Baḥr-n-Nīl. Since baḥr means ‘sea’ in Arabic, this is assumed to support the connection between ‫ ים‬and the Nile. However, ‫ ים‬and baḥr belong to two different languages, having different semantic fields. It is more helpful to compare Hebrew ‫ ים‬and Arabic yam (probably an Aramaic loanword; cf. S. Fraenkel, Die aramäischen Fremdwörter im arabischen, Leiden 1886, 231) associated with the Red Sea and eventually the Nile. yamm appears in the Qur’an (Sur. 20:39; 28:7) in allusions to the salvation of the baby Moses. But it remains unclear whether the Qur’an really has the Nile in view here. Cf. R. Bell, A Commentary on the Qur’an (JSSt.M, 14), vol. 2, Manchester 1991, 44. By analysing a comprehensive list of Egyptian texts containing the Canaanite loanword jm (ym), Vandersleyen has argued that jm should be considered a reference to the Nile and not the sea, or Egypt’s lakes, as previously thought (C. Vandersleyen, Ouadj our, w¡d̠ wr: Un autre aspect de la vallée du Nil, Bruxelles 1999, 87–128.). Although the arguments of Vandersleyen are not always convincing (cf. J.F. Quack, ‘Zur Frage des Meeres in ägyptischen Texten’, OLZ 97 [2002], 453–63), some of his examples must be taken seriously. E.g., p¡ jm n wsjr, ‘le fleuve d’Osiris’ (Vandersleyen, Ouadj our, 93), p¡ jm n Qbte, ‘the Nile of Coptos’ (101; see, however, Quack, ‘Frage’, 461), Papyrus Harris 500, 2, 7–8 (104; but this may refer to a lake as well, cf. Quack, ‘Frage’, 462), Papyrus Lansing 14,1–2 (104), etc. Making proper distinction among various genres is essential for interpreting jm (Quack, ‘Frage’, 454). In the worst case, the texts cited by Vandersleyen may serve as evidence that Lower Egypt and especially the Delta region abounded in inner lakes that might have been termed as jm / ‫ ים‬by Hebrew prophets. See also the Kushite lake jm n Niy, ‘the jm of Niy’, somewhere around Gebel Barkal (A.H. Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica, London 1947, 1:162*–63*; Vandersleyen, Ouadj our, 108). Herodotus (Hist. ii 97) compares the inundating Nile to the Mediterranean Sea. Following Egyptian traditions, some classical authors connect the Nile to the Primeval Ocean (Herodotus, Hist. ii 21; Diodorus, i 12.6, 19.4, 96.7). Egyptians associated the inundating Nile with the all-encompassing and underground water, Nun. The river is personified as the god Hʿpy, ‘sprung from earth’, ‘dwelling in the netherworld, he controls both sky and earth’ (AEL 1.204–10; ÄHG, 500–6). See further also R.O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts, Warminster 1973–78: Spells 318, 362, 820, and ARE §743. 126 In accordance with Tadmor, ITP, 178 n. 21’ and opposed to P.V. Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew (HSS, 47), Winona Lake, IN 2000, 132 n. 489. For the Babylonian and Assyrian messenger designations, see S.A. Meier, The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World (HSM, 45), Atlanta, GA 1988. mār šipri is the general Akkadian term for messenger (cf. Hebrew ‫)מלאך‬. 125

166

chapter four

by Assyrians mainly to foreign (non-Assyrian) officials.127 The ṣīru represents the king of his country and he often brings tributes to the Assyrian court.128 The ṣīru is positioned beside the commander-inchief (turtannu), the bodyguard (qurbūtu), the representatives of the king (qēpu), the interpreter (targumannu), or the crown prince.129 SAA 5 168:r.4 even claims that the ṣīru gave orders to the commander-inchief. Hebrew ‫ציר‬, likely an Assyrian borrowing, probably has a similar semantic domain, enveloping the meaning of a special ambassador to a king. The papyrus boat is known as the most ancient form of Egyptian watercraft.130 Job 9:26 refers to these papyrus boats as ‫אניות אבה‬, considering them fast moving vessels. Such boats were used for fishing, but also for travelling on the Nile, even on the rocky waters of the Upper Nile region. Egyptians used other types of ships on the open sea.131 From the Egyptian Delta, the route to Canaan involved travelling the Way of Horus (Exod. 13:17). One of the important problems related to v. 2a is the relationship between ‫ צירים‬and ‫ מלאכים‬in v.2. The evaluation of this relationship has led to differing opinions concerning the message of Isa. 18 as a whole. Are the two entities identical? To answer these questions we need to dig deeper into the meaning of the following verses. 4.2.2 2c 2d 2e 2f 2g

Verses 2c–g

Go, swift messengers, to the nation tall and bald, to the people more fearful beyond it, a nation mighty and treading down, whose land the rivers divide (or: whose country is the riverbed).

127 Generally ṣīrāni(lú.mah.meš) ša māt(kur) GN, ‘envoys of the land of GN’ (e.g., 5 40:r.2–3; 5 75:4). Cf. lú ṣi-ra-ni-e ša PN in ABL 1117:6. 128 Cf. SAA 1 32:17ff (?); 1 33; 1 110:r.4–17; 5 171; 7 58:20–24.4–16; 7 127; 11 32; 11 36:15; 11 92 (?). 129 SAA 1 110:r.15–17; 5 171:1–5; 11 31. 130 J. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne, t. 5, Paris 1969, 493–94; S. Wachsmann, Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant, London 1998, 9; L. Casson, Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Princeton, NJ 1971, 12; M.-C. de Graeve, The Ships of the Ancient Near East (c. 2000–500 bc), Leuven 1981, 91. In ancient iconography, passengers are often depicted as standing upon these rafts (cf. ἐπὶ in LXX). 131 Vandier, Manuel, 493–510. For descriptions of seagoing ships, see Vandier, Manuel, 659, and Wachsmann, Seagoing Ships, 14.

the analysis of isaiah 18

167

The term ‘swift messengers’ (‫ )מלאכים קלים‬is coherent with ancient portrayals of good emissaries. Beside faithfulness, trustworthiness and eloquence, speed is a frequently praised quality.132 But who are the addressees of v. 2? Are the ‫ מלאכים‬identical with the ‫ ?צירים‬What is the destination of the messengers? Most often it is assumed that ‫ צירים‬and ‫ מלאכים‬are identical. The emissaries receive their commission (v. 2c–g) from Yhwh through his prophet before leaving Judah for their homeland, Kush.133 However, several exegetes make a distinction between ‫ צירים‬and ‫מלאכים‬. While they admit that ‫ צירים‬refers to Kushite ambassadors, ‫ מלאכים‬are considered to be Israelite or Judaean messengers,134 soldiers of the Assyrian king135 or divine heralds.136 The most serious argument for distinguishing between ‫ צירים‬and ‫ מלאכים‬is that the commissioner uses the verb ‫ הלך‬instead of ‫ שׁוב‬in addressing the ‫מלאכים‬. Furthermore, they wonder why, if ‫ מלאכים‬were identical with the Kushite ‫צירים‬, the prophet describes their destination as if it were an unknown land in 18:2d–g. Finally, it is argued that Ezek. 30:9, supposedly alluding to Isa. 18:2, would support an interpretation of ‫ מלאכים‬as divine messengers. These arguments are not, however, as compelling as they may seem. We have sufficient evidence that ‫ הלך‬and ‫ שׁוב‬may be used as synonyms.137 The fact that we are here dealing with a rhetorical text and considering that the audience is at least partly Judaean, the stylised characterisation of 18:2d–g is hardly surprising. The commissioner

132

Meier, Messenger, 25. Cheyne, 111; Duhm, 137; Gray, 311; Procksch, 239; Wildberger, 689; Blenkinsopp, 309–10. Rarely is the destination considered to be Assyria (Janzen, Cry, 60–61; Hayes & Irvine, 254; Watts, 246), the Medes (Kissane, 206; Oswalt, 361), or Israel (Targ., Jerome, Rashi, Qimchi, Motyer, 162). Yet the semantic analysis of v. 2c–g above makes these alternative opinions unlikely. Regarding the swift Kushite messengers, note the swift footed Kushite in 2 Sam 18:21 ( pass.) (‫ הכושׁי‬is a gentilicum; cf. B.U. Schipper, Israel und Ägypten in der Königszeit: Die kulturellen Kontakte von Salomo bis zum Fall Jerusalems [OBO, 170], Freiburg 1999, 111; pace E. Yamauchi, Africa and the Bible, Grand Rapids, MI 2004, 44). Cf. Herodotus’ description of the ‘Aithiopian’ Troglodytes as πόδας τάχιστοι ἀντρώπον πάντων, ‘the swiftest runners of all men’ (Hist. iv 183; cf. also Heliodorus, Aethiopica viii 16.4). 134 Kissane, 206; Oswalt, 361; Sweeney, 261 (an Israelite, not Judaean, emissary is sent to King So of Egypt, not Kush; cf. 2 Kgs 17); Blenkinsopp, 309. 135 Vermeylen, 1.318. 136 Janzen, Cry, 60–61; Clements, 164–65. 137 Gen. 42:19; Num. 22:13; 1 Sam. 8:22; 2 Kgs 1:6 (‫ ;לכו שׁובו‬cf. Hos. 6:1); Amos 7:12. ‫ הלך‬may emphasise the fact that they have to leave (Beuken, 165 n. 57). 133

168

chapter four

introduces the foreign nation to his compatriots and not specifically to the ‫מלאכים‬. As for Ezek. 30:9, whatever its meaning and its relationship with Isa. 18:2, this latter should not impose any limitation on interpreting the original sense of Isa. 18:2.138 Furthermore, there is no justification for sending Judaean or Israelite messengers to Kush, since the Kushites might also deliver the news on their return. However, the suggestion that ‫ מלאכים‬alludes to divine couriers is intriguing. In this respect, one may recall the story of 1 Kgs 22. In his vision, Micaiah saw Yhwh on a throne and heard him proclaiming the fall of Israel on the mountains (1 Kgs 22:19–20). The story emphasises the significance of the heavenly court, those who stand at Yhwh’s service (1 Kgs 22:19–23).139 Strikingly, these auditory and visionary elements also reappear in Isa. 18:4, so that it is probable that Isa. 18:2c–g is also part of a reported prophetic vision (cf. §4.3.2). Consequently, the ‫ מלאכים‬of Isa. 18:2c may belong to Yhwh’s heavenly court. By reporting what Yhwh told him to do, the prophet actually delivers a metaphorical but clear message to his audience. After all, the commission addressed to the ‫ מלאכים‬is the same as the one which the Kushite ‫ צירים‬must report to their homeland master, making the distinction between ‫ צירים‬and ‫ מלאכים‬in 18:2 practically irrelevant. Given the interpretation of ‫ מן־הוא והלאה‬proposed above, one must distinguish between two different groups of peoples in Isa. 18:2. The ethnological information that we obtain from the Bible regarding the inhabitants of the African continent is limited, but heterogeneity is clearly implied by Gen. 10:6–20.140 Beside ‫ לובים‬and ‫פוט‬,

138 It is unlikely that the messengers (‫ )מלאכים‬of Ezek. 30:9 sent from the presence of Yhwh (‫ )מלפני יהוה‬to terrify the unsuspecting Kushites are divine beings. These messengers make use of ships (‫ צי‬/ ‫)בצים‬, which cannot be emended to ‫אצים‬, ‘urged’ or ‫רצים‬, ‘running’ (contra Janzen, Cry, 60). LXX on which the emendation is based (ἄγγελοι σπεύδοντες), does not display any awareness of the meaning of ‫צי‬, nor do Aq. (ἐν ἐτιείμ; siim according to Jerome), Sym. (ἐν ἐπείξει) and Theod. (ἐσσὶμ). While these versions translate ‫ב‬, the unknown word was merely transliterated. ἐσσὶμ is the contracted reading of ἐν σὶμ. Cf. also L. Boadt, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt: A Literary and Philological Study of Ezekiel 29–32 (BibOr, 37), Rome 1980, 69–70. 139 See also M.S. Kee, ‘The Heavenly Council and its Type-scene’, JSOT 31 (2007), 259–74. 140 Egyptian texts are obviously much clearer regarding the ethnological details of the South. Geographically more sophisticated texts distinguish between various groups. Beside the nḥsjw, ‘the southerners’, Lower Nubia is referred to as w¡w¡t and Upper Nubia as k¡š. Other important names in the Nile region include Irtjet (jrt̠t) and Setju (s¡t̠w), possibly somewhere in Upper Nubia. Yam (jm¡) (related with Irem) was located ‘beyond the rivers of Kush’ somewhere in the region of later Meroë (D. O’Connor,

the analysis of isaiah 18

169

which probably fall outside the horizon of Isa. 18, the Old Testament expresses familiarity with ‫מצרים‬, (Lower) Egypt, ‫פתרוס‬, Upper Egypt (Isa. 11:11), Kush (‫)כושׁ‬, and Seba (‫ ;סבא‬Isa. 43:3; 45:15). Isa. 45:15 describes Sabaeans (and probably the Kushites) as ‘men of stature’ (‫)אנשׁי מדה‬.141 The same physiological characteristics struck Herodotus, who writes that these Ethiopians to whom Cambyses sent them, are said to be the tallest and fairest (μέγιστοι καὶ κάλλιστοι)142 of all men [. . .] they deem worthy to be their king that townsman whom they judge to be tallest and to have strength proportioned to his stature (Hist. iii 20).

The stature of the inhabitants of the Nile valley increases travelling towards the south, so that Isa. 18:2d may refer to (Upper?) Egypt or (Lower) Kush. The emissaries (and the people from whom they came) were tall in stature and their hairless body, face and occasionally the head was equally remarkable for full bearded Judaeans.143 The nation

‘The Locations of Yam and Kush and Their Historical Implications’, JARCE 23 [1986], 39–40). A more distant and often-mentioned legendary region is Punt, somewhere to the (south-)east of Kush (ARE 2.134 [§321]). The people of md̠¡jw inhabited the region between the Nile and the Red Sea, appearing in later texts as a general term for various tribes of the desert, like ¡šq, wb¡t-spt, brhm, h̠s¡ (Zibelius, Völkernamen, 134). Amu (ʿmw or ʿm) seems to designate the eastern desert somewhere in the neighbourhood of the third cataract. See G. Posener, ‘L’or de Pount’, in: E. Endesfelder et al. (eds), Ägypten und Kusch (SGKAO, 13), Berlin 1977, 339–41); F. Hommel, Ethnologie und Geographie des alten Orients, München 1926, 641; A.H. Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica, London 1947; Zibelius, Völkernamen; O’Connor, Nubia. 141 Cf. Num. 13:32; 2 Sam. 21:20; 1 Chron. 11:23; 20:6. 142 Some regard the resemblances between the two texts more than coincidental and tend to interpret the word pair ‫ ממשׁך ומרט‬in 18:2 as a Hebrew counterpart of μέγιστοι καὶ κάλλιστοι (Dillmann, 166; Van Hoonacker, 105; Schmidt, 119). But while Herodotus’ concern is to present his readers with a sympathetic picture of the Ethiopians, the intention of Isa. 18:2 is clearly different (see below). For Herodotus’ Kush-related traditions, cf. Homer’s Il. i 423–24; xxiii 205–7; Odyss. i 22–24; iv 84; v 282, 287. See Török, Kush, 69–73. 143 Cf. Gen. 41:14. L.S. Fried, ‘Why Did Joseph Shave?’, BAR 33.4 (2007), 36–41, argues that the pharaonic palace was considered a temple, so that those entering it should be pure like a priest. When Sinuhe returns to Egypt from Retjenu, he was clothed in royal linen, he was ‘plucked’ and his hair combed. In Egyptian iconography, the Egyptians and Nubians are represented as beardless people, in contrast to their neighbours. See Vandier, Manuel, 3.110–11, 4.574; W. Helck, ‘Fremdvölkerdarstellungen’, LÄ 1.317; J. Vercoutter, ‘L’image de noir dans l’Egypte ancienne (dès origines à la XXVe dyn.)’, in: Africa in Antiquity: Meroitica 5 (1979), 19–22; A. Leahy, ‘Ethnic Diversity in Ancient Egypt’, in: CANE, 226–27; cf. Herodotus, Hist. ii 36; iii 12. Selfrepresentations of the Kushite king of the 25th Dynasty (748–656) display a darkbrown body colour and a face of the Upper Nubian physical type, while ‘for non-royal representations Twenty-Fifth Dynasty monumental art in Kush adopted the Egyptian

170

chapter four

beyond the one mentioned in v. 2d, an even more fearful one, whose land is divided by rivers (v. 2e–g), may refer either to the southern Kushites or their neighbours, the Sabaeans, even further to the south. ‫( סבא‬to be distinguished from ‫ שׁבא‬in Arabia; cf. Gen. 10:26; 25:3; Ps. 72:10) is the firstborn of Kush in Gen. 10:7. Isa. 43:3 promises Egypt, Kush and Seba as ransom for the king of Persia in place of Israel. The three names also reappear together in Isa. 45:15, suggesting that Seba must be located in the neighbourhood of Kush. This assumption is also supported by Ps. 72:10, where Tarshish, Seba and Sheba represent the three furthest located descendants of the three sons of Noah (Japhet, Ham and Shem). A legend in Josephus Ant. ii 248–49 retells that Σαβά was a royal city of Αἰθιοπία, called Meroë by Cambyses, after the name of his sister. The place is described as surrounded by Astapus, Astaboras and the Nile. The name of the third river, ‘the Nile’, is actually Astasobas, the White Nile (cf. Strabo, Geogr. xvii 4), which has also preserved the name of Soba (=Seba).144 The town Sabai and the harbour Saba on the Red Sea coast mentioned by Strabo, Geog. xvi 4.8–10 probably also reflect the reminiscences of maritime contacts with the Sabaeans. Descriptions of mighty foreign nations in the Bible fulfil two different rhetorical purposes: the intention is either to proclaim Yhwh’s judgment upon famous peoples145 or to invoke them as means of punishment in pronouncing Yhwh’s sentence on a different nation.146 The rhetorical intention of 18:2d–g complies with the first possibility, an interpretation corroborated by the following verses of the prophecy. 4.2.3 3a 3b 3c 3d

Verses 3–6

All you inhabitants of the world and those dwelling on earth: when the signal is raised on the mountains, look, and when the horn is blown, listen!

New Kingdom iconography of the exaggeratedly tall, slender Nilotic type’ (Török, Kush, 37). In regard to Isa. 18:2, one may note that a distinctive hair dress typifies the Kedarites in Jer. 9:26; 25:23; 49:32. 144 The common element of these river’s names, asta, probably means ‘water’ or ‘river’. Cf. Diodorus i 37.9; R. Pankhurst, The Ethiopian Borderlands: Essays in Ancient History from Ancient Times to the End of the 18th Century, Lawrenceville, NJ 1997, 27. Similarly, the name Astaboras (present day Atbara) preserved the name of the (mega) bari/bareya tribe, settled in this region. For further discussion regarding ancient Seba, see Balogh, ‘Kús’, 594–96. 145 2 Chron. 16:8; Isa. 10:5–15; 14:5–21; 17:12–14; 23:1–14; Ezek. 28–32. 146 Deut. 28:49–50; Isa. 5:26–30; 13:3–5; Jer. 4:13; 5:15–17; Hab. 1:6–11.

the analysis of isaiah 18 4a 4b 4c 4d 5a 5b 5c 5d 6a 6b 6c 6d

171

For thus spoke Yhwh to me: ‘I shall stay quietly and watch on my place, like scorching heat on daybreak (or: on the dew), like a cloud of dew in the heat of the harvest.’ For before the harvest, when budding is over, and the blossom develops to an unripe berry, he will cut off the shoots with pruning hooks, and the tendrils he will remove and hew away. They will be left altogether to the birds of prey of the mountains and to the beasts of the earth. And the birds of prey will summer upon them, and all the beasts of the earth will winter upon them.

Isa. 18:3 reveals that the concern of the prophecy is much larger than just the fate of Judah. The way Yhwh is about to step into history would have implications reaching far beyond the interests of a single nation. The place of this verse in the prophecy has been questioned on different occasions (cf. §4.3.1). However, this worldwide perspective is anticipated, since the foregoing verse indicates that the messengers are sent to the most distant nations of the earth known to Israel. Blasting horns and raising signals appear often (though not exclusively) in military accounts.147 Martial imagery also provides the most likely background in this case.148 As soon as the time has come, the moment signals are given, all eyes and ears should be opened (cf. Isa. 6:9), for Yhwh’s final verdict will enter history. ‫ כי‬logically connects v. 4 to v. 3, but it may also function as an emphatic particle. These verses describe the preparations in the heavenly realm for a war that the world is planning. According to the word and the vision received, Yhwh stays calm (‫ )שׁקט‬until the appropriate moment. There is much unrest and upheaval in the background of Isa. 18. Yet while fast moving messengers arrive to form strong alliances,

147 Sounds and signals may signify the beginning (Isa. 5:26; 13:2; Jer. 4:21; 6:1; 51:27) or end (1 Sam. 13:3; 2 Sam. 2:28; 18:16; 20:22; Jer. 50:2) of battles. 148 Clements, 165, maintains that in 18:3 these motifs are not a sign of ‘an impending battle, but an emphatic assertion that Yhwh is announcing his plans to the world’. However, in the present context it is not the summons itself (v. 3c–d), but the looming events (vv. 4–6) that will request the attention of the audience. Blenkinsopp, 310, pointed to other texts where ‫ נס‬is related to the beginning of the repatriation of the Jews from the diaspora. This he assumed could also be the case in Isa. 18. Nevertheless, the issue of repatriation is not the subject of this prophecy.

172

chapter four

God is staying calm as if in times of peace.149 This impression of quietness and calm is also underlined by the verb ‫( נבט‬Hab. 1:13). In Ps. 83, God is asked not to be silent nor stay calm when alliances of the neighbouring people threaten Jerusalem. The opposite of ‫ שׁקט‬is active intervention (cf. Ps. 68:2). Clearly, Yhwh is not indifferent to what is going on. He is not merely a spectator, but a concerned observer, following the events closely, while waiting for the right moment to intervene.150 God’s ‫ מכון‬in v. 4 does not refer to the temple in Jerusalem, but to his heavenly dwelling (Ps. 33:13–14; cf. 80:15; 102:20; Isa. 63:15).151 Yhwh is said to leave his dwelling place in order to take action (Isa. 26:21; Mic. 1:3; Ps. 68:2); he ceases acting when he returns to his abode (Hos. 5:15). The comparative phrases of v. 4c–d are interpreted in different ways. The Targum explains both images as blessings that God grants his people.152 Some exegetes stress the natural character and the necessity of both heat in daylight and dew during harvest time. Like them, Yhwh’s stillness will help to cultivate the plans of the Assyrians, whom he will ultimately defeat.153 According to Duhm and Clements, Yhwh’s calmness is compared to the still clouds of dew in the sky and the gleaming heat in sunshine.154 Fohrer took the verb ‫ נבט‬to be the key motif of the comparison, arguing that just as clouds look down on the earth from aloft, so does Yhwh as well.155 Höffken suggests that the short term of the meteorological phenomena constitutes the essence of the message.156 For Schmidt, the emphasis falls on Yhwh distancing himself from the people.157 This is also how Høyland Lavik interprets the simile of the dew that vanishes in the morning. In contrast to most exegetes, however, she considers the two similes semantically distinctive. In her

149 E.g., Josh. 11:23; 14:15; Judg. 3:11, 30; 5:31; 8:28; 2 Chron. 13:23; 20:30. ‫שׁקט‬ characterises a nation in times of peace. 150 Vitringa, 859; Delitzsch, 353; Gray, 313. See Ps. 33:13–19. In contrast, lack of concern, abandonment, or negligence is expressed in the Bible by turning away the face of someone, by not looking at a person. Cf. Ps. 80:15; 91:8; 92:12; 102:20; Isa. 5:12; 63:15; Lam. 4:16; 5:1; Amos 5:22. 151 Cf. also Høyland Lavik, Isaiah 18, 133. 152 Cf. also Jerome and Vitringa, 861–62. 153 Dillmann, 167; Young, 1.477; Van Hoonacker, 106; Motyer, 162. 154 Duhm, 138; Clements, 165. 155 Fohrer, 1.205. 156 Höffken, 154. 157 Schmidt, 120.

the analysis of isaiah 18

173

view, the quietness and the gazing of Yhwh is likened to the intensity of the shimmering heat. The simile of the vibrating hot air alludes to the invisible yet real presence of Yhwh in this world.158 The parallel use of the comparative preposition ‫ כ‬makes it unlikely that the two similes would refer to different things. Both meteorological images are related here with the idea of Yhwh sitting calmly and looking down on earth, so their allusion must also be a semantic parallel. At the same time, meteorological imagery can be applied in biblical texts for various purposes, with different aspects of the metaphor being exploited. For example, the metaphor of dew can be used in a negative or a positive sense, depending on the context. In Hos. 13:3, the dew represents something that vanishes quickly. In Prov. 25:13, cold snow on the day of harvest is compared to the refreshing message of a faithful messenger. However, the imagery of snow and rain in summer has negative connotations in Prov. 26:1 (cf. Prov. 28:3). It is difficult to interpret ‫חם צח‬, ‘scorching heat’ as a positive experience.159 The grammar of the comparative construction in 18:4 requires that either ‫ שׁקט‬or ‫ נבט‬is taken as the key reference of the comparison. This means that ideas like the necessity of the phenomenon, its fresh and beneficial character, its short termed nature, its invisible and inevitable presence are unlikely to be the vehicle of the association. One of the possibilities discussed in the semantic notes is that the comparisons enhance the imagery of God staying calm in his place: ‘like scorching heat on daybreak’ and ‘like a cloud of dew in the heat of the harvest’. The sense of the verse would be then that just as gleaming heat stays calm in its ‘place’ at daybreak until the sun rises to its zenith, and just as the cloud of dew sits still in its ‘place’ in the heat of the harvest, waiting for the night or cooler days to moisten the ground, Yhwh also remains still while waiting for the right moment to step forward and take action. The two pictures are complementary: in the first the heat stays calm in the cool of the morning; in the second, the cool cloud of dew remains at rest when there is heat outside. The message is not one of neutrality, of not engaging oneself in the course of

158

Høyland Lavik, Isaiah 18, 136. Just like storm (‫)זרם‬, dry heat (‫ )חרב‬is considered to be a symbol for the enemy of the people of God in Isa. 25:4–5 (cf. also Isa. 4:5–6; 30:30; 28:2, 17; 29:6). Yhwh protects his people against the enemy as a cloud (or shadow; cf. Isa. 4:6; 25:4) protects the earth from scorching heat or as a place of refuge (‫ )מחסה‬protects someone against the storm. 159

174

chapter four

events. Yhwh is looking forward to the crucial moment when he will not fail to take proper action and that is described in v. 5. The second option mentioned in the notes is to interpret the text as ‘like scorching heat on the dew (mist), like a cloud of dew in the heat of the harvest’. This results in a parallelism that expresses the enmity and incongruence of these natural phenomena. Night moisture vanishes from the plants as soon as the glooming heat appears, and the fresh cloud of dew is the antidote against the heat of the harvest. Both lines refer to Yhwh’s antagonistic attitude towards the political plans of the people. There is a change in the pronominal suffixes of vv. 4b–d and 5. While Yhwh is speaking in the first person through the prophet in v. 4, he is referred to in the third person in v. 5 (cf. 18:4a). The particle ‫ כי‬couples the two sentences together so that 18:5 develops the imagery of v. 4 in a way that makes it appear as the comment of the prophet on the words of God that he has just delivered.160 Yhwh, referred to as ‘he’, will remove the shoots and the branches of the vine. Many exegetes interpret this text as referring to the second pruning of the vine, which took place between the harvest and the vintage. The purpose of the second pruning was to make the vine free of any unnecessary shoots and leaves that would inhibit ripening of grape clusters. Thus this action is considered beneficial for the vine.161 However, the context makes this reading highly improbable. In Israel, the vine blossoms before the harvest,162 after which the berries begin to develop. The grapes begin to ripen around July and the vintage begins around August.163 It is difficult to understand how the cleansing of the vine to yield more fruit would suit the idea of the prophet in a prophecy of doom. Moreover, as argued above, ‫ נטישׁות‬and ‫ זלזלים‬most likely

160

Isa. 5:7; 14:27; 21:16; 30:15; 31:4; Jer. 4:3. Cf. W. Dietrich, Jesaja und die Politik (BEvTh, 74), München 1976, 128–29; Blenkinsopp, 311. 161 Procksch, 241; Fisher, 138; Kaiser, 78; Wildberger, 692; Oswalt, 362; Kilian, 119; Beuken, 169. In the Gezer calendar, the month of second pruning (‫ )ירחו זמר‬is placed between the harvest (‫ )ירח קצר ]וכ[ל‬and the month of summer fruit (‫( )ירח קץ‬TSSI 1.3; on ‫זמר‬, see Lev. 25:3, 4; Isa. 5:6). 162 The harvest time extended from April until early June. See Song 2:13, 15; L. Turkowski, ‘Peasant Agriculture in the Judean Hills’, PEQ 101 (1969), 101. 163 Cf. Dalman, Brot, 312–13; O. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, Winona Lake, IN 1987, 33–37. Qimchi describes the stages as follows: ‘when the vine drops its ‫פרח‬, a ‫ נץ‬will come, and the ‫ נץ‬becomes ‫בסר‬, and the ‫ בסר‬develops (‫ )גמל‬slowly until it ripens into mature grapes (‫’)ענבים‬.

the analysis of isaiah 18

175

designate the fruit bearing branches of the vine.164 Cutting them off as described in 18:5 would destroy the vine itself. At the very moment that the harvest looks so promising and the success of the vintage can be estimated based on the development of the fruit, Yhwh intervenes with unforeseen power and complete destruction.165 A similar motif is used in Jer. 5:10b, according to which the nations will destroy the vine-rows and strip away the branches (‫הסירו‬ ‫ )נטישׁותיה‬of the vine of Israel (cf. Isa. 5:5). In Ezek. 19:10–14, a fruitful vine full of branches is a symbol for Israel. God’s anger burned its shoots and caused it to be uprooted.166 The destruction of trees, vineyards and orchards is a prominent theme in descriptions of Assyrian warfare.167 Many of the Assyrian reliefs depict soldiers cutting off fruit-trees in conquered territories. An inscription of king Tiglathpileser III describing the attack against Damascus and its king, Rezin, reads: ‘his gardens, [grapevin]es, orchards I cut down. I did not leave a single one.’168 Similarly, Sennacherib mentions that when conquering the land Elippu, ‘their orchards I cut down, over their fertile land I poured out misery’.169 Isa. 18:5 makes good sense if read against this background (cf. Isa. 9:9). Isa. 18:6 transposes the imagery from the symbolic to the real world. The text does not speak about cutting tendrils, but the dead bodies of slain people, around which birds of prey gather.170 The beasts will stay there for a long time, implying that there are a great number of dead

164 Cf. also Dalman, Brot, 301, 330; A.E. Rüthy, Die Pflanze und ihre Teile im biblisch-hebräischen Sprachgebrauch, Bern 1942, 59. 165 Cf. Gesenius, 590–91; Duhm, 139; Dalman, Brot, 331; Kissane, 207; Young, 1.477–78; Fohrer, 1.206; Høyland Lavik, Isaiah 18, 167. 166 Cf. Ps. 80:9–14; Jer. 49:9 (| Obad. 1:5); Ezek. 17:9–10. 167 Cf. S.W. Cole, ‘The Destruction of Orchards in Assyrian Warfare’, in: S. Parpola, R.M. Whiting (eds), Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project Helsinki, September 7–11, 1995, Helsinki 1997, 34–36. See also Deut. 20:19; 2 Kgs 3:25. 168 Annals of Tiglath-pileser 23 11’–12’: kirâte [karā]nu ṣippāte ša nība lā īšû akkisma ištēn ul ēzib (ITP, 78–79). For reading [karā]nu, cf. W.R. Gallagher, Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: New Studies (SHCANE, 18), Leiden 1999, 133. Cf. also SI 7 24: ‘I cut down the orchards and the sissoo trees around the city walls, and did not leave a single one. I destroyed the date palms, throughout his land. I ripped off their fruit and filled the meadows.’ 169 D.D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib, Chicago 1926, B1 lns 27–30. 170 See Deut. 28:26; 1 Sam. 17:44; 2 Sam. 21:10; Ps. 79:2; Jer. 7:33; 12:19; 15:3; 19:7; Ezek. 29:5; 32:4; 39:4; Rev. 19:17.

176

chapter four

(cf. Ezek. 39:12). The coupling of summer-winter expresses totality, i.e. throughout the year, always.171 The intriguing question concerns the identity of the ones who are destroyed. Assyria is frequently named in this respect, though usually without offering any support.172 There are several reasons why this proposal is unlikely. First, Assyria is never mentioned in this prophecy. Second, as I argued in v. 1, the form of Isa. 18 as a ‫ הוי‬oracle is expected to proclaim doom for those being addressed. Third, representing the nations of Isa. 18 as glorious, fearful and strong presupposes the fall of these great and mighty nations. Fourth, it was suggested that there might be a word play in ‫ צלצל‬/ ‫זלזל‬.173 If true, that would give an additional reason to identify the addressees of 18:1 with those described in v. 5.174 Fifth, announcing judgment upon Egypt and Kush as the helpers of Israel and Judah is a common theme of Isaiah’s oracles (cf. Isa. 20:3–6; 30:1–17; 31:1–5). It is therefore likely that not Assyria but the Kushite Empire are being denounced.175 Nevertheless, the fall of the Kushite Kingdom had far reaching implications for all neighbouring states that had chosen to align their fate and future with the enticing might of this African kingdom. 4.2.4 7a 7b 7c 7d 7e 7f 171

Verse 7

At that time will bring tribute to Yhwh of hosts, the people tall and bald, and indeed the people more fearful beyond it, a nation mighty and treading down, whose land the rivers divide (or: whose country is the riverbed), to the place of the name of Yhwh of hosts, mount Zion.

Cf. Gen. 8:22; Ps. 74:17; Amos 3:15; Zech. 14:8. Gesenius, 586; Delitzsch, 352–53; Dillmann, 167; Duhm, 139; Cheyne, 112; Gray, 308; Schmidt, 120; Procksch, 242; Fischer, 138; Van Hoonacker, 106; Kissane, 207; Young, 1.477; Motyer, 161; Blenkinsopp, 311. 173 Clements, 165; Hayes & Irvine, 256; Høyland Lavik, Isaiah 18, 170–71. 174 Høyland Lavik argues that Isa. 18 is designed in a particular way so as ‘to entrap the audience [Judah] to think that somebody else will be judged and not themselves’ (Isaiah 18, 20). However, the fact that the vine imagery is often related to the people of Yhwh in the Bible (cf. Isaiah 18, 156–61; but see Isa. 16:8–11) does not exclude the possibility that, at this point in the text, this motif has a wider scope and includes the nations from the rivers of Kush as well. Indeed, it is not so much one nation that is compared here to the destroyed vine but the developing plan of the nations. Certainly, the vine imagery may have also evoked Isa. 5, where Israel and Judah are described as the vineyard of Yhwh. 175 Cf. Fohrer, 1.206; Wildberger, 690; Kaiser, 78; Dietrich, Politik, 129. 172

the analysis of isaiah 18

177

V. 7 takes up v. 2 almost literally and inserts it into a new interpretive frame, 7a and 7f. What does this tribute scene imply? Does it mean that after being subdued by the army of Yhwh, the defeated nations bring tribute to Zion? Or rather does this tribute express gratitude towards Yhwh, who annihilated the enemies? The answer is closely related to the problem of literary integrity to be addressed in the next section. Mount Zion (‫ )הר־ציון‬is prominent in Isaiah and the Psalms, appearing mostly with positive connotations.176 This mountain is the place where Yhwh reigns (Isa. 8:18; 24:23) and which he is committed to defend as a king protects his residence (Isa. 29:8; 31:4). The formula ‫ מקום שׁם־יהוה‬is unique. The emphasis on the name of Yhwh abiding in Jerusalem is particularly frequent in Deuteronomy and related literature.177 4.2.5 Conclusion Isa. 18 is a prophecy of doom addressed primarily to the African nations of the Nile valley, the Egypto-Kushite Empire (and not Kush alone), with its borders extending to the ends of the earth. This kingdom is typified as the land of the two-winged beetle, an Egyptian symbol wellrecognised in the entire Near East. Their African emissaries (‫ )ציר‬sent to Canaan are commissioned to deliver a sombre message for their master, the Kushite pharaoh on their return. What the farthest nations should hear, all the world should hear (v. 3). From a distance, the God of Israel carefully follows the emergence of promising plans, waiting for the right moment to intervene (v. 4). When those plans come to the final phase, Yhwh will subdue the mighty and fearful nations. Similar to a vine tree being destroyed shortly before the vintage (v. 5), their almost successful plans are destined for oblivion. This message is indirectly addressed to all those who expect their salvation from these outwardly attractive and powerful people. After destruction, the land extending beyond the rivers of Kush will bring tribute to the city where the King of Israel reigns.

176 Pss. 48:3, 12; 74:2; 78:68; 125:1; Isa. 4:5; 8:18; 10:12; 18:7; 24:23; 29:8; 31:4; 37:32; Lam. 5:18; Joel 3:5; Obad. 1:17, 21; Mic. 4:7. 177 Wildberger, 696; Kaiser, 79. Cf. Deut. 12:5, 11, 21; 14:23, 24; 1 Kgs 8:16; etc. For the temple as ‫בית לשׁם יהוה‬, cf. 1 Kgs 3:2; 5:17, 19; 8:17, 20; Jer. 3:17.

178

chapter four 4.3 Isaiah 18 in Context

4.3.1

Literary Issues in Isaiah 18

The purpose of §4.3 is to evaluate the results of the exegesis of Isa. 18 in a literary, theological and historical context according to the questions outlined in §1.4. The present section concentrates on literary issues, such as textual integrity, larger context and intertextual connections. As argued, Isa. 18 recounts a prophetic (visionary?) experience (cf. v. 4: ‫)כי כה אמר יהוה אלי‬. The divine revelation described in vv. 2c–4 is embedded between a cry of woe (vv. 1–2b) and a prophetic elaboration of the divine utterance (vv. 5–6). Subsequently, v. 7 presents the wider concern of the prophecy and brings the reader closer to Jerusalem. The Integrity of Isaiah 18 Although several scholars find no difficulty in reading Isa. 18:1–7 as a coherent text, the literary integrity of this passage has often been subject to debate. Quite a few commentators consider 18:3 a later insertion.178 It is argued that ‫ תבל‬belongs to the vocabulary of late Hebrew texts. Furthermore, Wildberger suggested that ‫ תקע שׁופר‬and ‫נשׂא‬ ‫ נס‬appear to be texts dated to the post-exilic period.179 Some authors also regard the perspective of Isa. 18:3 as universalistic, a tendency believed to characterise the biblical literature of the exilic or post-exilic period. It is not possible to analyse the details of texts containing ‫תבל‬. But a quick look at these passages leads to two important interrelated conclusions: the texts in question are always poetic, and ‫ תבל‬appears exclusively in poetic parallelisms, most frequently with ‫ארץ‬.180 Poetry and parallelism enrich the lexical material of a language with new words

178 Marti, 148–49; Gray, 313; Fohrer, 1.205; Kaiser, 80; Wildberger, 681; Vermeylen, 1.319; Clements, 165; Kilian, 118–19; Berges, 162–63. 179 Isa. 11:12; 13:2; 27:13 (cf. Wildberger, 681; Berges, 192–93). 180 Synonymous parallelism: with ‫( ארץ‬1 Sam. 2:8; 1 Chron. 16:30; Job 34:13; Ps. 19:5; 24:1; 33:8; 77:19; 89:12; 90:2; 96:13; 97:4; 98:9; Prov. 8:26; Isa. 14:21; 24:4; 26:9, ִ (Ps. 9:9), ‫( אדם בני‬Prov. 8:31). 18; 34:1; Jer. 10:12; 51:15; Lam. 4:12; Nah. 1:5), ‫לאמים‬ Synthetic parallelism: 2 Sam. 22:16; Job 18:18; 37:12; Ps. 18:16; 50:12; 93:1; 98:7; Isa. 13:11; 14:17; 27:6.

the analysis of isaiah 18

179

that are normally absent from everyday speech. This poetic context adequately explains the appearance of ‫ תבל‬in Isa. 18:3.181 With regard to the late origin of ‫ תקע שׁופר‬and ‫נשׂא נס‬, Wildberger’s suggestion would carry some weight only if there were other syntagmatic constructions in which ‫ שׁופר‬and ‫ נס‬appear. However, ‫ נשׂא‬is the verb generally used with ‫נס‬,182 and ‫ שׁופר‬appears exclusively with ‫תקע‬.183 Regarding the universalistic view of v. 3, it would be misleading to say that there is only one type of universalism in the Bible deriving from the post-exilic period. It is hard to imagine that an Assyrian Empire whose ruler generally introduces himself as the king and judge of the entire world (šar kiššāte) and to whom the god Assur submitted the universe (kippat erbetti;184 PPANE 85 ii 3), would not give rise to a universalistic vision in the deepest sense of the word that did not infect the Hebrew prophets, who so often talk about this world power. In several judgments pronounced through Judaean prophets, Yhwh appears to stand behind this king of the universe (cf. Isa. 10:5). Each prophecy directed against a foreign nation is in itself evidence of some kind of universal perspective.185 The main problem in this case is that some exegetes consider v. 3 a pronouncement of an eschatological judgment regarding all nations of the earth. However, this is clearly not the case in v. 3, where—as comparable texts suggest—the rhetorical intention is different.186 Although the prophet addresses the world, his concern is to deliver the message to those listening to him. The world is not summoned to take action, but to look, listen, and witness (1 Kgs 22:28). Assuming that the prophet’s audience was a multinational community (cf. ‫)צירים‬, including those living in the distant Kush, such a rhetorical address line is certainly in its place.187 In conclusion, there is no convincing evidence that would urge us to treat v. 3 as a later addition. Isa. 18:3 makes explicit what is implied by the FNPs in general, namely that the implications of Yhwh’s judgment

181 ‫ תבל‬appears to be an Akkadian loanword (tābalu, ‘dry land’, ‘field’; cf. also abālu), attested in the Akkadian since the Amarna period. 182 Isa. 5:26; 11:12; 13:2; Jer. 4:6; 50:2; 51:12; 51:27. ‫ רום‬in Isa. 49:22; 62:10. 183 Josh. 6:4, 8, 9, 13, 16, 20; Judg. 3:27; 6:34; 7:18, 19, 20, 22; 1 Sam. 13:3. 184 Cf. Hebrew ‫ כנפות הארץ‬in Job 37:3; 38:13; Isa. 11:12; 24:16; Ezek. 7:2. 185 Cf. Duhm, 138. 186 E.g., Ps. 2:10; 33:8; 49:2; Isa. 1:2; Mic. 1:2 (cf. 1 Kgs 22:28). 187 Sargon’s Hymn to Nanaya also begins as follows: ‘Hear, o world (kibrāti), the praise of queen Nanaya!’ (SAA 3 4:rev. ii 13’).

180

chapter four

and salvation are far reaching. They entail more than simply local interventions in the life of one nation in the world’s history. This is even more the case when the life and political affairs of that particular nation are inseparably linked with the destiny of many others. Isa. 18:7 is more commonly viewed as a secondary attachment to the prophecy, mainly in order to introduce a scene of salvation after judgment, or so the argument goes. This opinion appears to be supported by the fact that v. 7 merely repeats v. 2 with some variations. Finally, verses beginning with ‫ בעת ההיא‬are also generally regarded as later additions. A few exegetes contest this view, however, noting that the defeat of Assyria by Yhwh may have encouraged the Kushites to bring tributes to him.188 Nevertheless, according to the conclusion of the exegetical section above, this last view can hardly correspond to the intention of Isa. 18. The connection between 18:7 and the previous verses is established in two ways. First, ‫ מקום שׁם־יהוה‬is considered a synonym for ‫מכון‬ in 18:4. Second, the image motif of the mount in Zion connects v. 7 with the judgment scene of v. 6. It must be noted, however, that the viewpoint of v. 7 is slightly different. As argued, ‫ מכון‬refers to Yhwh’s heavenly dwelling from where he is seen and heard by the prophet. Furthermore, Zion is not the location where the judgment of v. 6 is issued.189 Do these slight differences allude to the later origin of v. 7? Isa. 18:7 contains an important motif well-represented in other sections of the book of Isaiah: foreign treasures are brought to Jerusalem (cf. 23:18; 45:14; 60:5–16; 61:5–6). Of course, not all these texts are written with the same concern. The interchange between Yhwh and Zion concerning the site where tributes are to be brought is more than simply a matter of style. The specific theme of 18:7, tributes brought to the King of Jerusalem, also appears in royal psalms, especially Ps. 72:10–15, as well as in cultic poems, like Ps. 68:29–31, singing about the kingship of Yhwh. Such tribute scenes have countless parallels in Mesopotamian literature. The New Assyrian kings generally accentuate the vast extent of their dominion and their fame in the 188 Knobel, 125; Dillmann, 170; Procksch, 242–43; A. Feuillet, ‘Études chronologique des oracles qu’on peut dater’, in: Idem, Études d’exégèse et de théologie biblique. Ancien Testament, Paris 1975, 51; Oswalt, 363. One often points to 2 Chron. 32:23, which mentions the tributes of foreigners. This episode, however, seems to be a shortened assessment of the story in 2 Kgs 20. In Sadler’s view, Isa. 18:7 is concerned with proselytism (see Sadler, Cushite, 49, 53). 189 For the mountain as a place of judgment, see 1 Kgs 22:17 and Isa. 14:25.

the analysis of isaiah 18

181

world by enumerating the vast tributes received from nations living on distant locations. Nations of which former kings had never heard, or whose location was far away (ša ašaršu rūqu) bring their gifts to the new kings of Assyria.190 Such encounters with nations on the peripheries of the Assyrian empire can be compared with the account of the African tribute to Zion in Isa. 18:7. In view of this parallel, there must be a revaluation of the often formulated view claiming that v. 7 actually presents an oracle of salvation concerning the Kushites. In the context of the destruction of the empire by Yhwh (through Assyria?), v. 7 is rather a further expression of the subordination of the powerful Nile land to Yhwh, as well as a witness to God’s might reaching the most distant corners of the earth. The fact that 18:7 fits its context might attest to the originality of 18:7 but need not necessarily do so. The judgment scene of v. 6 (the summer/winter motif) appears to allude to a permanent state. Moreover, other texts from the book of Isaiah suggest that the judgment against the Kushite kingdom is implicitly connected with judgment of the people of Yhwh. The concern of vv. 1–6 is the devastation of Egypt and Kush as well as other nations relying on them; ‘the helper will stumble and the helped one will fall’ (Isa. 31:3; cf. Isa. 20). This means that on the day of its destruction, Kush will not be able to bring tributes to Yhwh in Zion, as one would expect if ‫ בעת ההיא‬in v. 7 is placed in the same historical situation as v. 6. Nevertheless, from the

190 Among the many examples, see for instance the encounter between King Shilkanni of Egypt and Sargon II described on his Assur prism (lns 1–11). An account of Shalmaneser III from shortly after 841 retells how the Assyrian king crossed the Euphrates for the 16th time. He defeated Hazael of Damascus and erected his royal statue on Mount Ba’ali-ra’asi, a cape jutting into the Mediterranean Sea. Then we read: ‘At that time (ina ūmešuma) I received tribute from the people of Tyre, Sidon, and from Jehu of the House of Omri.’ (RIMA A.0.102.8 24’–27’). ina ūmēšuma can be compared to ‫ בעת ההיא‬in Isa. 18:7. The Erra and Ishum epic summons the god Erra to show his might ‘so that those above and below quake (. . .), so that kings hear and kneel beneath you, so that countries hear and bring you their tribute (. . .)’ (S. Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others, Oxford 1989, 287). After Marduk is returned by a Babylonian king from exile and retakes his place in his temple, he speaks as follows: ‘Then I carried myself back to my city Babylon and to the Ekursagil. I called all the goddesses together. I commanded: ‘Bring your tribute, o you lands, to Babylon’ [. . .]’ (Marduk prophecy ii 1; cf. i 23). Dynastic prophecy ii 17’ reads: ‘All the lands will bring tribute to him’ (i.e. to the divinity) (T. Longman III, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study, Winona Lake, IN 1991, 233–34, 239).

182

chapter four

perspective of a later editor, the thematic shift from the destruction scene to the tribute scene can be readily explained. This also fits well the rhetoric of Assyrian royal-literature, which the collection of Isa. 13–23 imitates. Isaiah 18 and Its Context In its present position Isa. 18 is often considered an independent prophecy dealing with the Kushite kingdom. We are left to guess why—if this was indeed the concern of the author—it was not included in the ‫ משׂא מצרים‬or receive its own superscription. In §1.2, I mentioned various opinions that try to explain the location of Isa. 18. Duhm and Kaiser believe that the lack of individual superscriptions in 17:12–14 and 18:1–7 betray the fact that these prophecies were inserted at a late date in an already established ‫משׂא‬-collection. But these scholars provide no explanation why a later editor did not attach individual superscriptions to these texts, or why the two passages were inserted at their current position. Mowinckel, Fohrer and Vermeylen argue that a later addition of the ‫משׂא‬-texts was the reason for the distortion of an original Isaianic collection. Jenkins adopts the view that there were two well-structured collections in Isa. 14:24–22:25, namely 14:28–17:14 (the neighbouring nations) and 18:1–22:25 (great powers). The two collections begin by affirming the security of Zion (14:32; 18:7) and conclude with a description of an assault against it (17:12– 14; 22:1–14). In Jenkins’s scheme, Isa. 18 appears at a special position, but he gives no explanation for the lack of a ‫משׂא‬-superscription at this point in the prophecy.191 Despite the differences, these views agree on one essential point: Isa. 18 must be considered an individual prophecy, a unit with its own beginning and end. But what is such a prophecy concerned with the collapse of the Egypto-Kushite kingdom doing in the location that it now occupies? As observed in §3.2, every single prophecy concerned with one specific nation is given its proper place in a collection. Such texts may have been originally independent (14:24–27; 16:6–12; 22:15–25), but from the point of view of later editors, they belong to a ‫משׂא‬collection. The two undecided cases remain the two ‫הוי‬-words, 17:12– 14 and 18:1–7. Yet taking into account that all other prophecies belong

191

Isa. 21:11–17 undermines Jenkins assumption, as do 13:1–14:23 and 23.

the analysis of isaiah 18

183

to a ‫משׂא‬-collection, we should also consider this possibility for 17:12– 14 and 18:1–7. Needless to say, the following discussion will not search for an original unity but a unity from the viewpoint of the editors of 13–23. Isa. 17:12–14 contains a message of salvation for those endangered by the roar of many peoples. Most scholars argue that 17:12–14 has little to do with the superscription in 17:1. It is interpreted as a distinctive ‫הוי‬-prophecy against Assyria.192 However, a new anti-Assyrian prophecy appears unexpected and out of place. Others believe that vv. 12–14 address the threatening nations in general (Völkerkampf motif).193 But is there any relationship to the ‫ משׂא‬that addresses Damascus and Israel? Even though the tone of 17:12–14 can be recognised from Israelite cultic poetry (Ps. 46; 48; 83), it can more aptly be compared to Isa. 8:9–10 (cf. also 29:7–8).194 It is important that the enemy is not named in these texts, a feature that makes 17:12–14 suitable for use against more than one specific enemy. Vv. 12–14 may have once referred to historical enemies such as the Assyrians (or Babylonians?), or may have been written as a poem concerning all the enemies of Zion. If, in its present context, the fall of some nation other than Israel or Damascus was predicted, the editors would have probably signalled this by a superscription, as similar texts are so signalled elsewhere in Isa. 13–23, or else appended the insertion to the appropriate collection (Assyria or Babylon). The fact that vv. 12–14 did not receive any heading but were instead connected with 17:1–11 suggests that the enemy threatening ‘us’ was understood to be the Aram-Israel alliance introduced in 17:1, Peqah and Rezin. It must be noted that Damascus named in the superscription of Isa. 17:1 is known in the book of Isaiah only as a nation threatening Jerusalem. Whatever was the original concern of 17:12–14, those placing this text in its present position saw it as a prediction concerning the failure of the Aram-Israel alliance.

192 B. Gosse, Isaïe 13,1–14,23 dans la tradition littéraire du livre d’Isaïe et dans la tradition des oracles contre les nations (OBO, 78), Freiburg 1988, 96–97; Ohmann, 73; Clements, 161. 193 Kaiser, 70; Kilian, 116–17. 194 Cf. M.J. de Jong, Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets: A Comparative Study of the Earliest Stages of the Isaiah Tradition and the Neo-Assyrian Prophecies (VT.S, 117), Leiden 2007, 168–69.

184

chapter four

The case with Isa. 18:1–7 in the ‫ משׂא‬of Damascus is similar. It is true that on the first level, in its original sense, Isa. 18 addresses the fate of the Kushito-Egyptian Kingdom. But as I have noted above, the text implicitly also threatens all those who choose to ally with this nation, a barb in the eyes of Yhwh (cf. Isa. 20 below). This rhetorical aspect in Isa. 18 is important when we wish to understand its function in this secondary literary context. For regardless of the role that the African kingdom played in this prophecy in its original context, on its present position, following the intention of the editors, Isa. 18:1–7 can be and is to be read as an anti-Israelite text.195 Further literary arguments corroborate these assumptions. Given the abundance of plant imagery in Isa. 17–18, Sweeney concluded that both 17:12–14 and 18:1–7 were written for their present context.196 Even though his opinion concerning the origin of these two texts is not warranted,197 the view that 17:12–14 and 18:1–7 can be read in the context of the anti-Damascus and anti-Israel speech is basically sound. The clue for the rationale underlying the present position and the editorial interpretation of 17:12–14 and 18:1–7 is to be found in the previous 17:1–11. Isa. 17:1–11 uses two related agricultural images to represent the future of Israel (and Damascus). First, Isa. 17:5 mentions the grain harvest and 17:6 the gathering of the fruits of (olive) trees. It is striking to observe that these two images also appear in 17:12–14 and 18:1–7. Isa. 17:12–14 compares Israel and Damascus to the ‫מץ‬, ‘chaff ’ and ‫גלגל‬, ‘wheel-plant’ (cf. Ps. 83:14). This image reminds the reader of the grain harvest and threshing to which 17:5 referred. According to 18:1–6, judgment is like cutting twigs before vintage time. Although this metaphor is not exactly the same as the olive harvest in 17:6, the two are close enough to serve as binding themes from the point of view of the editors inserting Isa. 18 into its present position. In both images, the crop and the fruit (17:5–6) convey a message of judgment. The threat of Israel and Damascus for Judah will be blown away like

195 As we shall see below, Isa. 20, which appears in a collection concerned with Egypt but which is primarily concerned with the ‘shame’ of the prophet’s own people, is a similar case. 196 Sweeney, 254, 260. Cf. also Beuken, 149. 197 Blenkinsopp, 306–7, and Beuken, 149, 152, contest the view that these texts would have been written for their present context. Agricultural imagery is very frequently used by the prophets, including Isaiah (see Isa. 15–16).

the analysis of isaiah 18

185

chaff (17:13). The branches of ‘Israel’ (as the context implies) will be cut down (cf. 18:5). Similarly to vv. 5–6, the metaphor of ‘seed’ and ‘twig’ that will be shaken on that day of incurable pain according to Isa. 17:9–11 (cf. §3.2.4) recalls once again the images of ‘grain’ (17:12– 14) and ‘tree’ (18:1–7). Isa. 17:12–14 and 18:1–7 which follow these predictions appear to be editorial illustrations regarding the fulfilment of those earlier prophecies in 17:5–6 and 9–11. From this editorial viewpoint, the alliances with the northern Aramaeans against Assyria and Jerusalem (17:12–14) during Peqah (cf. 2 Kgs 16:5; Isa. 7) and with southern Egyptians (Africans) against Assyria (18:1–7) during Hoshea (cf. 2 Kgs 17:3) were two fatal steps in an Israelite policy ultimately leading to the deportation and total destruction of the Northern Kingdom and its ally. In this reading of the editors, the messengers of Isa. 18:2 could have been related to those of Hoshea in 2 Kgs 17:4.198 Although this reinterpretation of Isa. 18 did change the original meaning of the prophecy, insofar as Isa. 18 implicitly also addressed all those who chose to ally with Egypt against Assyria, one could hardly claim that the editor’s new reading was entirely strange to the prophecy’s original objective. To conclude, although 17:12–14 and 18:1–7 are two originally independent prophecies, from an editorial point of view they appear as constitutive parts of the ‫משׂא דמשׂק‬. In a contextualised reading, they serve as illustrations for the fulfilment of the earlier prophecies in 17:1–11. This appears to be the rationale behind including Isa. 18 on its current location of the book.199 This editorial reinterpretation which regarded Israel rather than the Kushito-Egyptian Empire as the focus of the prophecy must be distinguished from the original intention of Isa. 18, the historical setting of which will be discussed below. The Intertextual Connections in Isaiah 18 Three texts need to be investigated in relation to Isa. 18, viz. Isa. 45:14; Ps. 68:30 and Zeph. 3:10. Clements asserted that Isa. 18:7 was formulated in response to Isa. 45:14, suggesting that 18:7 was added to the book later than Isa. 40 and following.200 Isa. 45:14 promises Zion that

198 Isa. 18:7 had probably been added to 18:1–6 already before the prophecy was included into its present context. 199 On a literary level, the cloud standing still in 18:4 may also be related to the swiftly moving cloud that brings judgment to Egypt in 19:1. 200 Clements, 166.

186

chapter four the produce of Egypt, and the profit of Kush and the Sabaeans, men of stature, will come over to you, will belong to you, and will follow you; they will come over in fetters. They will bow down towards201 you, and they will pray towards you. Only in you is there a God, and nowhere else is there any divinity.202

The function of Isa. 45:14 in its present context is not totally clear,203 but there seems to be a certain parallel between Yhwh’s dealing with Cyrus in 45:1–13 and with Zion in 45:14.204 The final sentence in which Cyrus reappears again (45:13) should perhaps be regarded as a closing utterance in the Cyrus oracle (45:1–6?; note the suffix ‫)העירתהו‬. Beyond the above noted parallel, other important terms appear that further emphasise the relationship between the Cyrus-prophecy and the utterance addressing Israel: ‫מחיר‬, ‘wage’, ‘value’ and ‫שׁחד‬, ‘gift’, ‘bribe’, in v. 13 and ‫יגיע‬, ‘produce’ and ‫סחר‬, ‘profit’ in v. 14. The only other location in Isaiah where Egypt, Kush and Seba are mentioned is Isa. 43:3, a prophecy which asserts that the three nations will be given to Cyrus as a ransom (‫ )כפר‬for Zion. In Isa. 45, the prophet steps beyond 43:3 maintaining that Cyrus will do the work for Yhwh even without being paid. For this reason, the profit of Egypt, Kush and Seba will be transferred to Zion; she will receive the tribute of foreigners. If this reading is correct, the tribute description of 45:14 is a parallel to the Cyrus-texts, and is less clearly related to 18:7.205 In 45:14 (cf. also Isa. 60:3–17), many nations bring their wealth to Zion and not specifically to Yhwh living in Zion as in 18:7. This concern with Zion and its people rather than Yhwh or the king in Jerusalem distinguishes Isa. 45:14 (and Isa. 60:3–17) from 18:7. The relationship between Isa. 18:7 and Ps. 68:30 is more significant. The verse division of Ps. 68:29–30 in MT is probably erroneous, and one should read ‫ זו פעלת לנו מהיכלך על־ירושׁלם‬as ‘so you have done to us from your temple in Jerusalem’.206 Ps. 68:30b, parallel to Isa. 18:7, may be an independent sentence: ‘let the kings bring tribute to

For ‫אליך ישׁתחוו‬, see Ps. 5:8; 138:2. Cf. Isa. 44:17. For ‫ואין עוד אפס אלהים‬, cf. Isa. 45:6; 46:9; 47:8, 10; Zeph. 2:12. 203 For details, see H.-J. Hermisson, Deuterojesaja. 45,8–49,13 (BK, 11/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2003, 31–38. 204 God will subdue the nations before Cyrus (v. 1), he will level the hills (v. 2), he will give Cyrus the hidden treasures (‫( )מטמון‬v. 3), and engird him, so that all the nations of the earth may know that Yhwh is God alone (v. 6). 205 Cf. also Blenkinsopp, 311. 206 For a detailed discussion of this verse, see the commentaries. 201 202

the analysis of isaiah 18

187

you’. But it may also form a causal relationship with the former lines: ‘Because (‫ )אשׁר = זו‬you have done this to us (. . .), kings will bring tribute to you.’ The appearance of the rare word ‫ שׁי‬in Ps. 68:30 (cf. Ps. 76:12) and the description of the Kushites and Egyptians bringing tribute to Yhwh in 68:32 may point to a close relationship with Isa. 18:7.207 A text clearly influenced by Isa. 18:1.7 is Zeph. 3:10:208 ‘From beyond the rivers of Kush, my suppliants, the daughter of my dispersed ones, will bring tribute.’209 The sense of this sentence is modified insofar as it describes tribute brought to Jerusalem by Jews. However, the expression ‫ בת־פוצי‬is most likely a gloss (as often noted). By the time Zeph. 3:10 was composed, Isa. 18:7 was part of the present collection. It is even possible that Zeph. 3:9 was formulated in view of Isa. 19:18. To sum up, the texts mentioning the tribute of the nations to Jerusalem do not all reflect a similar theology. In one case, the nations come to serve Zion and contribute their wealth to the well-being of the city (Isa. 45:14). Secondly, the tribute of foreigners is brought to Yhwh, or his king in Zion (Ps. 68:30; Zeph. 3:10), an idea which is close to Near Eastern cultic and royal theology. The tribute scene so prominent in the second half of the book of Isaiah, which puts the people of Zion at the centre, is probably a later development of this cultic and royal theology. This development is similar to the process by which the same author (Deutero-Isaiah) also adapted the language of former royal oracles to address the people of Zion in a way that was formerly typical for addressing a king (cf. PPANE 69 ii 5’–7’; 82 iii 24’–25’). 4.3.2

Theological Perspectives in Isaiah 18

Isa. 18 is one of those cases where the prophecy concerning the fate of a foreign nation is directly related to the political developments of the

207 It is also possible that the metaphors in Ps. 68:31 refer to Egyptians and their expansionary policy in Canaan. The term ‫ חית קנה‬is particularly suitable for Egypt of the Delta marshes (cf. M.E. Tate, Psalms 51–100 [WBC, 20], Dallas, TX 1990, 183). Egypt is the ‫עגלה יפה־פיה‬, ‘beautiful heifer’ in Jer. 46:20, and its mercenaries ‫עגלי‬ ‫מרבק‬, ‘fatted calves’ in Jer. 46:21. 208 Kissane, 208, and Berges, 162, suggest that Isa. 18:7 was built on Zeph. 3:10. But Zeph. 3:10 obviously combines Isa. 18:1 and 7, as noted by Wildberger, 695; Blenkinsopp, 311; L. Perlitt, Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja (ATD, 25), Göttingen 2004, 140. 209 Note ‫מעבר לנהרי־כושׁ‬, ‫יבל‬, and ‫ מנחה‬as a synonym of ‫שׁי‬.

188

chapter four

prophet’s time. In this respect, there is a noteworthy parallel between Isa. 18 and 1 Kgs 22 that may highlight the original setting of the present prophecy. The common themes in these texts include: • the divine legitimacy of the prophetic utterance (Isa. 18:4: ‫כי כה‬ ‫ ;אמר יהוה אלי‬1 Kgs 22:14: ‫;)את־אשׁר יאמר יהוה אלי‬ • the oracle addresses all people, summoned as witnesses (Isa. 18:3: ‫ ;כל־ישׁבי תבל ושׁכני ארץ‬1 Kgs 22:28: ‫;)שׁמעו עמים כלם‬ • the description of the heavenly council (Isa. 18:4: Yhwh sitting in his ‫ ;מכון‬1 Kgs 22:19: Yhwh sitting on his throne); • the heavenly beings which stand at Yhwh’s service (Isa. 18:2: ‫מלאכים‬, 1 Kgs 22:19: ‫ צבא השׁמים‬and ‫;)רוח‬ • the heavenly beings are sent with a commission to the human world (Isa. 18:2; 1 Kgs 22:20–22); • the prophetic comment on the vision (Isa. 18:5–6; 1 Kgs 22:23); • judgment takes place in the mountains (Isa. 18:6; 1 Kgs 22:17). These close parallels make it probable that, in the background of Isa. 18, the man of God is, similar to Micha ben Imlah, prompted to present his vision concerning an eventual alliance with the Kushite Kingdom (or he gives his view intuitively). Further prophecies addressing the Egypto-centric political interest of Israelite and Judean leading circles in the time of Isaiah may indirectly corroborate this view.210 The most significant references appear in two prophecies uttered against those relying on Egypt in Isa. 30:1–5, 6–17 and 31:1–3(4–5?).211 However, it is important to emphasise that, in these texts, ‫מצרים‬ probably refers to Lower Egypt (eventually Lower and Upper Egypt) and not necessarily the Egypto-Kushite kingdom. While Wildberger believes that these texts refer to Hezekiah’s emissaries sent to Egypt on the occasion of the rebellion of Ashdod in 713–711 (cf. Isa. 20), they are more often dated to the 705–701 period.212 Yet arguments such as ‘the general context of chs. 28–29’ (Clements) are too meagre to be convincing. This ‘general context’ also contains a prophecy against the Northern Kingdom from before 722 bc (28:1–4). This context is most

210 Allusions to Egypt in 7:18; 10:20, 24, 26; 11:11, 15, 16; 23:5; 27:12, 13 and to Egypt and Kush in 11:11 are beyond the scope of the present discussion. 211 Isa. 20 will be discussed below. 212 Wildberger, 1150; Clements, 243; J. Barthel, Prophetenwort und Geschichte: Die Jesajaüberlieferung in Jes 6–8 und 28–31 (FAT, 19), Tübingen 1997, 278.

the analysis of isaiah 18

189

likely built on literary considerations, as a collection of ‫הוי‬-words telling us little about the actual date of the oracles it contains. Indeed, it is probable that in its earliest form 30:1–5, 6–7, 8–17 originally addressed an Israelite and not a Judaean audience.213 The messengers appearing here are sent to the pharaoh of Egypt (‫( )מצרים‬30:2–3). But the city referred to is Zoan / Tanis, a major town of the Eastern Delta.214 It is clear and strange at the same time that Isa. 30 makes no mention of Memphis, the imperial capital of the Kushite pharaohs Shabaka and Shabataka. One may infer that the messengers arrived in Egypt’s Eastern Delta before 716. Shortly after this moment, East Egypt’s King Osorkon IV, possibly to be identified with the expected supporter of Israel, King So, in 2 Kgs 17:4,215 disappears from the scene, and Shabaka takes his seat in Memphis. Since Isa. 28:1–4 addresses Northern Israel, one must leave this possibility open for 30:1–5 as well. The prophetic summons to consult Yhwh in taking decisions not only applied to Judah but also to Israel (cf. 9:7, 12).216 No historical clues help us to date 30:6–7. Apparently this is a thematically related secondary attachment to 30:1–5. The formulation of 30:8 suggests that the setting of 30:6–7 is Judah rather than Israel. The 213 Cf. Hayes & Irvine, 338–39; J.K. Hoffmeier, ‘Egypt As an Arm of Flesh: A Prophetic Response’, in: A. Gileadi (ed.), Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Ronald K. Harrison, Grand Rapids, MI 1988, 88–89. 214 Tanis was the ‘second capital’, a northern Thebes during the 21st and 22nd Dynasties. Hanes (‫ )חנס‬is often connected to Heracleopolis Magna (ḥt-nn-nswt) or Heracleopolis Parva (ḥn-n-stnj, Assyrian ḫ ininši) (cf. Wildberger, 1154–55). Kitchen suggests that ‫ חנס‬is the transcription of the Egyptian ḥwt-nswt, ‘the palace of the king’ (‘Hanes’, NBD 504). It is more likely, however, that the messengers arrive at one city rather than multiple locations. ‫ חנס‬is phonetically close to the name of the Egyptian god, Ḫ nsw (Khonsu), one of the most prominent deities of Zoan, to whom Shoshenq V dedicated a great temple (M. Romer, ‘Tanis’, LÄ 6.198, 202). During the New Kingdom, Khonsu came to be known as ‘Khonsu the advisor’ and especially as a healing god of salvation and a helper in need (W. Helck, E. Otto, Kleines Wörterbuch der Ägyptologie, Wiesbaden 1956, 76). The Isaianic text is concerned with looking for advice (‫ ;עצה‬30:1) and protection (‫ ;מעוז‬30:2). ‫( נסך מסכה‬30:1) may eventually also refer to building political coalitions. 215 See B.U. Schipper, ‘Wer War “Soʾ, König von Ägypten” (2 Kön 17,4)’, BN 92 (1998) 71–84; K.A. Kitchen, ‘Egyptian Interventions in the Levant in Iron Age II’, in: W.G. Dever, S. Gitin (eds), Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors, from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina, Winona Lake, IN 2003, 126. 216 R.G. Kratz, ‘Israel in the Book of Isaiah’, JSOT 31 (2006), 103–28, argued that the term ‘Israel’ in the book of Isaiah only refered to the Northern Kingdom in texts that explicitly deal with Samaria as a threat to Judah. But Kratz’s very selective use of scholarly literature on Isaiah (and relying too often on the controversial study of Becker) in dating the discussed passages makes most of his conclusions doubtful.

190

chapter four

unity and provenance of 30:9–17 remains a question. The name ‫קדושׁ‬ ‫ ישׂראל‬would fit Israel, as does the description of near to total destruction in v. 17 (cf. Isa. 17:5–6). At any rate, the warnings concerning an alliance with Egypt against Assyria uttered to the Northern Kingdom retained their validity after the collapse of Israel in 721 (2 Kgs 17–18). If 31:1–3 is treated independently from the rest of the chapter, Isaiah’s words may have been directed against either Israel or Judah. Isa. 31:4 relates the former verses to Jerusalem. Several exegetes continue to read v. 4 as a message of judgment concerning Jerusalem.217 However, there is a literary shift marker at 31:4. Moreover, vv. 4–5 parallel each other in that both deal with the protection of one’s property (prey or nest).218 Therefore, the positive message of vv. 4–5 concerning Jerusalem must be distinguished from vv. 1–3. One way to retain the unity of the pericope 31:1–3, 4–5 would be to presuppose that, after proclaiming the fall of Samaria in 31:1–3, Isaiah then emphasises that Judah will be saved (vv. 4–5). However, vv. 4–5 can also be read with vv. 8–9, re-affirming the protection of Jerusalem during the fall of Assyria, an affirmation found elsewhere in the book.219 Isa. 31:6 is concerned with ‘the sons of Israel’ rather than Judah. It summons them to return to the God, whom they had forsaken. This call could have been addressed to the ‘apostate’ Northern Kingdom (cf. Isa. 9:12; 17:7–8) and may suggest that v. 6 (and possibly v. 7) is an addition to vv. 1–3 that interprets the woe as directed against the North.220 The allusion to Yhwh’s refusal to retract his words and insistence on realising them (31:2) may refer to earlier prophecies directed at the same audience, perhaps including 30:1–5 that, as we have argued above, presumably are first intended as an address to Israel.221 Secondarily, the insertion of vv. 4–5, 8–9 makes it possible to read Isa. 31 as a warning to Judah,

217

Barth, Jesaja-Worte, 83–84; Barthel, Prophetenwort, 447–48; Y. Shemesh, ‘Isaiah 31,5: The Lord’s Protecting Lameness’, ZAW 115 (2003), 256. 218 Duhm, 231; Kaiser, 251–52. For two different metaphors expressing the same idea, cf. also Isa. 17:5–6; 18:4. A very similar picture of the deity appears in a prophecy addressed to Esarhaddon (PPANE 80:3’–10’): ‘I will stand [guard over you] (. . .) Like a winged bird over its fledgling I will twitter above you, going around[d yo]u, surrounding you. Like a faithful cub (a lion?; cf. Nissinen’s note a) I will run around in your palace, sniffing out your enemies.’ 219 Cf. De Jong, Isaiah, 118–22. 220 For ‫ בני ישׂראל‬in Isaiah, cf. 17:3, 9. 221 The anti-Israel Kehrversgedicht in 9:7–20, also emphasises the validity of previous pronouncements of doom (cf. the outstretched-hand motif in 31:3).

the analysis of isaiah 18

191

pursuing at times an external policy dangerously akin to that of King Hoshea which has brought Israel to oblivion. If these considerations are valid, then the initial portions of Isa. 30–31 ‫ מצרים‬originally referred to Lower Egypt, the eastern Delta, the sanctuary of hope for Israel. But as these texts were later readapted to a Judaean context, ‫ מצרים‬also signifies the Empire of the EgyptoKushites. The narrative of Isa. 36–37 also refers to Egypt and Kush. The development and integrity of the present form of Isa. 36–39 is disputed, though there seems to be some agreement regarding the existence of two accounts, delimited as 36:1–37:9a, 37–38 and 37:9b–36.222 Whether this text division can account for all problems of the passage is a question that cannot be discussed here. It is, nevertheless, striking that, at least in this final form, 36:6 and 9 mention the support of Egypt (‫ )מצרים‬and its pharaoh (‫ )פרעה מלך־מצרים‬as one possible source for Hezekiah’s confidence, while 37:9a assigns a similar role to King Taharka of Kush (‫)תרהקה מלך־כושׁ‬. The Egypt-related theology of Isa. 36–37 is quite complex. On the one hand, the futile trust of Hezekiah in Egypt is alluded to, but only indirectly in the speech of the Assyrian official (36:6, 9): Egypt is a broken reed that will pierce the hand of those relying on it.223 The author of the story sympathises with this view of Egypt held by the Assyrian cupbearer. Trusting Egypt is presented in 36:6 as an alternative to trusting Yhwh in 36:7. Yet it is remarkable that Yhwh makes use of Egypt to achieve his plans of sending the Assyrians home.224 One need not be surprised that the Egyptian policy put forward by Hezekiah is considered here in a more nuanced way than elsewhere in the book of Isaiah. Apparently the narrator aims to portray Hezekiah as a king whose inclination towards Egypt cannot be eradicated from memory, but whose ultimate trust was placed in Yhwh alone 222 Duhm, 258–59; Kaiser, 306–15; Clements, 278. Duhm and Kaiser consider 37:22–32 a further individual unit. 223 This metaphor may allude to breaking the royal power of Egypt. Note that the Egyptian term ‘king’ (nswt) means ‘that of the reed’ (Hoffmeier, ‘Arm of Flesh’, 88). The reed was also a symbol of Upper Egypt. On the other hand, the term ‘broken reed’ appears in Akkadian texts typifying the defeated enemy as qanû kaṣāṣu (K.L. Younger, ‘Assyrian Involvement in the Southern Levant at the End of the Eighth Century B.C.E.’, in: A.G. Vaughn, A.E. Killebrew [eds], Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period [SBL.SS, 18], Atlanta, GA 2002, 258). 224 Isa. 37:7 probably refers to the news of the approaching Egypto-Kushite army that would chase Sennacherib away.

192

chapter four

(cf. 37:1–4 and 37:14–20). Such recognition would explain why Judah, though allied with Egypt, will be saved, while Israel allied with Egypt will be destroyed (2 Kgs 17–18).225 As the texts above make it clear, the southern African neighbour appears consistently in a negative light in two respects. Alliance with Egypt represents a rebellion against Assyria, the vassal lord and the agent of Yhwh, and thus indirectly against Yhwh himself.226 Egypt was wrongly esteemed as a source of confidence, the power on which Israel and Judah were tempted to rely. Egypt was believed to play the role of Yhwh (Isa. 30:2; 31:1, 3; 36:6; cf. 2:22). Instead Isaiah repeatedly emphasises quietness and trust in Yhwh (‫ שׁקט‬hiph‘il / ‫ אמן‬hiph‘il in 7:14; ‫ בשׁובה ונחת‬/ ‫ בהשׁקט ובבטחה‬in 30:15) as the only way to escape the disaster, a motif that returns in Isa. 18:4 as well.227 The prophecies in 30:1–17 and 31:1–3 predict doom to Israel and Judah in the first instance, but they also hint at the destruction of Egypt (cf. 30:3, 5; 31:3). The case with Isa. 18 is presumably similar, with a reversed emphasis. The alliance with Kush and Egypt against Assyria seems to provide the most fitting background for Isa. 18. The picture of the emissaries sent from the land beyond the rivers of Kush evokes a rather concrete, real life situation personally experienced by the prophet, an experience that recalls Isa. 14:32 to mind. In this situation, the prophet may have been asked for a prophecy by political leaders about to attend a summit. The attitude of Yhwh in 18:4–5 is a pertinent message pointing right at the hesitant heart of Judah’s precipitate political attitude. The future holds no secrets for those who trust Egypt. When everything looks so perfect, when time is ripe, Yhwh will intervene with surprising power and destroy both the helper and those helped.228 In

225 A combination of a negative deed and a positive Hezekiah-image also appears in Isa. 39. According to Isa. 9:12 Israel’s collapse was caused not so much by its depraved morality but by its repeated rejection of prophetic summons to return to God. 226 Cf. ‫סרר‬, ‫( חטאת‬30:1) as treaty terminology in Hayes & Irvine, 338–39. Such unethical political behaviour is also rejected by Isa. 33:8 and Ezek. 17. Cf. J. Blenkinsopp, ‘The Prophetic Biography of Isaiah’, in: E. Blum (ed.), Mincha. Festgabe für Rolf Rendtorff zum 75. Geburtstag, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2000, 22; Cs. Balogh, ‘ “He Filled Zion with Justice and Righteousness:” The Composition of Isaiah 33’, Bib. 89 (2008), 485–86. 227 Cf. H.W. Hoffmann, Die Intention der Verkündigung Jesajas (BZAW, 136), Berlin 1974, 73; Høyland Lavik, Isaiah 18, 146. 228 Contrary to Dillmann, 167; Clements, 165; Dietrich, Politik, 130; Blenkinsopp, 310, I doubt that Isa. 18 would propagate a policy of neutrality.

the analysis of isaiah 18

193

its primary context, Isa. 18 can be compared to the ‘oracles of war’ (cf. 1 Kgs 22). The message of the prophet is predictive, and it was supposed to serve as a warning. Doom is waiting in case the Judaean policymakers will not change their minds. If this is not a shift in meaning, one may certainly speak of a different emphasis that Isa. 18 receives in its present context. The exegesis indicates that this chapter concatenates a message against the EgyptoKushite Empire with the one addressing Israel. By including Isa. 18 in a prophecy against Damascus and Israel, the people of Yhwh as the unspecified audience receive additional emphasis. Furthermore, Isa. 18 also serves as a legitimisation for the past. It presents the alliance with the nations of the Nile-lands as the reason explaining the collapse of Israel as described in Isa. 17. 4.3.3 The Historical Background of Isaiah 18 Even though many elements in the text of Isa. 18 are rather stereotypical, the account of the messengers from Africa is too specific to be regarded as part of conventional literary language. The previous discussion has already suggested that Isa. 18 is anchored in history. Nevertheless, it is one thing to assert that Isa. 18 was composed with a specific historical event in the background, but quite another to identify the event. The evidence of any particular historical setting for this chapter is modest. As noted in §1.3.1, Isa. 18 is usually dated to one of the following four periods: (a) to the time of the revolt of Hoshea of Israel (728–724); (b) to around 720, when according to Assyrian chronicles Hanunu, the king of the neighbouring Gaza, rebelled against Sargon II; (c) to the time of the Ashdod revolt (713–711); (d) to before the campaign of Sennacherib against Canaan in 701. All these suggestions are mostly related to the ‘ambassador-scene’ of 18:2, assumed to allude to negotiations preceding a rebellion against Assyria.229 Given that Isa. 18:2 mentions Kushito-Egyptian ambassadors sent to Canaan, it is unlikely that this prophecy would have anything to do with the rebellion of King Hoshea of Samaria. According to 2 Kgs 17:4, the Israelite king sent his messengers to Eastern (?) Egypt. This

229 Dating Isa. 18 based on its present context (Sweeney, 256–57, 260; Wildberger, 690) is misleading, so far as this context is secondary.

194

chapter four

verse invokes no alliance with the Kushites, or emissaries sent to Israel, while, as argued, Isa. 18 does not seem to refer to Israelite messengers at all. According to the Assyrian sources, in 720, shortly after Sargon II became the king of Assyria, he marched against the southern Philistine city, Gaza, whose king Hanunu had rebelled against Assyria. The Egyptian and Kushite involvement in the battle, which took place near the Brook of Egypt at Raphia, is clearly documented.230 However, there is no evidence that Judah would have been implicated in this affair.231 The Philistines play the central role here, even if Egypt, as a more powerful nation and as a more worthy counterpart of the mighty soldier Sargon, does appear in the annals and on the reliefs. It is therefore also improbable that Isa. 18 would derive from 720. As the Assyrian texts claim and as will be discussed in greater detail in §6.3, the 711-year event was masterminded by the Ashdodite Yamani. Yamani sent his messengers to all neighbouring nations offering them a chance to join him in his fight for freedom. It seems that, during 711 bc, Egypt and Kush played a marginal role in the rebellion, being asked to participate and support Ashdod, as they had previously

230 The Khorsabad Annals of Sargon (lns 53–57) and the Great Display Inscription (lns 25–27) mention Re’e, the turtannu of the unnamed king of Egypt, as a prominent figure (cf. A. Fuchs, Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad, Göttingen 1994). However, several reliefs in Room V of Sargon’s palace at Khorsabad give evidence of significant Kushite involvement. On Slab 2 Lower Register, Nubians defend the border city Raphia. On Slab 4 Lower Register, a Nubian warrior (Re’e?) faces two Assyrian soldiers (Sargon and his eunuch?). For the iconographic material, see N. Franklin, ‘The Room V Reliefs at Dur-Sharrukin and Sargon II’s Western Campaigns’, TA 21 (1994), 255–75, esp. 264–67; J.E. Reade, ‘Sargon’s Campaigns of 720, 716, and 715 bc: Evidence from the Sculptures’, JNES 35 (1976), 99–102; N. Na’aman, ‘The Historical Background to the Conquest of Samaria (720 bc)’, Bib. 71 (1990), 218 n. 37. Slab 5 Lower Register depicts the siege of Gibbeton in northern Philistia, apparently also defended by Nubians. Cf. Reade, ‘Sargon’s Campaigns’, 95–104; K.L. Younger, ‘Recent Study on Sargon II, King of Assyria: Implications for Biblical Studies’, in: M.W. Chavalas et al. (eds), Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative Explorations, Grand Rapids, MI 2002, 293, 316. 231 In Nimrud Inscription ln. 8, originating from 717 or early 716 (Fuchs, Annalen, 83; K.L. Younger, ‘The Nimrud Inscription’, COS 2.118I), Sargon is called mušakniš māt Yaūdu ša ašaršu rūqu, ‘the subduer of Judah, which lies far away’ (COS 2.118I). Roberts is probably right, however, that this title for Sargon does not imply an actual campaign against Judah. Cf. J.J.M. Roberts, ‘Egypt, Assyria, Isaiah, and the Ashdod Affair: An Alternative Proposal’, in: A.G. Vaughn, A.E. Killebrew (eds), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period (SBL.SS, 18), Atlanta, GA 2002, 271; contra M.A. Sweeney, ‘Sargon’s Threat against Jerusalem in Isaiah 10,27–32’, Bib. 75 (1994), 457–70.

the analysis of isaiah 18

195

done in joining with King Hanunu of Gaza in 720. It is noteworthy that neither Tyre nor any other Phoenician city appears among the rebels in 711, which would be strange if Egypt had indeed organised the uprising. In such a case, Phoenicia, its long-time devoted political and economic partner would have been among the first of those invited to join the rebels. The fact that the Kushite-Egyptian messengers of Isa. 18:2 arrive at the court of Judah may suggest that the rebellion against Assyria mentioned in Isa. 18 was planned under Egyptian guidance and with the serious collaboration of Hezekiah. From other examples in ancient texts, it may be concluded that organisers of rebellions often send messengers to potential allies. Such was the case with King Hoshea in 2 Kgs 17:4, who attempted to gain support from Egypt. Similarly, Ashdod tried to find support for his objectives in 711.232 The case is different during the years leading up to Sennacherib’s Canaanite campaign in 701. Possibly after several years of co-regency with the Kushite Shabaka, Shabataka ascended the throne of the Egypto-Kushite Kingdom as a sole ruler in 703 bc.233 At an early moment in his reign, Shabataka installed Taharka as his army leader, a position traditionally held by the crown prince.234 Shabataka’s name appears in the Tang-i Var

232 Cf. Sargon’s Nineveh Prism fragments 1668+ IV’ lns 25–33 in A. Fuchs, Die Annalen des Jahres 711 v. Chr. nach Prismenfragmenten aus Ninive und Assur (SAAS, 8), Helsinki 1998, 44–46, 72–74; Younger, ‘Recent Study’, 313–14. On another occasion, the rebellious Lower Egyptian prince seeks the help of Taharka by sending messengers to him (cf. Borger, BIWA, 211, 213). 233 For discussions of the troubled history of Egypt’s Third Intermediate Period in general, including Shabataka’s era, see, e.g. J. Yoyotte, ‘Les principautés du Delta au temps de l’anarchie libyenne’, Mémoires publies par les membres de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire 66 (1961), 121–81; M.L. Bierbrier, Genealogy and Chronology of the Late New Kingdom (c. 1300–664 bc), London 1975; F.J. Yurco, ‘The Shabaka-Shebitku Coregency and the Supposed Second Campaign of Seennacherib against Judah: A Critical Assessment’, JBL 110 (1991), 35–45; J.K. Hoffmeier, ‘Egypt’s Role in the Events of 701 bc in Jerusalem’, in: A.G. Vaughn, A.E. Killebrew (eds), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period (SBL.SS, 18), Atlanta, GA 2002, 219–34; K.A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period, London 21986; L. Török, The Kingdom of Kush: Handbook of the Napatan-Meroitic Civilisation (HO, 1/31), Leiden 1997; D.B. Redford, ‘A Note on the Chronology of Dynasty 25 and the Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-i Var’, Or. 68 (1999), 58–60; J. Taylor, ‘The Third Intermediate Period (1069–664 bc)’, in: I. Shaw (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford 2000, 330–68; R.G. Morkot, The Black Pharaohs: Egypt’s Nubian Rulers, London 2000; D. Kahn, ‘The Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-i Var and the Chronology of Dynasty 25’, Or. 70 (2001), 1–18. Cf. §5.3. 234 Török, Kush, 170.

196

chapter four

inscription of Sargon II, according to which he delivered the rebellious Philistine king, Yamani of Ashdod, to the Assyrians sometime around 706 bc.235 The extradition of Yamani does not reveal any deeper motivation behind this political move.236 Being subordinate to Shabaka, the pharaoh of Egypt in Memphis, Shabataka might have even followed the orders from the capital. The situation would change, however, by 701. The Assyrian king, Sargon, died in 705, an event which triggered a wave of rebellions in the many branches of his empire, including the Levant. Sidon, Ashkelon and Ekron were among those committed to throwing off the Assyrian yoke. Sennacherib’s inscriptions assign a prominent role to Hezekiah, who deposed King Padi of Ekron, a loyal Assyrian vassal, and shut him up in Jerusalem. 2 Kgs 18:7–8, which explicitly mentions Hezekiah’s anti-Assyrian actions, may also allude to this period.237 To the extent that 2 Kgs 18:19–21, 23–24; 19:9; Isa. 36:6, 9; 37:9 permit us to conclude, Hezekiah looked forward to Egyptian support.238 Lulli, the Phoenician king of Sidon (Tyre), the northernmost ally of this Egypt-

235

Cf. G. Frame, ‘The Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-i Var’, Or. 68 (1999), 31–57. Ln. 20 reads mšá-pa-ta-ku-[uʾ] šar māt Meluḫ ḫ a, ‘Shabataka, king of Meluhha (Kush)’. Based on this inscription, Kahn presents a detailed case for dating the ascension year of Shabataka to 707/706 and excludes co-regency with Shabaka (cf. D. Kahn, ‘Tang-i Var’, 1–18). It is interesting to note, however, that Yamani’s hiding place from where he is brought to Assyria appears in the Great Display Inscription and the Display Inscription of Room XIV as (ana) itê māt Muṣri ša pāṭ māt Meluḫ ḫ a, ‘the neighbourhood of Egypt, which is bordered on Meluhha’. The Tang-i Var Inscription has ana pāṭ māt Meluḫ ḫ a, ‘to the border of Meluhha’. This šar māt Meluḫ ḫ a identified with Shabataka in the Tang-i Var Inscription appears to live in Upper Egypt and not in Memphis, which was presumably the centre where Shabaka reigned by this time. 236 Contra Kahn, ‘Tang-i Var’, 8. 237 Hezekiah pushed the Philistines back to Gaza and captured some of their cities. The kings of Ashdod, Ekron (Padi) and Gaza had been loyal to Assyria, so Hezekiah’s actions may have been directed against those unwilling to participate in the rebellion (cf. Isa. 7). It is likely that Padi was handed over to Hezekiah in order to save the city Ekron from the Judean king, otherwise the imprisonment of Padi in Jerusalem rather than in Ekron with the other pro-Assyrians (mentioned by Sennacherib) is difficult to explain. Some of the 46 cities that Sennacherib took away from Hezekiah, giving them to his loyal vassals, may have been among those previously conquered by Judah. 238 For Hezekiah’s active role, see A. Spalinger, ‘The Foreign Policy of Egypt Preceding the Assyrian Conquest’, CdÉ 53 (1978), 35; Younger, ‘Assyrian Involvement’, 253; Roberts, ‘Egypt’, 272; contra Hoffmeier, ‘Egypt’s Role’, 233–34; S. Dalley, ‘Recent Evidence from Assyrian Sources for Judaean History from Uzziah to Manasseh’, JSOT 28 (2004), 393–98. The Assyrian sculptures of the siege of Lachish in 701 apparently also illustrate Nubians punished by the Assyrians. Dalley, ‘Evidence’, 391; cf. K.A. Kitchen, ‘Egypt, the Levant and Assyria in 701 BC, in: M. Görg (ed.), Fontes atque pontes: Eine Festgabe für Hellmut Brunner (ÄAT, 5), Wiesbaden 1983, 248–49.

the analysis of isaiah 18

197

led coalition, appears among the first to be subdued in the retaliatory campaign of Sennacherib in 701. By this time Egypt was actively engaged in the foreign politics of Canaan.239 The Assyrian chroniclers describing Sennacherib’s battle at Eltekeh mention the participation of a massive army of Egyptian kings (šarrāni)240 along with the cavalry and chariots of the Kushite pharaoh.241 This substantial involvement obviously means that Egypt was more than just a subsidiary force supporting the rebellious kings. It was most likely the preparations for this anti-Sennacherib coalition to which the Kushito-Egyptians invited King Hezekiah of Judah by way of the messengers mentioned in Isa. 18:2. The prophecy in Isa. 18:1–6 was presumably uttered in the years before 701, shortly after Egypt’s throne was ascended by the Kushite Pharaoh Shabataka, committed to smash the Assyrians threatening Egypt’s political and economic interests in Canaan. Beyond the ambassador scene, there is further historical information in Isa. 18:1. The African Empire is called ‫ארץ צלצל כנפים‬, ‘the land of the two-winged beetle’. As noted above, the two winged beetle was originally an Egyptian symbol but was subsequently adopted by the Kushite rulers of the 25th Dynasty. Although the scarab-form iconography had been known in Canaan for centuries, this symbol came to be increasingly appealing when King Hezekiah of Jerusalem came to the throne, especially during the last quarter of his reign. Several seal-impressions with the inscription ‫לחזקיהו אחז מלך יהדה‬, ‘belonging to Hizkiyahu, (son of ) Ahaz, king of Judah’, whose antiAssyrian and pro-Egyptian policy is well-known, picture a two winged

239

Cf. also Schipper, Israel, 206–7. Most versions read šarrāni(lugal.meš-ni) māt Muṣ(u)ri, ‘kings of Egypt’. The sg. šar, ‘king’ (appearing on the Taylor Prism) is a scribal error. The king of Meluhha (sg.) refers to the Kushite pharaoh, Shabataka, who was absent in the battle (unlike what Spalinger claims, ‘Foreign Policy’, 39 n. 3). The text refers further to mārʾū šarrāni Muṣuraya, ‘Egyptian princes’, taken captive by Sennacherib. Note that one of Sennacherib’s relatives by marriage is Šušanqu, an Egyptian name popular in the 22nd and 23rd Dynasties (H.-U. Onasch, Die assyrischen Eroberungen Ägyptens [ÄAT, 27], Bd. 1, Wiesbaden 1994, 15). He is ḫ atnu šarri, ‘the king’s son-in-law’ (less likely brother-in-law), perhaps one of the Egyptian princes taken captive at Eltekeh and married later to Sennacherib’s daughter. It is known that the rulers of the Libyan Dynasties often named their children after the grandfather (K.-H. Priese, ‘Der Beginn der kuschitischen Herrschaft in Ägypten’, ZÄS 98 [1970], 19). This means that Šusanqu might have been the (eldest?) son of Osorkon IV, grandchild of Shoshenq V. 241 BAL, 67–68; COS 2.119B. For detailed discussion of the third campaign, see Gallagher, Campaign, 91–142; Younger, ‘Assyrian Involvement’, 246–62. 240

198

chapter four

beetle, pushing the dung ball (symbolising the sun) between its forelegs (cf. Figure 1).242 Six bullae are known to contain this impression, which according to Robert Deutsch, go back to more than one royal seal. Two other bullae with the same inscription preserved another related Egyptian symbol, the two winged sun-disk with two ankh signs. Four-winged beetles and two-winged sun-disks243 appear on a large number of jar handles containing the inscription ‫למלך‬, ‘belonging to the king’. These so-called ‫למלך‬-jars are dated by archaeologists to the late 8th century and supposedly functioned as storage jars of Hezekiah on the eve of his war with Sennacherib.244 The Judaean religious and political connotations of these symbols remain a matter of dispute, but it is most likely that they were adopted as Egyptian motifs without foreign mediators.245 The ties with Egypt were particularly strong on every level in the latter half of the 8th century. Hezekiah may not have imported the ideological background of the beetle symbol, but his choice for the scarab and the 242 On the scarab seal of Hezekiah, see F.M. Cross, ‘King Hezekiah’s Seal Bears Phoenician Imagery’, BArR 25.2 (1999), 42–45, 60; Idem, ‘A Bulla of Hezekiah, King of Judah’, in: P.H. Williams, T. Hiebert (eds), Realia Dei: Essays in Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation in Honor of Edward F. Campbell, Jr. at His Retirement, Atlanta, GA 1999, 61–66; M. Lubetski, ‘King Hezekiah’s Seal Revisited: Small Object Reflects Big Geopolitics’, BArR 27.4 (2001), 44–51, 59; R. Deutsch, ‘Lasting Impressions: New Bullae Reveal Egyptian-Style Emblems on Judah’s Royal Seals’, BArR 28.4 (2002), 42–51, 60, 62. The winged scarab seal impression on Figure 1 is currently held in the Shlomo Moussaieff collection in London. The picture and the drawing are adapted from BArR 25.2 (1999), 42–43, and are republished here with the kind permission of Dr. Robert Deutsch, author of the drawing. 243 The image is sometimes erroneously identified as a flying scroll (cf. discussion in Deutsch, ‘Impressions’, 49–50). 244 D. Ussishkin, ‘Lachish’, NEAEHL 3.909; A. Mazar, Archaeology and the Land of the Bible: 10.000–586 bce, New York 1992, 455–58; J.A. Balkely, J.W. Hardin, ‘Southwestern Judah in the Late Eighth Century bce’, BASOR 326 (2002), 12–13. 245 In accordance with Lubetski and in contrast to Cross. Lubetski also argues that, by adopting the scarab symbol by which the pharaoh expressed his rule over Upper and Lower Egypt, Hezekiah presents himself as king of Judah and Israel (‘Beetlemania’, 24–26). This is not likely, however. Note that Hezekiah is explicitly called ‘king of Judah’ on the scarab seal impressions. Detaching ‘Judah’ from ‘king’ in the upper part of the bulla, as Luebetski argues, would seem an unnecessary distortion (cf. also Deutsch, ‘Impressions’, 50). While the scarab can be considered a royal symbol, the specific Egyptian design of monarchy, as consisting of two countries, is not inherent to the symbol itself. The beetle symbol also appears on a seal of ‘Manasseh, son of the king’, most likely the son of Hezekiah. Four-winged beetle stamps were used by various individuals in Judah: e.g., a certain Ahimelek living around 701 bc (Ussishkin, ‘Lachish’, 909), and another official called Shaphat (Mazar, Archaeology, 507). The winged beetle is also attested beyond the borders of Judah in Israel, Phoenicia and Amon.

the analysis of isaiah 18

Figure 1

199

King Hezekiah’s scarab beetle

winged sun-disk should not be considered a borrowing motivated purely by aesthetic-decorative factors.246 This is especially true when we consider this ‘beetle mania’ (to use Lubetski’s term) in the context of the ubiquitous ‫ למלך‬storage jar handles. The beetle is a further expressive token of the king’s political orientation.247 For the Judaean royal house, which adopted the scarab as its omnipresent symbol, the prophecy in Isa. 18:1 must have seemed shocking and threatening at the same time. The doom announced for the land of the scarabaeus sacer was an omen forecasting the fall of the Judaean winged beetle. To conclude, the historical information provided by Isa. 18 is scanty, but reference to the arrival of messengers and thus the organisation of an Egypt-coordinated upheaval as well as the beetle-imagery of v. 1 suggest that Isa. 18:1–6 is best understood against the background of the final years of Hezekiah, i.e. 705–701 bc. This era is characterised in Judah by a strong anti-Assyrian and implicitly pro-Egyptian sentiment. The prominence of the winged beetle symbolism disappears with the extinction of Hezekiah’s pro-Egyptian policy, as does the role that the Kushites have played in the history of Judah.

246 In agreement with O. Keel, C. Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses and Images of God in Ancient Israel, Minneapolis, MN 1992, 259; contra Deutsch, ‘Impressions’, 50–51. 247 Another royal symbol of Assyrian origin, the eight-petalled rosette appearing on Judaean royal jars dating from the 7th century bc, betrays the Assyrian influence on the Judaean kings owning these rosette jars. Chemical analysis has shown that these jars were made in the same production centre as the lmlk-jars. Cf. J.M. Cahill, ‘Royal Rosettes: Fit for a King’, BArR 23.5 (1997), 48–57, 68.

200

chapter four

The final verse of the prophecy does not contain much historical information. The claim of v. 7 is, as argued, theological in the first instance. The idea of bringing tributes could, however, be historicised as describing the relation between the Egypto-Kushites of the 7th century and Assyria, the instrument through which Yhwh established his worldwide rule. I shall argue for such a case in my following discussion of Isa. 19. The motif of tribute brought to Jerusalem by foreigners may be compared to the Assyrian king’s tribute scenes on royal inscriptions. But Isa. 18:7 can also function as an ahistorical pronouncement well-attested to in other passages from Near Eastern literature, such as Erra and Ishum, the Marduk prophecy, or the Dynastic prophecy mentioned above. As we have seen above, this original intention of Isa. 18 came to be modified when the editors inserted the prophecy into its present literary context. On this new location the prophecy dealing primarily with the Kushito-Egyptian alliance in the time of Hezekiah of Judah was reinterpreted as a text concerned with the causes of the collapse of Israel’s kingdom.

4.4

Isaiah 18 and the Stele of Yhwh (Isaiah 13–23)

In §3.4, I suggested that Isa. 13–23 imitates the structure of Assyrian royal inscriptions. The victory stele erected by ‘the great king’ proclaimed for the world the supremacy of Assyria above all nations of the earth by enumerating the subjugated countries and recounting the campaigns of the Assyrian army against those nations. Read in the context of the stele of Yhwh (Isa. 13–23), King of kings, Isa. 18 describes a campaign against the most distant nations of the earth. The worldwide perspective of Isa. 18:3 addressing all nations of the earth connects this prophecy to the boasting of Assyrian kings when they claimed to have defeated and ruled the entire world, from the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea (§3.4). The King of Isa. 18 moves the boundaries of his empire beyond these seas: he subdued nations from beyond the rivers of Kush, the remotest zone of the planet. For an audience cherishing the idea of Yhwh as a national and regional deity, whose territory (and sphere of influence) has been diminished drastically by the incursions of the New Assyrian army, such a mighty affirmation of the real boundaries of the kingdom of Yhwh must have sounded appealing indeed.

the analysis of isaiah 18

201

Hebrew ‫ציר‬, referring to high-ranking foreign ambassadors (18:2), complies with how the Assyrian semantic cognate, ṣīru, is used in similar contexts. Assyrian accounts of foreign military campaigns mention the use of various war-techniques to capture and destroy foreign lands. One of the frequent scenarios involves the destruction of orchards (§4.2.3). For the reader, the reappearance of this imagery in Isa. 18:5 may draw a further parallel between this prophecy and the Assyrian steles. As noted in §4.3.1, the fact that this stele also mentions nations from the furthest horizon of the empire is reminiscent of an Assyrian practice of substantiating the Assyrian monarch’s claim to world dominion by presenting tribute-bearing nations ‘whose location is far away’ (ša ašaršu rūqu). The tribute scene in Isa. 18:7 is therefore particularly well-suited for this type of literature. Zion is the dwelling place of the King of Jerusalem. In such a context, it is of no less importance that the name of Jerusalem, ‫מקום שׁם־יהוה‬, reminds one of the names of Assyrian royal cities, such as Dur-Sharruken, which was named after the Assyrian monarch, Sargon II (‘The Fortress of Sargon’). It is here in Jerusalem, and not in Dur-Sharruken, nor in Nineveh, nor in Assur, where the tributes of these remote nations arrive. There is also another aspect in Isa. 18 that must be emphasised in relation to Isa. 13–23. We have seen in §3.4.3 that the present composition is placed in the context of the ‫יום־יהוה‬, which connects Isa. 13–23 to Isa. 2–12. The day of Yhwh is a judgment day for many nations. An emphatic assertion behind this tradition is that the high and mighty ones will be humiliated and only Yhwh will be exalted on that day (2:6–21). For the reader of Isa. 18, the tall and mighty nations evoke this scene of the day of Yhwh. Judah, who does not cease ‘to trust [any] man who has but a breath in his nostrils’ (2:22), including the mighty Kushites, must not forget that Yhwh will take away the object of its misplaced trust (cf. Isa. 3:1).248 As in the case of other Egypt-related prophecies, Isa. 18 gained additional authority when Babylon took the place of Assyria. Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin and especially Zedekiah pursued policies essentially similar to those of their ancestor king and forefather, Hezekiah

248 The ‫ משׁענה‬/ ‫ משׁען‬in Isa. 3:1 recalls the support of Egypt and Kush described with similar terms in Isa. 30:15; 31:1 (‫ ;)שׁען‬36:6 (‫)משׁענת‬.

202

chapter four

(cf. Jer. 26:18–19). The ‫יום־יהוה‬-tradition might connect Isa. 18 to the period of these kings.249 As Zeph. 3:10 shows, the significance of this prophecy in the postexilic period lies not so much in the political sphere. Isa. 18 is rather regarded as a theological expression of Yhwh’s universal rule, exemplified by the arrival of foreigners in Jerusalem from the most distant regions of the planet. This hermeneutical development coincides with the reinterpretation of FNPs (both individually and as collections) as treatises on the universal rule of Yhwh, a view that is less far removed from its original Assyrian background than usually presupposed.

4.5 Conclusion The prophecy in Isa. 18 addresses the Kushite Empire of the 25th Dynasty (Egypt and Kush) by means of its messengers sent to Judah. It proclaims the defeat of the Africans (and not the Assyrians), typified as the land of the winged beetle. As this prominent symbol was also adopted by King Hezekiah, the judgment against the foreign nations contained an implicit message of warning for the Judaeans as well, one that is further recognised in other FNPs. The theological view of the Nile lands as a temptation to Israel’s faith in Yhwh is consistent with Isaiah’s other prophecies, including those against Egypt in Isa. 30–31. In the wider context of Isa. 13–23, the depictions of emissaries of distant nations who arrive in Jerusalem bearing tribute in 18:7, the universal perspective of 18:3 and the destruction of vineyards in a manner reminiscent of Assyrian warfare techniques make this prophecy a particularly fitting inclusion on the stele of Yhwh. By presenting the humiliation of mighty warriors, Isa. 18 is also well-suited for the ‫יום־יהוה‬-edition of this book. From a literary perspective, Isa. 18:7 apparently derives from a date later than the rest of the prophecy. But despite a few arguments to the contrary, 18:3 may be regarded as part of the original text. The primary function of Isa. 18 was modified when it was connected to Isa. 17. In the context of a ‫ משׂא‬against Aram and Israel, its implicit message against Israel, the people of the covenant with Yhwh, was placed more emphatically in the foreground.

249

Note the prominence of the ‫ יום־יהוה‬theme in the late pre-exilic Zeph. 1.

the analysis of isaiah 18

203

As to the date of its composition, arguments taken from the prophecy and from extra-biblical sources point to the years shortly before 701 bc, when the Kushite pharaoh and his Egyptian subordinates successfully recruited Hezekiah as an ally in a battle against their common foe, Assyria.

CHAPTER FIVE

FROM CHAOS TO COVENANT: THE ANALYSIS OF ISAIAH 19

Isa. 19 bears the title: the Egypt pronouncement. Its Egypt related message is clear, as is also for the most part the Hebrew text of the prophecy. However, two crucial verses have given rise to a great deal of controversy. First, ‫עיר ההרס‬, which appears in most Massoretic manuscripts at 19:18 is most often considered an erroneous variant of ‫ עיר החרס‬or ‫עיר הצדק‬. Second, a significant translational problem is caused by the phrase ‫ ועבדו מצרים את־אשׁור‬in 19:23. From a lexical point of view, the most obvious meaning of this phrase is ‘Egypt will serve Assyria’. It is assumed, however, that this translation does not suit the context of the salvation prophecy in which it occurs, and scholars generally render this phrase as ‘Egypt will serve Yhwh with Assyria’. Both issues have far-reaching implications for understanding the prophecy, its theological concept, as well as the historical background of the text. From a literary critical point of view, Isa. 19 is considered a text composed over a long period. Scholars observe a break between vv. 1–15 and 16–25, but closer analysis of both pericopes makes the literary integrity of either of them questionable. In 19:1–15, the thematic divergence of vv. 5–10 is said to distort the literary structure of the poem. As for 19:16–25, opinions differ on how many stages of development one should distinguish in the formation of this pericope. Theologically speaking, 19:1–15(16–17) is regarded as a prophecy of doom against Egypt, while 19:18–25 is believed to pronounce salvation for this nation. The function of this message of judgment is debated, and scholars vacillate between considering 19:1–15 a learned theological treatise and a prophecy delivered as implicit warning for Israelites or Judeans relying on the support of Egypt against Assyria. In the opinion of some scholars, the ‘salvation prophecy’ in 19:18–25 is an unparalleled utterance in the Old Testament. Others compare its universalist theology to texts of the Persian or Hellenistic period. While a few exegetes find nothing in 19:1–15 that would contradict Isaianic authorship and an 8th century setting, others bewail the lack

206

chapter five

of any evidence indicating that it was composed during the Isaianic era. Except for a few marginal voices, vv. 16–25 are generally dated to the post-Isaianic (mostly post-exilic) period. The section below will first analyse the text of the prophecy in isolation from its context, then in relation to it. The methodological procedure is similar to the analysis of Isa. 18 in the previous chapter.

5.1 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 2a 2b 2c 2d 3a 3b 3c 3d 4a 4b 4c 5a 5b 6a 6b 6c 7a 7b 7c 8a 8b 8c 9a 9b

Translation with Text-Critical and Semantic Notes

The Egypt pronouncementa Look! Yhwh is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt. And the idols of Egypt will tremble in front of him, and the heart of Egyptb will melt in its inside. And I shall cstir upc Egypt against Egypt and they will fight, each against his brother, and each against his neighbour, city against city, kingdom against kingdom. And the spirit of Egypt dwill be brokend in its inside, and its plan eI shall destroye. And they will inquire by the idols, and by the ʾiṭtị̂ m-spirits, and by fthe ʾôb-spirits, and by the yiddĕʿônî-spiritsf. And gI shall deliverg Egypt into the hand of a tough master, and a powerful king will rule over them, utterance of the lord Yhwh of hosts. And the water will be exhausted from the sea and the river will dry up and be parched. And the rivers hwill stinkh, and jthe streams of Egyptj iwill grow leani and dry up. The reed and the papyrus kwill get mouldyk. The sedgel mon the Nile, on the brink of the Nilem, and all the sowingn of the Nile will be dried up, driven away and be no more. And the fishermen will be moaning, and mourning all those casting hook in the Nile, and those who spread nets upon the water will languish. And othose working with combedo flaxp will be ashamed and the weavers qwill grow paleq.

the analysis of isaiah 19

207

And rits pillarsr will be crushed, all sthose working for wagess will be distressed. Ah, foolish are the officials of Zoan, t the wisest counselors of the pharaoh!t u The counsel has turned out to be stupidu. How can you say to the pharaoh: ‘I am (a son) of wise men, (a son) of vancient/eastern kingsv’? Where then are your wise men? wLet them inform you and let you knoww what Yhwh of hosts has planned for Egypt! 13a Silly are the officials of Zoan, 13b and the officials of Noph deceive themselves. 13c And xthe cornerstones of its tribesx have led Egypt astray. 14 And Yhwh has mingled in it the spirit of perversion, so that they make Egypt stagger in all it is about to do, as the drunken 15 staggers in his vomit. And there is nothing that Egypt can do,y either the head or the taily, zthe shoot or the stalkz. 16 On that day Egypt will be like women, and it will shiver and tremble because of the raising of the hand of Yhwh of hosts 17 which he raises against it. And the land of Judah will become a dizzinessa for Egypt;b everyone to whom one mentions it will trembleb because of the plan that Yhwh of hosts plans against it. 18 On that day there will be five cities in the land of Egypt speaking the language of Canaan, and swearing to Yhwh of hosts. cCity of destructionc d will be called each one of themd. 19 On that day there will be an altar of Yhwh in the midst of the 20 land of Egypt, and a stele of Yhwh beside its border. And this will be a sign and a witness of Yhwh of hosts in the land of Egypt. For they will cry to Yhwh before their oppressors, and he will 21 send them a saviour and ehe will strivee and save them. And Yhwh will make him self known to Egypt, and the Egyptians will recognise Yhwh on that day. fThey will prepare sacrifice and food-offeringf, and they will make vows to Yhwh and they 22 will fulfil them. gAnd Yhwh will smite the Egyptians, but heal (them),g and they will turn to Yhwh and he will respond their plea, and heal them. 10a 10b 11a 11b 11c 11d 11e 11f 12

208 23

24 25

chapter five On that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and Assyria will go to Egypt and Egypt will go to Assyria, and the Egyptians hwill serve Assyriah. On that day Israel will be the third beside Egypt and Assyria, blessing in the midst of the earth, iwhom Yhwh of hosts will blessi saying: ‘Blessed be jmy people, Egypt, and Assyria the work of my hands,j and Israel my inheritance.’

1 a ‫ ַמ ָשּׂא‬. The noun ‫ משׂא‬is usually derived from ‫נשׂא‬, ‘to lift up’. Some scholars translate it as ‘burden’ or assume that ‫ משׂא‬is a shortened form of ‫נשׂא קול‬, ‘to lift up the voice’. It is more convincing, however, to derive ‫ משׂא‬from a different root, ‫( נשׂא‬II), ‘to speak’, ‘to cry’, ‘to shout’. This verb appears in Isa. 3:7; 42:2, 11, and perhaps in Job 21:12. Semitic cognates of ‫ משׂא‬include Deir ‘Alla mšʾ or mśʾ and Akkadian massûtu, ‘reading-out, lecture’ (CDA 200). This latter derives from Akkadian šasāʾu (Assyrian sasāʾu), ‘to shout, to call, to announce, to address’. šasāʾu / sasāʾu is formed by the reduplication of the stem consonants *sʾ, a root which also appears in Ethiopic/Ge‘ez śāʾśәʾa, ‘to answer’, ‘to respond’ and Arabic ʾanšaʾa, ‘to speak’, ‘to answer’. Alalah Akkadian našûm, ‘to speak’ (CAD š 2.149), which is closer to Hebrew ‫( נשׂא‬II), is probably formed from the same root, *sʾ, with the addition of a n. b ‫ ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם‬. Some translators render the proper name ‫ מצרים‬as ‘Egyptians’ (LXX provides an early example). Although such an interpretation is coherent with the meaning of the prophecy, it seems more appropriate to retain the name ‘Egypt’ in the translations. Not only is this closer to the Hebrew text, but it also coincides with what we find elsewhere in the Bible, where one particular nation is often personified and addressed accordingly in the second person singular. ‘Egyptians’ is used whenever the verbs attached to this subject appear in the plural. 2 c-c ‫וְ ִס ְכ ַס ְכ ִתּי‬. The pilpel form of ‫ סוך‬probably means ‘to incite’, ‘to provoke’ (HALOT). In Isa. 9:10 ‫ סוך‬parallels ‫ שׂגב‬pi‘el, ‘to exalt’. The Syr. and the Targ. render ‫גרי‬, ‘to incite’ in Isa. 19:2. LXX uses a passive form with similar meaning in translating the term as ἐπεγείρω, pass. ‘to be excited’, ‘awakened’.

the analysis of isaiah 19

209

3 d-d ‫נָ ְב ָקה‬. ‫ נבקה‬is a niph‘al of ‫בקק‬, a rare verb.1 In other contexts, the qal and pi‘el forms of ‫ בקק‬mean ‘to lay waste’, ‘to devastate’. The object of the verb is a country,2 the vine,3 and—of particular importance—‫( עצה‬Jer. 19:7) that may appear in parallel to ‫ רוח‬outside Isa. 19:3. The translation ‘to destroy’, ‘to devastate’, ‘to break off ’ is supported by Sym., ῥήγνυμι, pass. ‘to be broken’ (corresponding to the Greek translation of ‫ בקע‬in LXX), Theod., σχίζω, ‘to break’, ‘to split’ (also translating ‫ בקע‬in LXX), the Vulg., disrumpetur, ‘to break apart’, ‘to split’, and Syr., psq, ‘to be cut/broken’. ‫ בקק‬appears to be treated as a synonym of ‫בקע‬. As for paradigmatic relationships, ‫ רוח‬appears with ‫חבל‬, ‘to destroy’ (Job 17:1), ‫שׁבר‬, ‘to break’ (Ps. 51:19; Prov. 15:4; Isa. 65:14), ‫דכא‬, ‘to crush’ (Ps. 34:19). e-e ‫ ֲא ַב ֵלּ ַע‬. Lexical studies of ‫ בלע‬distinguish the meanings ‘to swallow’, ‘to engulf’; ‘to destroy’; ‘to confuse’; ‘to announce’. It is, however, uncertain if all these senses could derive from one single root (cf. BDB; J. Schüpphaus, ‫בלע‬, ThWAT 1.659), or whether two (GesB), three (HALOT) or four homonymous roots (DCH 2.179–81) should be sought. The qal of ‫ בלע‬always means ‘to swallow’, ‘to engulf ’ either literally, or in a metaphorical sense.4 The pi‘el of ‫בלע‬, however, generally means ‘to destroy’, ‘to devour’, ‘to strike’, often used in connection with verbs possessing these connotations.5 The subject by which the action (‫ )בלע‬is performed, or the object that it affects, makes it often impossible to render ‫ בלע‬otherwise.6 Nevertheless, some texts suggest that the meaning ‘to devour’, ‘to destroy’ in pi‘el is connected to the same root from which the qal ‘to swallow’ derives (cf. Ps. 21:10; Eccl. 10:12; Isa. 25:7–8). In other texts ‫ בלע‬pi‘el means ‘to confuse’ (Ps. 55:10; Isa. 3:12; 9:15; cf. Ps. 107:27; Isa. 28:7; cf. ‫בלל‬, ‘to confuse’). In Isa. 19:3, both translations (‘to confuse’, ‘to destroy’) are possible.

1

See GKC §67dd; BL §58t; Young, 2.17 n. 10; cf. Gen. 17:11; Judg. 5:5. Isa. 24:1 | ‫בלק‬, ‘to lay waste’; 24:3 niph‘al | ‫ זזב‬ni, ‘to be plundered’; Jer. 51:2 pi‘el. 3 Nah. 2:3 | ‫שׁחת‬, ‘to ruin’, ‘to destroy’. 4 For the literal sense, see Gen. 41:7, 24; Exod. 7:12; 15:12; Jon. 2:1. For the metaphorical meaning, see Job 20:15, 18; Ps. 124:3; Prov. 1:12. 5 ‫שׁחת‬, pi‘el ‘to ruin’ (Lam. 2:5; cf. 2 Sam. 20:20 hiph‘il), ‫מות‬, hiph‘il ‘to cause to die’ (2 Sam. 20:19), ‫הרס‬, ‘to break down’ (Lam. 2:2). 6 Cf. Lam. 2:5 (‫ארמון‬, ‘palace’), 2:8 (‘he restrained not his hand ‫)’מבלע‬. See also Hos. 8:8, where Israel is compared to a useless vessel, suggesting that ‫ בלע‬in niph‘al means here ‘to be destroyed’ in the manner of a useless clay vessel (cf. Jer. 19:11), and not ‘to be swallowed up’ (contra NRSV, NASB, NIV). 2

210

chapter five

‫ בלע‬+ ‫ עצה‬can be compared to ‫ אבד‬qal + ‫( עצה‬Deut. 32:28; Jer. 18:18; 49:7), ‫ פרר‬hiph‘il + ‫( עצה‬2 Sam. 15:34; 17:14; Ezra 4:5; Ps. 33:10; Isa. 8:10), ‫ בקק‬+ ‫( עצה‬Jer. 19:7), ‫ בער‬niph‘al + ‫( עצה‬Isa. 19:11). f-f ‫אֹבוֹת וְ יִ ְדּעֹנִ ים‬. These terms appear frequently in parallelism; in fact this is the only way that ‫ ידעני‬is attested.7 Despite significant research on this topic, scholars still disagree on the meaning of these terms.8 ‫אוב‬ is supposed to refer to (a) the dead spirit, (b) a cult object or (c) the necromancer (LXX, Vulg.). None of these explanations fits all biblical texts involved. In most cases ‫ אוב‬is a cultic object, but in some texts it may mean the deified spirit itself. Interpretation (c) is unlikely.9 ‫ אוב‬as a cultic object (possibly a statue?; cf. the ‫ )תרפים‬is mentioned in Lev. 20:6 along ‫לזנות אחריהם‬, an expression otherwise used in connection with foreign gods, i.e. idols.10 The same interpretation fits Lev. 19:31. The prohibition ‫ אל־תפנו אל־האבת ואל־הידענים‬is paralleled by ‫אל־‬ ‫( תפנו אל־האלילים ואלהי מסכה לא תעשׂו לכם‬Lev. 19:4). In 1 Sam. 28:3, ‫ אוב‬appears with the verb ‫ סור‬hiph‘il, also used in connection with foreign gods, i.e. cult objects.11 The same text calls the necromancer ‫( בעלת־אוב‬28:7), which refers either to proficiency in something (Gen. 37:19; Nah. 3:4), or possession of an object.12 According to 2 Kgs 23:24, Josiah burned (‫ בער‬pi‘el) ‫ את־האבות ואת־הידענים‬in Judah. In 2 Kgs 21:6 (|2 Chron. 33:6) the verb ‫ עשׁה‬is used with ‫ אוב‬and ‫ידעני‬ (cf. Exod. 34:17; Lev. 19:4). In other texts, ‫ אוב‬and ‫ ידעני‬possibly refer to the dead spirit or the spirit of necromancy. In Lev. 20:27 ‫ אוב‬and ‫ ידעני‬is said to be ‘in’ or ‘with’ (‫ )בהם‬the necromancer men or women (cf. CD 12:2–3). In Isa. 8:19, the ‫ אוב‬and ‫( ידעני‬pl.) are said to chirp (‫ )מצפצפים‬and moan

7 Lev. 19:31; 20:6, 27; Deut. 18:11; 1 Sam. 28:3, 9; 2 Kgs 21:6; 23:24; 2 Chron. 33:6; Isa. 8:19; 19:3. ‫ אוב‬appears separately in 1 Sam. 28:7, 8; 1 Chron. 10:13; Isa. 29:4. 8 J. Ebach, U. Rüterswörden, ‘Unterweltsbeschwörung im Alten Testament’, UF 9 (1977), 57–70; UF 12 (1980), 205–20; J. Tropper, ‘Spirit of the Dead’, DDD 806–9. 9 The necromancer is called ‫ בעלת אוב‬and ‫( שׁאל אוב‬1 Sam. 28:7; Deut. 18:11; cf. 1 Chron. 10:13; Ezek. 21:26 [‫)]שׁאל בתרפים‬. The connection with Hittite a-a-pí, ‘ritual pit’ argued by H.A. Hoffner, ‘Second Millennium Antecedents to the Hebrew ʾôb̠’, JBL 86 (1967), 385–401, is questionable. 10 Exod. 34:15; Lev. 17:7; Judg. 2:17; 8:33; Ezek. 6:9; etc. 11 Gen. 35:2; Josh. 24:14, 23; Judg. 10:16; 1 Sam. 7:3. 12 For examples, see HALOT (‫ בעל‬I). Tropper compared ‫ בעלת־אוב‬to the Sumerian lú gidim.ma, lit. ‘man of the spirit of the dead’, and the Akkadian ša eṭemmi, ‘one of the spirit of the dead’ (‘Spirit of the Dead’, 808). It is better, however, to relate the Sumerian and Akkadian expressions to Hebrew constructions like ‫אישׁ מלחמה‬, or ‫אישׁ אלהים‬.

the analysis of isaiah 19

211

(‫)מהגים‬, probably alluding to the spirits (Isa. 29:4).13 The similarity between the deified spirit and a cultic statue has a parallel in (the) Ashera(s) or Baal(s) of the Old Testament, which can both refer to the god(dess) and the cultic objects. At any rate,1 Sam. 28:13 refers to the spirit of the dead Samuel as ‫( אלהים‬cf. the Ugaritic ʾilʾib). The difference between ‫ אוב‬and ‫ ידעני‬is not obvious. Since ‫ ידעני‬is always used in parallel to ‫אוב‬, the two strongly suggest some formal similarity with the ‫ ארים‬and ‫ תמים‬of which ‫ תמים‬is never used on its own. If—as some scholars argue—‫ אוב‬is related to ‫‘( אב‬ancestor’),14 this quality is less specific ‫ידעני‬, which apparently derives from the verb ‫ידע‬. However, insufficient data does not enable us to do anything more than grope around in a poorly known field. In Isa. 19:3, ‫אוב‬ and ‫ ידעני‬may signify both the spirits of dead and cultic objects. Their connection with ‫( אטים‬cf. Akkadian eṭemmu, ‘spirit’) makes the first option more likely. 4 g-g ‫ ִס ַכּ ְר ִתּי‬. ‫ סכר‬is a variant for ‫סגר‬. ‫ סגר‬pi‘el means ‘to give up’, ‘to deliver’.15 skr is found in Official and Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, as well as Akkadian.16 Ezek. 30:12, alluding to Isa. 19:4, has ‫ מכר‬instead of ‫( סכר‬cf. Deut. 32:30). 6 h-h ‫ ֶה ֶאזְ נִ יחוּ‬. ‫ האזניחו‬is assumed to derive from the verb ‫ זנח‬with double formative for the hiph‘il, Hebrew ‫( ה‬cf. 1QIsaa is ‫ )הזניחו‬and Aramaic ‫א‬.17 MT is confirmed by 4QIsab. Gesenius correlated ‫ זנח‬with Arabic zaniḫa, ‘to be rancid’, zaniḫ/saniḫ, ‘to stink’,18 which comes

13 One of the Egyptian techniques of oracular inquiry was to address questions to the statue of the divinity. The priests answered the questions of the inquirer from inside the statue or from a secret chamber, but it was the statue that was believed to have spoken (L. Kákosy, ‘Orakel’, LÄ 4.600–6). 14 Cf. Tropper, ‘Spirit of the Dead’, 807. 15 Deut. 23:16; 32:30; Josh. 20:5; 1 Sam. 17:46; etc. Cf. Eshmunazor’s inscription (KAI 14:21): wysgrnm hʾlnm hqdšm ʾt mmlkt ʾdr ʾš mšl bnm lqṣtnm, ‘may the holy gods deliver them to a mighty king, who will rule over them to destroy them’. Cf. Gray, 325; J.C. Greenfield, ‘Scripture and Inscription: The Literary Rhetorical Element in Some Early Phoenician Inscriptions’, in: S.M. Paul et al. (eds.), ‘Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology, Leiden 2001, 714–16. 16 Cf. thskrhm bydy, ‘you must surrender them into my hands’ (KAI 224:2); yhskr lbry, ‘he must surrender (them) to my son’ (KAI 224:3); ‫סכרית לגברא‬, ‘I closed up the man’ (DJPA 378). Cf. also Akkadian sekērum (sakārum), ‘to shut off ’ (CDA 320). 17 GKC §53p; WO §27.4c and n. 30 on p. 445. 18 Gesenius, 610.

212

chapter five

close to ‫צחן‬, ‘to stink’, attested in the nominal form ‫צחנה‬, ‘stench (of decay)’ in Joel 2:20 and Sir. 11:12.19 i-i ‫ ָדּ ְללוּ‬. ‫ דלל‬appears only here with ‘river’ or ‘sea’ as subject. In other contexts ‫ דלל‬qal means ‘to be tiny’, ‘to be little’ (Ps. 79:8),20 the niph‘al ‘to become little’ (Judg. 6:6 niph‘al, not qal ). In Isa. 17:4, ‫דלל‬ is paralleled by ‫רזה‬, ‘to become thin’, ‘to grow lean’, an antonym of ‫שׁמן‬, ‘to become fat’ (Num. 13:20). j-j ‫אוֹרי ָמצוֹר‬ ֵ ְ‫י‬. Even though most scholars accept that ‫יאורי מצור‬ refers to the rivers of Egypt, the different interpretations propagated by the ancient translations of Isa. 19:6 and other related passages give rise from time to time to challenging voices that question this view.21 ‫מצור‬ is best known as ‘siegework’, ‘fortification’, to which the old translations of these four texts occasionally allude.22 On other occasions, ‫מצור‬ is derived from a different word, like ‫אצר‬, ‘to store up’ (LXX of Isa. 19:6; cf. Isa. 39:6), ‫צור‬, ‘Tyre’ (Mic. 7:12 in LXX; Syr.), ‫מצולה‬ (2 Kgs 19:24 in Syr.; Targ.; Isa. 37:25 in Targ.), ‫צרר‬, ‘to enclose’ (2 Kgs 19:24 in Vulg.). While ‫ מצור‬is not a usual name for Egypt, Akkadian texts also use different terms, not all of which can be ascribed to dialectic variations (cf. Muṣur, Miṣir, Muṣri, Miṣri). Given that the imagery of 2 Kgs 19:24 and Isa. 37:25 is inspired by Assyrian texts, ‫ מצור‬may reflect Assyrian terminology. In Isa. 19:6 and Mic. 7:12, the Assyrian background to the name of Egypt is less evident. As the exegesis of 19:6 shows, it nevertheless belongs to the realm of possibility.

19 The meaning of ‫ זנח‬was not recognised by the versions. LXX left the word untranslated (so also ‫)קמלו‬. ἐκλείψουσιν translates ‫( דללו‬cf. Isa. 38:14) and not ‫האזניחו‬. 20 See also Jewish Babylonian Aramaic ‫דלדל‬, ‘to become degenerated / diminished’ (DJBA 339). In Isa. 38:14, ‫ ַדּלּוּ‬derives from a different verb. Cf. Syriac dlʾ, ‘to lift up’ (CSD 92; G.R. Driver, ‘Linguistic and Textual Problems: Isaiah i–xxxix’, JTS 38 [1937], 47). ‫ דלו עיני למרום‬in Isa. 38:14 has further parallels in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. The verb ‫ דלו‬derives from ‫ דלה‬and not ‫ ַדּלּוּ( דלל‬should be corrected to ‫) ָדּלוּ‬, cognate to Aramaic ‫דלי‬, ‘to lift up’ (b. Yom. 87a: ‫דלי עיניה חזייה‬, ‘he raised up his eyes and saw him’; b. BQam. 117a: ‫דלו לי גביני‬, ‘raise my eyelids up for me’). 21 P.J. Calderone, ‘The Rivers of “Masor” ’, Bib. 42 (1961), 423–32 (‘channels of rock’ or ‘cataracts’); H. Tawil, ‘The Historicity of 2 Kings 19:24 (= Isaiah 37:25): The Problem of yeʾōrê māṣôr’, JNES 41 (1982), 197–200 (mount Muṣri [Jebel Bashiqah]). The Assyrian texts which Tawil refers to in support of his thesis allude to agricultural activity in the region of Jebel Bashiqah, while 2 Kgs 19:24 (bringing ‫ מצור‬in connection with the Assyrians) presupposes military activity. 22 Mic. 7:12 (LXX, Vulg., Syr., Targ.); Isa. 19:6 (Vulg., Syr., Targ.); 37:25 (Vulg., Syr.).

the analysis of isaiah 19

213

k-k ‫ ָק ֵמלוּ‬. 1Q Isaa has ‫ וקמלו‬with a larger space before this word, indicating the beginning of a new sentence. The subject of ‫ קמל‬is seemingly not ‫ קנה וסוף‬as in MT, but ‫ ערות‬of v. 7. However, this reading makes no sense of ‫קנה וסוף‬. MT has further support in 4QIsab. LXX has καὶ ἐν παντὶ ἕλει καλάμου καὶ παπύρου. The word ἕλος, ‘marsh’, ‘meadow’ corresponds to ‫( קמל‬cf. Isa. 33:9). The final ‫ ו‬from ‫ קמל‬was attached to ‫ ערות‬of v. 7 (καὶ τὸ ἄχι). The verb ‫ קמל‬appears only once more in Isa. 33:9 in the phrase ‫לבנון קמל‬. Syriac qml means ‘to become mouldy’ (CSD 508) and Aramaic qml appears in the Sefire inscription, as a plant disease (KAI 222A:31). Arabic qamila refers to a disease affecting plants after rain. Akkadian qummālu (qummānu, qummāru) appears both as a skin complaint (a kind of rash) and a disease affecting grain and fruit (CAD q 305). In view of these cognates, ‫ קמל‬is rendered as ‘to become mouldy’. 7 l ‫ ָﬠרוֹת‬. Some explain this lexeme as a pl. of ‫ערה‬, ‘bare place’, related to the verb ‫ ערה‬or ‫ערר‬, ‘to be bare’, ‘to be naked’.23 But in Hebrew ‘bare place’ is ‫( מערה‬Judg. 20:33; Nah. 3:5) or ‫ערוה‬, ‘nakedness’ (Gen. 42:9, 12). Moreover, the verbs ‫ יבשׁ‬and ‫ נדף‬in v. 7 do not make sense with ‫ ערה‬or ‫ ערוה‬as subject. As Herz has pointed out, it is preferable to relate ‫ ערות‬to the Egyptian ʿr, ‘bulrush’, ‘papyrus’.24 LXX rendered ‫ ערות‬by ἄχι, a translation/transliteration of ‫אחו‬, ‘sedge’, ‘grass’, ‘meadow’ (Gen. 41:2, 18; cf. Job 8:11). In the Syr. ‫ ערות‬is interpreted as a water plant.25 Targ. Isa., which has ‫ייבשׁ רוביה דנהרא‬, also supports the view that ‫ ערות‬is a kind of plant.26 ‫( ערה‬or ‫ )ערות‬is a synonym of ‫סוף‬, ‫אחו‬, ‫ גמא‬and ‫( קנה‬or more generally of ‫עשׂב‬, ‫חציר‬, ‫דשׁא‬, ‫)ירק‬.

23

Vulg.; BDB 788; Ibn Ezra, 88; Gesenius, 610–11. N. Herz, ‘Isaiah 19, 7’, OLZ 15 (1912), 496–97. See also T.W. Thacker, ‘A Note on ‫’ ָﬠרוֹת‬, JTS 34 (1933), 164; Y. Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-West Semitic (SBL.DS, 173), Atlanta, GA 1999, 252–53. For Egyptian ʿr see WÄS 1.208. Cf. also Egyptian ʿr.t ‘reed pen’; ‘stalk’ of a plant, flower; ‘branch’ of a tree (WÄS 1.208, CDME 45) and Akkadian aru, eru, ḫaru, ‘branch’ or ‘frond’ of (palm) trees; ‘stalk’ of a plant (cf. artu, ‘foliage’, ‘branches’; CDA 25). 25 lwʿʾ is translated ‘pondweed’ in CSD 238, and ‘Wasserlinse’ by I. Löw, Aramäische Pflanzennamen, Leipzig 1881, 235–38. 26 ‫ ייבשׁ רוביה דנהרא‬is translated by Chilton as ‘the greater part of the river will dry up’ (B. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum, Edinburgh 1987, 38). However, ‫ רוביה‬is the suffixed form of ‫רוביא‬, ‘fenugreek’ or ‘flax’. Cf. Löw, Pflanzennamen, 317; DTTM 1455–56. 24

214

chapter five

ִ ‫ ַﬠל־יְ אוֹר ַﬠ‬. Most exegetes consider MT redundant on m-m ‫ל־פּי יְ אוֹר‬ this point. The old translations also appear to have difficulties with this text, but their evidence is inconclusive, so far as they do not point to a more reliable common Vorlage. Unless LXX translated ‫ ערות‬double (‘green rushes’), it interpreted ‫ יאור‬in ‫ על־יאור‬as ‘vegetation’ rather than ‘Nile’. χλωρός translates ‫ ירק‬and ‫( עשׂב‬cf. Gen. 1:30).27 Jerome’s alveus rivi a fonte suo also presupposes two lexemes, alveus and rivi that can both be equated with the Hebrew ‫יאור‬. However, the preposition ‫ על‬on its first instance is dismissed. The Syr. follows MT closely, as do the known Qumranic manuscripts. ‫ פי‬can be translated as ‘source’ (Vulg.), ‘round about’ of the Nile (κύκλος LXX),28 ‘shore’, ‘border’ (‫ כיף‬Targ. Isa.).29 Modern translators prefer ‘brink’, ‘mouth’ or ‘edge’ of the Nile, as in the geographical name ‫פי החרות‬, ‘mouth of the canal’ (Exod. 14:2, 9; Num. 33:7, 8).30 ‫ על־פי‬is sometimes used in this locative sense, i.e. ‘on the mouth/opening’ of a well (Gen. 29:2, 3, 8, 10), a cave (Josh. 10:27), or ‘on the brink’ of the bronze sea (1 Kgs 7:31).31

‫ יאר‬as ‘plant’ is known from the Samaritan Targum of Gen. 1:11, 12 (‫דשׁא עשׂב‬ ‫יאר עסב‬/) and Deut. 32:2 (‫ עלי־דשׁא‬/ ‫)יאר עלוי‬. Note also Egyptian ʾú-r / ʾú-r-ja, 27

‘bean’ (Pap. Harris i 55b.7; W. Helck, Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., Wiesbaden 1962, 553), jwrjt, ‘bean’ (WÄS 1.56), Demotic wr¡, ‘chick-pea’ (Greek ἄραξ / ἄρακος; KHw 275), Coptic urō / arō, ‘bean’ (KHw 11, 275; cf. West Chadic *ʾar-, ‘vegetable’ in HSED 15). Ugaritic ʾur designates some kind of vegetable serving as food (paralleled by šblt, and gml; cf. DLU 47). See also Akkadian urû, ‘aromatics’ (herbs) (AHw 1436; CDA 427). From other reasons, Herz argued that like ‫ערות‬, ‫ יאור‬on its second appearance in Isa. 19:7 means ‘fruit’, relating ‫ יאור‬with ‫ ארת‬of 2 Kgs 4:39 and Isa. 26:19 (Herz, ‘Isaiah 19, 7’, 496–97). However, ‫( ארת‬αριωθ LXX), the pl. of ‫ אורה‬/ ‫( אור‬A.E. Rüthy, Die Pflanze und ihre Teile im biblisch-hebräischen Sprachgebrauch, Bern 1942, 38), probably designates a specific kind of plant and not ‘herbage’ (I. Löw, Die Flora der Juden, Bd. 2, Leipzig 1881, 228). B. Yom. 18b identifies ‫ אורה‬with ‫( גרגיר‬DTTM 33). ‫ גרגיר‬was a plant with berries, which explains its confusion with ‫ פקעת‬in the story of 2 Kgs 4:39. 28 κύκλος translates ‫סביב‬. Cf. ‫סביבת היאר‬, κύκλῳ τοῦ ποταμοῦ (Exod. 7:24). 29 Chilton translated ‫ כיפא‬as ‘rock’ (Chilton, Isaiah Targum, 38). ‫ כיף‬may mean, however, ‘shore’, ‘border’ (DTTM 635; Josh. 3:15; 4:18; Jdg 7:12; 1 Sam. 13:5; Isa. 8:7; 27:12; Jer. 46:6; Ezek. 47:6). Cf. Akkadian kappu, ‘edge’, ‘bank’ (CDA 147). 30 Cf. Akkadian ḫirītu, ‘canal’ (see also Muchiki, Proper Names, 233–34). 31 Cf. ‫‘( שׂפה‬lip’, ‘edge’, ‘border’), attested as ‫( על־שׂפת‬Gen. 41:3, 17). ‫ שׂפה‬appears with ‫( היאר‬Exod. 2:3), ‫( נחל‬Deut. 2:36), ‫( הים‬Gen. 22:17), the bronze sea (1 Kgs 7:23; cf. ‫ פה‬in v. 31). For ‫פי‬, cf. Akkadian pû in pī nāri ‘the mouth of a river’ (AHw 2:874), στόματι τοῦ νείλου, ‘the mouth of the Nile’ in Herodotus, Hist. ii 154, 155. Israelit-Groll related ‫ פי יאור‬to Egyptian p¡-jtrw, ‘the Nile’. She believes that in Isaiah’s time jtrw was a general designation for waters, rivers and arms of the Nile. Isaiah knew that if one referred to the Nile one had to add the definite article p¡. Cf.

the analysis of isaiah 19

215

While MT makes sense (‘the rushes on the Nile, on the brink of the Nile’), to eliminate redundancy, Herz emended ‫ על־פי‬to ‫עלפו‬, a pu‘al of ‫עלף‬, ‘to faint’ (with ‫יאור‬, assumed to mean ‘vegetation’).32 Somewhat similarly, Guillaume maintained that ‫ על־פי‬was a corrupted form of ‫ ַﬠ ְל ֵפי‬, the pl.cstr. of the Hebrew noun, *‫ ָﬠ ָלף‬, which Guillaume related to the Arabic ʿlf, ‘green or dry fodder for animals’.33 The main problem here is that while there are differences in the versions, one can at least be certain that each version presupposes the existence of ‫ על־פי‬in its Vorlage. The metrical irregularities are not unparalleled in biblical poetry, MT seems the most plausible.34 n ‫ ִמזְ ָרע‬. LXX, the Vulg., and the Syr. translate ‘(that) which is sown’, ‘sowing’. Targ. Isa., on the other hand, has ‫בית מזרע‬, ‘cultivated land’.35 This translation is supported by the Ugaritic mdrʿ (DLU 262), Phoenician mzrʿ (PPD 274), Arabic mazraʿa (ArEL 1226). If ‫ מזרע‬is interpreted as ‘cultivated land’, ‘sown land’ (cf. HALOT), ‫ נדף‬and ‫ אין‬allude to ‫ערות‬, and ‫ יבשׁ‬to ‫מזרע‬. In fact, ‫ מזרע‬may be interpreted as either ‘sowing’ or ‘sown land’.36 9 o-o ‫ ע ְֹב ֵדי ִפּ ְשׁ ִתּים‬is similar to Mishnaic ‫עושי פשתן‬, ‘flax-worker’ in m. Kel. 16:6 (NHAW 4.153). ‫ פשׁת‬or ‫ פשׁתה‬37 designates the plant (‘flax’; Exod. 9:31; Josh. 2:6) as well as the material made from it (‘linen’; Lev. 13:47; Deut. 22:11).

S. Israelit-Groll, ‘The Egyptian Background to Isaiah 19.18’ in: M. Lubetski et al. (eds), Boundaries of the Ancient Near Eastern World: A Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon (JSOT. S, 273), Sheffield 1998, 300–3. However, of the almost 50 verses containing ‫יאור‬, Isa. 19:7 would be the only one where the assumed Egyptian definite article appears. ‫יאור‬ is the general (only?) designation for the Nile in the Bible, with or without the definite article. It is noteworthy that when loaned into Hebrew, Egyptian proper names and geographical names originally containing definite articles (p¡ or t¡) were always written in contracted form (‫ פתרוס‬/ p¡-t¡-rsj). Cf. Muchiki, Proper Names, entries p and t. 32 Herz, ‘Isaiah 19, 7’, 497. Cf. Isa. 51:20; Ezek. 31:15; Amos 8:13; Jon. 4:8. 33 A. Guillaume, ‘A Note on Isaiah xix. 7’, JThS 14 (1963), 382. 34 Cf. ‫ על־הזקן זקן־אהרן‬in Ps. 133:2, where ‫ זקן־אהרן‬may specify ‫על־הזקן‬, a function that ‫ על־פי יאור‬beside ‫ על־יאור‬may also possess. Note also Isa. 23:4: ‫כי־אמר ים‬ ‫מעוז הים לאמר‬. 35 Cf. Akk. bīt mēreši. Chilton’s ‘a place where they sow’ (Isaiah Targum, 38) is imprecise. 36 Akkadian zēru means both ‘seed’ and ‘sown land’ (CDA 446; cf. also Isa. 23:3). 37 Cf. Löw, Pflanzennamen, 2.233.

216

chapter five

p ‫ ְשׂ ִריקוֹת‬. ‫ שׂרק‬means ‘to card’ flax. Post biblical texts speak of ‫סריקת פשתן‬, ‘the carding of flax’ (b. Sotah 46b; cf. m. Sotah 9:5). LXX and Vulg. interpret ‫ פשׁתים שׂריקות‬as an adjectival construction (‘combed flax’), adopted also in my translation. ‫ פשׁת‬is fem. which explains the fem. ending of ‫( שׂריקות‬WO §14.2c). The Syr. and Targ. Isa. treat ‫ שׂריקות‬as an independent noun, unrelated to ‫פשׁתים‬. The Syr. translates wnbhtwn ʿbdy ktnʾ dsrqyn wzqryn lḥ dwtʾ, ‘the flax workers will be ashamed, the carders (lit. ‘those carding’) and the weavers of [?]’. Similarly Targ. Isa. has: ‫ויבהתון פלחי כיתנא דסרקין ומחן מניה‬ ‫מצדן‬, ‘and the flax workers will be ashamed, the carders and those weaving nets (cf. note below) from it’. The Syr. and Targ. Isa. identify the workers (ʿbdy and ‫ )פלחי‬with ktnʾ dsrqyn and ‫כיתנא דסרקין‬ respectively. Some scholars also treat ‫ שׂריקות‬as an independent noun meaning ‘the carders (of flax)’ (fem.), and include it in the second cola of v. 9.38 However, ‫ שׂריקות‬does not mean ‘carders’. The present form of MT makes good sense if the parallelism is recognised. Note that ‫עבדי פשׁתים שׂריקות‬, ‘those who work with combed flax’, refers to the end users of the flax, i.e. the weavers, which appears in parallel with ‫ארגים‬.

‫חוֹרי‬ ַ . ‫ חורי‬is related to ‫חור‬, ‘white linen’ (Est. 1:6; 8:15, used with ‫תכלת‬, ‘blue/purple linen’).39 Unlike ‫פשׁת‬, ‫ חורי‬only designates the tex-

q

tile made of the flax, not the plant itself. All versions render a noun here. LXX has βύσσος, treating ‫ חורי‬as a synonym of ‫ שׁשׁ‬and ‫בוץ‬, much like Latin subtilia, ‘fine stuff ’. The Targumic ‫ מצדן‬is an allusion to a related word ‫חורא‬, ‘net-work’ (DTTM 439; cf. also ‫אוהרה‬ in DTTM 23).40 The Syriac ḥ dwtʾ is unclear, it could be a misspelling of ḥ rwtʾ. If the reading in MT is accepted, v. 9 can be rendered as ‘ashamed will be those working with combed flax / and the weavers of white linen’ (LXX; Vulg.; cf. JM §121k). However, 1QIsaa and 4QIsab presuppose the verbal form ‫ חורו‬here (‫חורו‬, qal perf. of ‫חור‬, ‘to become pale’). ‫ בושׁ‬which is also attested in v. 9a, turns up in parallelism with ‫ חור‬in Isa. 29:22 as well,41 making the reading of 1QIsaa attractive: ‘those working with combed flax will be ashamed / and the 38

Penna, 184; Wildberger, 701. For the form of ‫חורי‬, cf. KS §254e; GKC §86i; BL §62d’. 40 Note the fishermen in 19:8 and ‫ בית שׁתי‬in 19:10. 41 Cf. Isa. 24:6 with ‫ חורו‬in 1QIsaa instead of ‫ ָחרוּ‬, as in MT. However, ‫ ָחרוּ‬as a derivate of ‫ חרה‬can be defended in this context (see E.Y. Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1 Q Isaa), Leiden 1974, 234–35). 39

the analysis of isaiah 19

217

weavers will grow pale’. This latter variant is adopted here with some hesitation. 10 r-r ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ ָשׁת ֶֹת‬. Connecting it to ‫שׁתה‬, ‘to drink’, Jerome (inrigua eius) treats ‫ שׁתתיה‬as a technical term referring to Egypt’s irrigation system. He considered the parallel ‫ שׂכר‬a phonetic variant of ‫סכר‬, ‘dam’. The Syr. reformulates the verse as wntmkkwn kl dʿbdyn škrʾ lmštyʾ dnpšʾ, ‘all those preparing beer as drink for someone will be humiliated’. ‫שׁתתיה‬ is not translated directly, but it is echoed in lmštyʾ, which is a translation for both ‫ שׁתה‬and ‫( גמא‬see below). Others take their lead from LXX (οἱ διαζόμενοι) and Targ. Isa. (cf. ‫)בית שׁתי‬, and consider ‫ שׁתתיה‬a derivate of ‫שׁתה‬, ‘to weave’, relating v. 10 to v. 9.42 This would require reading ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ שֹׁת ֶֹת‬or ‫יה‬ ָ ‫שׁ ִֹתיּ ֶֹת‬, apparently a qal part. fem. pl. Since the fem. form is incompatible with the masc. part. ‫מדכאים‬, Eitan believed ‫ שׁתתיה‬was an Egyptian word (cf. Coptic štit, ‘weaver’).43 However, v. 10a obviously introduces a new idea, addressing a group of Egypt’s society different from the one addressed in v. 9. ‫ שׁתתיה‬most likely derives from ‫ שׁת‬and means ‘her pillars’. The related verb ‫ דכא‬is also used with ‫יסוד‬, a synonym of ‫ שׁת‬in Job 4:19. In v. 13, the leaders of Egypt are called ‫פנת שׁבטיה‬, ‘the cornerstones of her tribes’. ‫ ִפּנָּ ה‬, another synonym of ‫שׁת‬, is also used figuratively of people (cf. Ps. 11:3?). ‫ שׁתת‬forms a parallelism with ‫עשׂי־שׂכר‬, ‘those working for wages’ (see below), providing a description of the entire Egyptian society, from ‘top’ to ‘bottom’ (cf. 19:15). s-s ‫י־שׂ ֶכר‬ ֶ ‫ע ֵֹשׂ‬. LXX (ζῦθος) and Syr. (škrʾ) read ‫ ֵשׁ ָכר‬, some kind of intoxicating drink. Vulg. and Targ. Isa. recall Egypt’s famous waterengineering skills.44 ‫ ֶשׂ ֶכר‬appears further only in Prov. 11:18 with the meaning ‘wage’, ‘reward’. It may thus be identical with the more frequent ‫ ָשׂ ָכר‬. For the syntagmatic construction ‫עשׂי־שׂכר‬, one may note Prov. 11:18: ‘the wicked works for false earnings (‫)עשׂה פעלת־שׁקר‬, but the one who sows righteousness (works for) a true reward (‫’)שׂכר‬. ‫ עשׂה פעלה‬is comparable to ‫ עשׂי־שׂכר‬in Isa. 19:10. Prov. 11:18 may use ‫ עשׂה‬elliptically,

42 HALOT; I. Eitan, ‘An Egyptian Loanword in Is 19’, JQR 15 (1924–1925), 419–20; Wildberger, 702. ‫ ְשׁ ִתי‬appears in Lev. 13:48ff, designating some kind of textile. 43 KHw 333; Eitan, ‘Egyptian Loanword’, 419. 44 Cf. qui faciebant lacunas, ‘those building pools (?)’ and ‫עבדין סיכרא‬, ‘those building dams’ (cf. ‫ סכר‬I, ‫ ַס ָכּר‬and ‫ סכור‬in DTTM 993 and DJPA 378).

218

chapter five

as also related to ‫שׂכר‬. In Deut. 15:18 ‫ שׂכר‬is connected to ‫עבדך שׂכר‬ ‫עבד שׂכיר‬:, ‘he has served you for the wage of a hireling’. Ezek. 29:20 has ‫פעלתו אשׁר־עבד בה‬, ‘the recompense he has worked for’. ‫עשׂי־‬ ‫ שׂכר‬is semantically identical with ‫שׂכיר‬, ‘wage-worker’. 11 t-t ‫ ַח ְכ ֵמי י ֲֹﬠ ֵצי ַפ ְרעֹה‬. 1QIsaa has ‫חכמיה יועצי פרעוה‬. The fem. suffix refers to Zoan: ‘her wise men, the counsellors of the pharaoh’. 4QIsab agrees with MT. In 19:11, ‫ חכמי‬is sometimes translated as a simple adjective (LXX: οἱ σοφοὶ σύμβουλοι, ‘the wise chancellors’). However, the word order hardly permits this option.45 Driver suggested emending ‫ י ֲֹﬠ ֵצי‬to ‫ּיָ ֲﬠצוּ‬, and changed the word order to ‫חכמי פרעה יָ ֲﬠצוּ‬.46 Wildberger proposed to delete ‫ יעצי‬as a dittograph for ‫עצה‬.47 However, one can retain the present form of MT in at least three senses. (1) The first option is to read the constr. forms ‫ יעצי‬and ‫ חכמי‬as each forming a constructive relationship with ‫פרעה‬. For poetical reasons, the two words were connected without the ‫ו‬.48 (2) A second solution is offered by the Vulg., rendering ‫ חכמי יעצי פרעה‬as a sequence of constructive relationships, sapientes consiliarii Pharao, ‘the wise ones of the counsellors of the pharaoh’. (3) A third option is to treat ‫ חכמי‬as an adjective, in a constr. relationship, best rendered in English as a superlative: ‘the wisest counsellors of the pharaoh’.49 u-u ‫ ֵﬠ ָצה נִ ְב ָﬠ ָרה‬. In the present vocalisation, ‫ נבערה‬is a niph‘al part. fem. of ‫בער‬, ‘to turn out to be stupid’. V. 11bc is rendered as ‘the counsellors of the pharaoh give stupid counsel’ (cf. Vulg.). Yet the absence of a verb ‘to give’ is difficult to explain. LXX treats ‫)!( עצתם נבערה‬ as if it were in apposition: ἡ βουλὴ αὐτῶν μωρανθήσεται, ‘their counsel has become stupid’ (cf. also Wildberger). Others argue that ‫עצה‬

45 ‫חכמי‬, or rather ‫ חכמים‬would have to follow ‫ יעצי פרעה‬in that case. Exceptions are few and of a different character (cf. WO §14.3.1b). 46 Driver, ‘Problems’, 40. Cf. Targ. Isa. rendering ‫ חכימיא דמלכוהי לפרעה‬and the Syr. ḥ kymʾ dmlkyn lprʿwn, ‘the wise men who advise the pharaoh [a stupid counsel]’. 47 Wildberger, 702. 48 I.e. ‘the wise men (of the pharaoh) and the counsellors of the pharaoh’. For ‫חכמי יעצי‬, cf. ‫( גפי מרמי קרת‬Prov. 9:3), ‫( תועבות רעות בית ישׂראל‬Ezek. 6:11), ‫אהל ביתי‬, ‫( ערשׂ יצועי‬Ps. 132:3), ‫( מעון ביתך‬Ps. 26:8). Cf. Ibn Ezra, 89. 49 Significant examples are: ‫( מקטני שׁבטי ישׂראל‬1 Sam. 9:21), ‫( גבורי חיל מלאכת‬1 Chron. 9:13). Cf. also ‫חכמות שׂרותיה‬, ‘the wisest of her princesses’ (Judg. 5:29) and see further GKC §133h; Dillmann, 174; WO §14.3.3b.

the analysis of isaiah 19

219

can also mean ‘council’ or ‘advisory board’,50 as also in Qumran,51 but unknown in the Bible.52 It is more likely, however, that ‫ עצה נבערה‬is an independent sentence. ‫ נבערה‬is not an attribute, but a predicate of ‫ ֵﬠ ָצה‬. v-v ‫י־ק ֶדם‬ ֶ ‫ ַמ ְל ֵכ‬. On different possibilities in interpreting ‫קדם‬, see §5.2. 12 w-w ‫וְ יַ גִּ ידוּ נָ א ָלְך וְ יֵ ְדעוּ‬. The verb ‫ וידעו‬is difficult. JPS assumes that this refers to the wise men of Egypt: ‘let them tell you, let them discover what the Lord of Hosts has planned against Egypt’. However, in that case, one would expect a reversed word order: the wise must first disclose the plan for themselves prior to proclaiming it to others. The sequence of ‫ ידע‬. . . ‫ נגד‬is well known,53 but in these cases the knowledge (‫ )ידע‬is the consequence of the proclamation (‫)נגד‬. If that was the intention of v. 12, one would find here ‫ויגידו נא לך ותדע‬. More likely, ‫ וְ יֵ ְדעוּ‬should be ‫( וְ י ִֹד]י[עוּ‬hiph‘il) (cf. LXX εἰπάτωσαν).

ָ ‫ ִפּנַּ ת ְשׁ ָב ֶט‬. The Greek κατὰ (φυλάς) possibly corresponds to a 13 x-x ‫יה‬ different word (‫ ;? ְפּנֵ י‬cf. Lev. 4:6), or LXX may provide a free translation, as also suggested by the dropped suffix of ‫שׁבטיה‬. The Aramaic ‫רבני פלכהא‬, ‘district chiefs’ of Targ. Jon. suggests that ‫ שׁבטיה‬was understood to mean the nomes of Egypt (DMTT 1182). The Syr., on the other hand, rendered ‫ שׁבטיה‬by šrbtʾ, ‘race’, ‘tribe’, ‘clan’, ‘family’, i.e. in the sense of a demographical entity. The metaphorical sense of ‫ פנה‬referring to the leaders of a community is known from other texts.54 These parallel passages as well as Targ. Isa. suggest that ‫ ִפּנַּ ת‬should be emended to ‫ ִפּנֹּת‬, an emendation also favoured by the pl. form of the related verb, ‫התעו‬. 15 y-y ‫רֹאשׁ וְ זָ נָ ב‬. Commenting on the occurrence of the same expression in Isa. 9:13, Donner assumes that ‫ ראש ׁ וזנב‬was the counterpart of Egyptian tp, ‘head’ and pḥ wj, ‘the end of a territory’. Similarly, he Cf. H.-P. Stähli, ‫יעץ‬, THAT 1.751. L. Ruppert, ‫יעץ‬, ThWAT 3.750–51; R. Bergmeier, ‘Zum Ausdruck ‫ עצת רשׁים‬in Ps. 1:1, Hi 10:3, 21:6 und 22:18’, ZAW 79 (1967), 229. However, cf. the more cautious view of J. Worrell, ‘‫עצה‬: ‘Counsel’ or ‘Council’ at Qumran?’, VT 20 (1970), 69–74. 52 In Ps. 1:1 ‫ עצה‬stands for, ‘plan’, ‘advise’ (contra Bergmeier, ‘‫’עצת רשׁים‬, 229– 32). 53 Ruth 4:4; Job 11:6; Isa. 41:22, 23, 26 (cf. Eccl. 8:7; 10:14; Isa. 40:21). 54 See ‫( פנות כל־העם‬Judg. 20:2) and ‫( כל פנות העם‬1 Sam. 14:38). Cf. Zech. 10:4. 50 51

220

chapter five

argued that ‫ כפה‬recalls the scourge, an ensign of Egyptian pharaohs, and ‫ אגמון‬refers to the ‘Wappenpflanze’, the symbolic representation of Upper Egypt. In his view, ‫ ראשׁ וזנב‬in Isa. 9:13 referred to the territory of Israel and Judah.55 Ockinga, on the other hand, argued that ‫ ראשׁ וזנב‬is cognate to Egyptian m ḥ ¡t r pḥ wj, ‘from the beginning to the end’, referring to both ends of a geographical region.56 It is unlikely, however, that ‫ ראשׁ‬and ‫ זנב‬are used in a geographical sense. ‫ ראשׁ‬generally refers to important persons.57 The same antonym ‫ראשׁ‬/‫ זנב‬appears in Deut. 28:13 (‘and Yhwh will make you head and not tail’) and 28:44 (‘he will be the head, and you the tail’). These texts suggest that ‫ ראשׁ וזנב‬has a political or social sense in Deut. According to Isa. 9:13, ‘Yhwh will cut off from Israel (‫ )מישׂראל‬head and tail’. The verb ‫ כרת‬and the preposition ‫ מן‬make a geographic interpretation unlikely. The immediate context of 9:13 mentions leaders and followers (9:15), young and old (9:16), which allude to an entire society.58 The case is most likely similar in Isa. 19:15. z-z ‫ ִכּ ָפּה וְ ַאגְ מוֹן‬. Israelit-Groll considers ‫ כפה ואגמון‬an abbreviation of the Egyptian h̠rd-n-k¡p, ‘the title of commoners adopted by the palace’ (like Moses). The word was no longer in use by the time of Isaiah, but she believes that Isaiah was acquainted with Egyptian language and social institutions.59 A more attractive view is presented by Ockinga, who rendered ‫ אגמון‬as ‘papyrus’, Egyptian w¡d̠ (cf. Job 40:26; 41:12; Isa. 58:5), and suggested the identification of ‫ כפה‬with swt, ‘rush’. He maintained that the two plants, ‫ כפה‬and ‫אגמון‬, evoke a common imagery used to designate Upper and Lower Egypt: Upper Egypt is symbolised by swt, ‘rush’, which is also the determinative or logogram for Upper Egypt. Lower Egypt is symbolised by w¡d̠, ‘papyrus plant’, also used as determinative or logogram.60 In spite of the Egyptian background that this explanation takes into account, it leaves us with several problems. As far as ‫ אגמון‬is concerned, this can be related to 55 H. Donner, Israel unter den Völkern: Die Stellung der klassischen Propheten des 8. Jahrhunderts zur Aussenpolitik der Könige von Israel und Juda (VT.S, 11), Leiden 1964, 72–73. 56 B. Ockinga, ‘rōʾš wĕzānāb kippāh wĕʾagmôn in Jes 9,13 und 19,15’, BN 10 (1979), 31. 57 Exod. 6:14, 25; Num. 1:2, 16; 4:2; Isa. 7:8, 9; Mic. 3:1. Cf. ‫מכף־רגל ועד־ראשׁ‬ (Isa. 1:6). 58 Isa. 9:14, a text generally considered a gloss, interprets ‫ ראשׁ וזנב‬as referring to ‘elders and dignitaries’ and ‘the prophet’ respectively. 59 Israelit-Groll, ‘Egyptian Background’, 301. 60 Ockinga, ‘rōʾš wĕzānāb’, 32–33. Cf. WÄS 1:263.

the analysis of isaiah 19

221

‫גמא‬, ‘papyrus’, being its phonetic variant.61 However, ‫ גמא‬corresponds to Egyptian qm¡, which in Late Egyptian texts is equated with swt (and not w¡d̠) (WÄS 4.58). w¡d̠ on the other hand designates the ‘papyrus stalk’ (‘Papyrusstengel’, WÄS 1.263), and it belongs to the same group as t̠wfj (Hebrew ‫)סוף‬. A further difficulty is that ‫ כפה ואגמון‬appears not only in an Egyptian context, but also in Isa. 9:13, where a possible Egyptian background plays no role whatsoever. It seems therefore that in Isa. 9:13 and 19:15 ‫ כפה‬has little to do with ‘reed’ or ‘rush’.62 The identification of ‫ כפה‬is uncertain. Vocalised as ‫ ַכּ ָפּה‬, it denotes ‘leaf’, ‘leafage’. ‫ כפת תמרים‬in Lev. 23:40, when compared to ‫עלי תמרים‬ in Neh. 8:15, suggests that this was the leafage of the palm tree used to build a booth. In post-biblical Hebrew, ‫ כיפה‬refers to the top branches/ leaves of palm trees (DTTM 635). ‫ כפה‬is a cognate of the Akkadian kappu that may also mean ‘branch (?) of a tree’. With the vocalisation ‫ ִכּ ָפּה‬, the word is attested in Job 15:32 in connection with ‫רען‬, ‘to blossom’, ‘to be luxuriant’ (?), ‫יונקת‬, ‘shoot’, ‘sprout’ (Job 15:30), which may suggest that ‫ יונקת‬and ‫ כפה‬are synonyms.63 Accordingly, ‫ כפה ואגמון‬might refer to the upper part (leafage) and lower part (stalk) of a tree, i.e. the members of a society (cf. ‫)ראשׁ וזנב‬. 17 a ‫ ְל ָחגָּ א‬. Gesenius regards the final ‫ א‬as a sign of Aramaic orthography.64 LXX has φόβητρον, ‘terror’, similar to the Syr. (swrdʾ) and Targ. Isa. (‫)דחלא‬. Aquila renders the terms as (εἰς) γύρωσιν, ‘circle’.65 The Vulg. has in festivitatem (cf. ‫ )חג‬according to some codices, but in pavorem or in timorem in other manuscripts.66 A phonetic cognate to ‫ חגא‬is Aramaic mḥ gh, ‘territory’ (KAI 202B:5) and the verb yḥ gh (KAI 278:5) with unclear meaning.67 More important are Ps. 107:27

61 A different etymology is, however, also possible. Cf. Akkadian agammu, ‘marsh’, ‘swamp’ (Sumerian loanword [a g a m ]), Jewish Palestinian and Babylonian Aramaic ‫אגמא‬, and Syriac ʾgmʾ with the same meaning. 62 For an uncertain Akkadian cognate, see kupû, ‘reed thicket’ (?) (CDA 168). 63 Cf. Akkadian kippatu, ‘tendril’, ‘twining stem’ (CDA 159). Cf. Job 8:16 (also using ‫ יונקת‬instead of ‫ ;כפה‬cf. Job 14:7–9; 18:16; Ps. 52:8–10; Ezek. 17:8–10; Hos. 14:5–7). 64 GKC §80h, 95d; cf. Duhm, 144. Note also ‫ זרא‬in Num. 11:20 and ‫ כלא‬in Ezek. 36:5. 1QIsaa has ‫ לחוגה‬and several other manuscripts ‫לחגה‬. 65 γῦρον, ‘ring’, ‘circle’ is used to translate ‫ חוג‬in LXX (cf. Job 22:14; Isa. 40:22). 66 Cf. A. Penna, ‘La Volgata e il manoscritto 1QIsa’, Bib 38 (1957), 383; VL 456–57. In his Isaiah-commentary Jerome writes: ‘. . . festivitate in hebraico legitur agga, quod interpretari potest et festivitas, unde et Aggeus in festivum vertitur et timor . . .’ 67 yḥ gh was translated as ‘to go around’, ‘to take refuge’, or ‘to encircle’ (cf. KAI).

222

chapter five

and Arabic ḥ ajaʾa, ‘struck’.68 In Ps. 107:27 we read: ‫יחוגו וינועו כשׁכור‬, ‘they reeled and staggered like drunken men’. The verb ‫חגג‬/‫ חוג‬is synonymous with ‫( נוּע‬Isa. 19:1) and ‫( תעה‬19:14), so that ‫ חגא‬may mean ‘dizziness’, ‘confusion’. b-b ‫כֹּל ֲא ֶשׁר יַ זְ ִכּיר א ָֹתהּ ֵא ָליו יִ ְפ ָחד‬. The meaning of the construction ‫ יזכיר את‬is ‘to bring (it) to remembrance’, ‘to (make) mention (of it)’ (cf. Gen. 40:14; Exod. 20:24; 1 Sam. 4:18; 1 Kgs 17:18; Isa. 62:6). The subject of ‫ זכר‬may be either determined or undetermined. If the subject (‫ )כל‬is determined, then the subject of ‫ יפחד‬must also be determined: the one who mentions Judah (to Egypt) is the one who trembles (cf. Exod. 36:2; Lev. 6:11; etc.).69 If the subject of ‫ זכר‬is undetermined, then ‫ כל אשׁר‬cannot have a temporal sense as many commentators argue,70 but it forms an ellipsis with ‫אליו‬. The sentence can then be rewritten as *‫אל־כל אשׁר יזכיר אתה יפחד‬, ‘everyone to whom one mentions (‫ )יזכיר‬it (i.e. Judah) will tremble’. This second option better suits the present context. 18 c-c ‫ ִﬠיר ַה ֶה ֶרס‬. There are two significant variants to MT: ‫ ִﬠיר ַה ֶח ֶרס‬, ‘city of the sun’ and πόλις ασεδεκ. πόλις ασεδεκ, appearing in most LXX manuscripts, is assumed to transcribe Hebrew ‫ ִﬠיר ַה ֶצּ ֶדק‬, ‘city of righteousness’.71 The text critical problems regarding ‫ ִﬠיר ַה ֶה ֶרס‬cannot be dealt with apart from its context, especially ‫יאמר־לאחת‬, which is discussed in a note below. (a) ‫— ִﬠיר ַה ֶח ֶרס‬City of the Sun? ‫ עיר החרס‬is supported by 1QIsaa, 4QIsab, sixteen Massoretic manuscripts,72 Sym. (πόλις ἤλιου), and the Vulg. (civitas solis). Other sources were also aware of this reading, although some prefer the identification

68

Driver, ‘Textual Problems’, 46. GKC §143b assumes ‫ פחד‬refers to Egypt, but ‫ כל אשׁר‬is not likely the subject of ‫‘( זכר‬every one that mentions it [Judah] to it [Egypt], it [Egypt!] is afraid . . .’). 70 Cf. Wildberger, 728: ‘jedesmal wenn einer es vor ihnen erwähnt’. ‫ כל אשׁר‬does not have such a temporal sense (certainly not without ‫)ב‬. Cf. also Gray, 332; König, 203; Ehrlich, 72; Procksch, 250; Kaiser, 85. Gray’s argument relies on ‫ כל אשׁר‬in Isa. 2:14, but there it means ‘all of that which’. 71 Cf. ‫( עיר החרם‬in six manuscripts), ‫עיר ההרים‬, ‫עיר ההרוס‬, ‫בית שׁמשׁ‬. Though these examples represent isolated readings, they may support or confute reading ‫ ה‬or ‫ ח‬in case of ‫ ההרס‬/ ‫החרס‬. 72 Gesenius, 629. A. Baruq, ‘Léontopolis’, DBS 15.368 mentions 15 manuscripts. 69

the analysis of isaiah 19

223

with Tahpanhes / Ostracine.73 In view of this evidence most modern commentators adopt ‫ החרס‬as the more genuine reading.74 Their opinion seems to be supported by the fact that there was a well known Egyptian city, Heliopolis. From various ancient sources we also know about a Jewish-speaking community established in the region of this city, even building its own temple there (see below). However, the reading ‫ עיר החרס‬encounters several important problems. Heliopolis was a city well known to the writers of the Old Testament, but it is always called by its Egyptian name, ‫( און‬Gen. 41:45, 50; 46:20; Ezek. 30:17). Why would Isa. 19:18 not use the name ‫ און‬if it referred to Heliopolis? Moreover, the expression ‫ההרס‬/‫ עיר החרס‬is a name to be granted in the future, after the fulfilment of a series of events. Similar passages (Isa. 1:26; 62:12) make it clear that this name is symbolic and not real, not an already existing name. Furthermore, the intention of similar passages is frequently etiological (cf. Judg. 1:17; Isa. 1:26; Ezek. 39:16). In similar cases the context is supposed to provide explanation why and how such a name has come into being. Isa. 19:18 does not explain why the city would be called ‘the city of the sun’.75 Van Hoonacker also finds it strange to assume that a city dedicated to Yhwh and the cult of the true religion bears an ancient pagan name.76 As for the textual witnesses, the evidence is not as conclusive as it may seem. Josephus retells the building of a temple in Leontopolis, in the region of Heliopolis (J.W. vii 432; Ant. xiii 64). The temple-builder, 73 Cf. Tg. Isa.: ‫קרתא בית שׁמשׁ דעתידא למחרב‬, ‘the city of Beth Shemesh, which is destined to be destroyed’ (‫ ֶח ֶרס‬/ ‫ ;) ֶה ֶרס‬Codex Sinaiticus: ασεδ ἡλίου; b. Men. 110a; Pesikta De-Rab Kahana 7:5; Pesikta Rabbati 17:4. The five cities are identified in the Pesikta’s as Alexandria, Memphis, Tachpanes, ‫ עיר ההרס‬and ‫עיר שׁמשׁ‬. ‫עיר שׁמשׁ‬ is said to be Heliopolis and ‫ עיר ההרס‬is identified as ‫סרקאני‬, which is the Hebrew name for Ostracine, a place in the north-eastern Delta. This identification actually supports the reading ‫( חרס‬and not ‫)הרס‬, which is a literal translation of ‫סרקאני‬ (‫חרשׂ‬, ‘earthenware’, ‘potsherd’; cf. Jer. 19:2 and LXX Judg. 1:35). The identification of the city with Ostracine may have been known to Jerome, for when commenting on Isa. 19:18, he proposed civitas ostracinen as an alternative translation to civitas solis. See also note 101 below. 74 Dillmann, 177; Penna, 189–90; A. Feuillet, ‘Un sommet religieux de l’Ancien Testament: L’oracle d’Isaïe xix (vv. 16–25) sur la conversion de l’Egypte’, in: Études d’exégèse et de théologie biblique. Ancien Testament, Paris 1975, 266; Fohrer, 1.213; Clements, 171; B. Wodecki, ‘The Heights of Religious Universalism in Is xix: 16–25’, in: K.D. Schunk et al. (eds), ‘Lasset uns Brücken bauen’, Frankfurt 1998, 173. 75 Cf. Gray, 334; Fischer, 144; Kissane, 219. 76 A. van Hoonacker, ‘Deux passages obscurs dans le chap. 19 d’Isaïe (vv. 11.18)’, RBén 36 (1924), 303.

224

chapter five

Onias, was according to Josephus motivated by the prophecy in Isa. 19, which states that there will be an altar in Egypt. While it is assumed that this would imply that Josephus’ Bible contained the reading ‫עיר‬ ‫ החרס‬in Isa. 19:18, that is debatable. The temple is built on a desolate place according to Josephus (Ant. xiii 66–68), which rather recalls the reading ‫עיר ההרס‬. Be it as it may, several studies establish a close link between the temple community of Leontopolis in Heliopolis and the Jewish community of Qumran.77 Both groups left the main cult centre, Jerusalem, and they both established their own cultic sites. They were both Zadokite in origin. Hayward regards Qumran and Leontopolis as ‘two branches of a common Zadokite movement’.78 Steckoll argues that some members arrived in Qumran from Leontopolis. In this view, these returnees were responsible for part of the literature in Qumran, such as LXX, which they brought from Egypt.79 Another important connecting point may be the Damascus Document, a significant writing known in Qumran, but also found in Cairo, near Heliopolis. Steckoll maintains that ‘Damascus’ was in fact a cryptic name for the community in Egypt.80 If this connection between Leontopolis and Qumran really existed and if Isa. 19:18–19 played a role in legitimising the temple of Onias in the nome of Heliopolis (as Josephus states), there is a real chance that the reading of 1QIsaa (and 4QIsab) reflects the ideology of these communities, and it is not more reliable than the other ancient witness, such as LXX.81

77

Cf. S.H. Steckoll, ‘The Qumran Sect in Relation to the Temple of Leontopolis’, RdQ 6 (1967), 55–69, esp. 62, 67–68; R. Hayward, ‘The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis: A Reconsideration’, in: G. Vermes, J. Neusner (eds), Essays in Honour of Yigael Yadin (= JJS 33 [1982]), 441–42; see also J.E. Taylor, ‘A Second Temple in Egypt: The Evidence for the Zadokite Temple of Onias’, JSJ 29 (1998), 311–14. The connection between Qumran and Leontopolis is rejected by M. Delcor, ‘Le temple d’Onias en Égypte’, RB 75 (1968), 196–99; R. de Vaux, ‘Post-Scriptum to Matthias Delcor, “Le temple d’Onias en Égypte”, RB 75 (1968), 188–203’, RB 75 (1968), 204–5. 78 Rowley has also argued for the identification of the Teacher of Righteousness with Onias III (The Zadokite Fragments and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Oxford 1952, 67), but his theory was questioned by others. 79 Steckoll, ‘Temple’, 67–68. 80 The Jewish apologete from Egypt, Artapanus, cited by Eusebius, attributed the building of the temple at Leontopolis to ‘Syrians’, who arrived with the family of Jacob in Egypt (Eusebius, Prep. Ev. ix 23). ‘The city of the sanctuary’ in CD 12:1–2 in the mysterious ‘land of Damascus’ may refer to Leontopolis. Egyptian Jewish papyri mention ‘Syrian villages’ (like Arsinoe) in Egypt (cf. A. Kasher, The Jews of Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights, Tübingen 1985, 144–46). 81 Cf. also my note on ‫ וירד‬in Isa. 19:20 and ‫ נסמך‬in Isa. 20:6, two readings, which reveal the Egyptian connections and attitude of the author of 1QIsaa.

the analysis of isaiah 19

225

(b) πόλις ασεδεκ—City of Righteousness? It is generally argued that πόλις ασεδεκ transliterates ‫עיר הצדק‬. This translation supposedly highlights the view of LXX on the legality of the Egyptian cult of Yhwh as practised by Jews in Egypt.82 Many argue that ‫ עיר הצדק‬is in fact the earlier reading.83 According to Delcor, πόλις ασεδεκ was a name legitimising the temple of Leontopolis, elevating it to the status of the cult centre in Jerusalem, called πόλις δικαιοσύνης in Isa. 1:26.84 In the view of A. van der Kooij, the reason for transferring this ‘city of righteousness’ to Egypt was either the desecration of the temple of Jerusalem some time around 167 bc, or else the installation of an illegitimate priest (Menelaos) in the temple of Jerusalem.85 However it is strange that, in the same historical situation, Jerusalem is called πόλις δικαιοσύνης and μητρόπολις πιστὴ Σιων in Isa. 1:26. Moreover, if the authors of LXX intended to proclaim the legitimacy of the temple at Leontopolis, it is strange that they did not localise it clearly. ‘City of righteousness’ could have been connected to any city in Egypt (e.g. Alexandria). Actually, the issue of transliteration is also puzzling. Why would the authors not have translated ‫ עיר הצדק‬by πόλις δικαιοσύνης, as they did in Isa. 1:26? Monsengwo-Pasinya argues that the translators deliberately avoided giving the city Heliopolis the same name as Jerusalem in Isa. 1:26.86 However, the very idea of ‘city of justice’ appears in both texts, so this explanation is unlikely. Van der Kooij believes that the untranslated word ασεδεκ should be explained in relation to the Canaanite language mentioned in v. 18. The translators thought this was the way the Egyptians would have pronounced the (Canaanite)

82 Gesenius, 635; Marti, 157; A. van der Kooij, Die Alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches: Ein Beitrag zur Textgeschichte des Alten Testaments (OBO, 35), Göttingen 1981, 55. 83 Gray, 335; Van Hoonacker, 111; Idem, ‘Deux passages’, 303–6; I.L. Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of Its Problems (MVEOL, 9), Leiden 1948, 68; W. Vogels, ‘L’Égypte mon peuple—L’universalisme d’Is 19, 16–25’, Bib. 57 (1976), 502–3; Kaiser, 88; Feuillet, ‘Sommet’, 266; J.F.A. Sawyer, ‘ “Blessed Be My People, Egypt” (Isaiah 19.25): The Context and Meaning of a Remarkable Passage’, in: J.D. Martin et al. (eds), A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of William McKane (JSOT.S, 42), Sheffield 1986, 62; A. Deissler, ‘Der Volk und Land überschreitende Gottesbund der Endzeit nach Jes 19,16–25’, in: F. Hahn et al. (eds), Zion—Ort der Begegnung: Festschrift für Laurentius Klein zur Vollendung des 65. Lebensjahres, Bodenheim 1993, 15. 84 Delcor, ‘Temple’, 201. 85 Van der Kooij, Textzeugen, 55. 86 L. Monsengwo-Pasinya, ‘Isaïe XIX 16–25 et universalisme dans la LXX’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Salamanca 1983 (VT.S, 36), Leiden 1985, 201.

226

chapter five

name of the city.87 Disregarding the textual variants for the Greek version, the problem is that one would expect here a transliterated ‫עיר‬ as well, which was also part of the name of the city. The name of the city is not ασεδεκ, but πόλις ασεδεκ, as clear from the formulation κληθήσεται ἡ μία πόλις.88 It is not only curious that ‫ עיר הצדק‬has not survived in any manuscript or other ancient translations, but even πόλις ασεδεκ is not a uniformly attested variant of the LXX manuscripts. Ziegler gives the variants ασεδεχ (ms. 301), but even more important is Codex Sinaiticus reading πόλις ασεδ ἡλίου. The double (conflated) reading is here clearly distinguishable, but the provenance of ασεδ is unclear. Detailed studies on transcriptions in LXX revealed that misspellings in transliterations are very common. As Burkitt put it, ‘of all the corruptions in LXX none is commoner than the misreading of transliterations’.89 This evidence should advise more vigilance when reconstructing the Hebrew Vorlage of a geographical name attested in LXX. Ephrem working with the Syriac version and Eusebius commenting on the Greek of Isa. 19:18 arrived at the retroversion ‫( ארץ‬not ‫)הצדק‬, corresponding to αρες in Greek. Burkitt regarded ασεδ to be a misspelling for ‫החסד‬, ‘(city of ) mercy’.90 Vaccari argued that ασεδεκ was a corrupted form of ‫החרס‬.91 In my view, ασεδ could be the earlier Greek reading, which presupposes either ‫ החרס‬or ‫ ההרס‬in the Hebrew original. α may stand for both ‫ ח‬and ‫ה‬. The Greek text presupposes two further changes compared to the Hebrew: the substitution of ‫ ד‬with ‫ר‬, and the interchange of the root consonants ‫ס‬/‫ר‬, both of which are common spelling errors,92

87 A. van der Kooij, ‘The Old-Greek of Isaiah 19:16–25: Translation and Interpretation’, in: C.E. Cox (ed.), VI Congress of the International Organisation for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Jerusalem 1986 (SBL.SCS, 23), Atlanta, GA 1987, 137. 88 Cf. the Greek names Leontopolis, Heliopolis, etc. 89 F.C. Burkitt, ‘On Isaiah xix 18.’, JTS 1 (1900), 569. See especially F. Wutz, Die Transkriptionen von der Septuaginta bis zu Hieronymus, Stuttgart 1933. 90 Burkitt, ‘Isaiah xix 18’, 569. See also T.K. Cheyne, ‘Heres, the city of’, EB 2.2018; Fischer, 144; Baruq, ‘Léontopolis’, 15.368–69. 91 A. Vaccari, ‘ΠΟΛΙΣ ΑΣΕ∆ΕΚ. Isa. 19, 18’, Bib. 2 (1921), 353–56; also Wutz, Transkriptionen, 43, 177–78. The idea that ‫ הצדק‬might have been a corrupted form of ‫ ההרס‬was noted long ago by Qimchi (mentioned by Procksch, 251). 92 In the book of Isaiah, there are about twenty cases where ‫ ר‬and ‫ ד‬were substituted (Vaccari, ‘ΠΟΛΙΣ’, 354–55; see further also Wutz, Transkritpionen, 193–96, 370–93; F. Delitzsch, Die Lese- und Schreibfehler im Alten Testament, Berlin 1920, 105–6).

the analysis of isaiah 19

227

especially in unfamiliar geographical names.93 The final εκ in ασεδεκ is probably explicable from the following word, κληθήσεται.94 There is thus no evidence that the reading ‫ עיר הצדק‬ever existed. Not only Hebrew manuscripts or ancient translations are silent in this respect, but the corrupted Greek ασεδ[εκ] probably also goes back to ‫)ה(הרס‬ or ‫)ה(חרס‬. (c) ‫— ִﬠיר ַה ֶה ֶרס‬City of Destruction The reading ‫ עיר ההרס‬is supported by most Hebrew manuscripts, including the codices Leningradiensis and Alpensis. This variant is clearly followed by the Syriac version (hrs), although the lexeme ‫עיר‬ had not been translated there. The Syr. bears additional weight in view of its well-known connections with LXX.95 Aquila and Theodotion have αρες, which can be taken to represent both ‫( חרס‬as Jerome assumed) and ‫( הרס‬as assumed by the Syro-Hexapla).96 It can also be noted that the verb ‫הרס‬, ‘to break down’, ‘to destroy’ is frequently used with things that were built, altars, idols, houses, cities and city walls.97 There are basically three arguments brought in against this variant found in MT. The fact that the vocalisation of ‫ ֶה ֶרס‬is unique in the Bible has led some exegetes to question the correctness of this reading.98 Their objections can easily be overcome, however. While this word could be revocalised as ‫( ֶה ָה ֻרס‬cf. 1 Kgs 18:30), such a change is hardly necessary. All ancient versions (including Aquila and Theodotion) read ◌ֶ after ‫ר‬. The fact that ‫ ֶה ֶרס‬was preserved as a hapax legomenon instead of a competitive reading ‫ ֶח ֶרס‬may, in fact, demonstrate the reliability of this textual tradition (lectio difficilior).

93 E.g., in Isa. 16:7 ‫ קיר־חרשׂת‬was transliterated as ∆εσεθ (the ‫ ח‬was taken to be a ‫ת‬, ‫)קרית דשׂת‬. In Jer. 31:31, 36 (MT 48:31, 36) ‫ קיר־חרשׂ‬is transcribed as Κιραδας. For the interchange of root consonants, see ‫( תמנת־חרס‬Θαμναθαρες) in Judg. 2:9, which appears as ‫ תמנת־סרח‬in Josh. 19:50 (Θαμνασαραχ, also in the Greek text after

MT Josh. 21:42) and 24:30 (v. 31 in LXX Θαμναθασαχαρα). 94 Cf. Cheyne, ‘Heres’, 2.2018; Burkitt, ‘Isaiah xix 18’, 569. Cf. LXX Mic. 7:20. Gesenius, 625, ascribes the form ασεδεκ to Origenes. Its formal similarity with ‫ הצדק‬might explain its wider popularity. 95 Van der Kooij, Textzeugen, 287–88. 96 F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum que supersunt sive veterum interpretum graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta, vol. 2, 1875, 463. See further Ibn Ezra, Qimchi (in Slotki, 91); Alexander, 358–59; König, 203–4; Fischer, 144; Motyer, 168. 97 Cf. altars (Judg. 6:25; 1 Kgs 18:30; 19:10, 14), idols (Exod. 23:24), houses (Prov. 14:1), cities (2 Sam. 11:25; 2 Kgs 3:25; 1 Chron. 20:1; Prov. 11:11; Isa. 14:17; Ezek. 36:35; Mic. 5:10), city walls (Jer. 50:15; Ezek. 26:4, 12; 30:4). 98 Barthélemy, 149; De Waard, 88.

228

chapter five

Second, ‫ ההרס‬is often assumed to be a deliberate change by Palestinian scribes intolerant of Egyptian Judaism and more specifically the temple of Leontopolis.99 Scholars compare the textual change to Beth-El / Beth-Aven, Baal / Boshet, or ‫ אוֹן‬/ ‫( ָאוֶ ן‬Ezek 30:17).100 It is, consequently, presupposed that the copyists were aware of the fact that ‫החרס‬, which was modified to ‫ההרס‬, referred to Heliopolis. This is again, highly questionable. Aq. and Theod., both familiar with the meaning of ‫ חרס‬and ‫הרס‬, do not translate the expression (cf. LXX and Syr. as well). None of the ancient texts actually identifies the city with Heliopolis, or connects v. 18 with Onias.101 It is noteworthy that while showing reservations towards the temple of Onias, early Jewish texts nevertheless often read ‫( החרס‬b. Men. 109b). Onias’ temple in Egypt is connected to Isa. 19:19 (the altar building) rather than to ‫החרס‬ in v. 18 (so also Josephus). In b.Men. 109b, we even find a different tradition according to which Onias built his altar in Alexandria. Clearly, this verse did not have the significance for Jewish copyists that exegetes assign to it. If such ideological factors did not influence authors even long after the temple at Leontopolis was destroyed in 73 ad, why would later massoretes have engaged themselves in outdated apologetics for issues which were no longer of concern? As a matter of fact, Isa. 19:18 is not even the most challenging section of the prophecy for a Palestinian scribe. V. 25 contains considerably more serious assaults against a view privileging the Palestinian form of Judaism, testing even the tolerance of LXX and the Targ. (see below). There is thus absolutely no evidence that the textual change could be explained by apologetic motives. The third argument is that ‘City of destruction’ would hardly fit the context of the salvation prophecy concerning Egypt in v. 18. Further analysis of the prophecy will show that the problem is much more

99

Gray, 336; Dillmann, 177–78; Oswalt, 378; Barthélemy, 149. Cheyne, 120; Barthélemy, 150. 101 Even Sym. remains a question, since his πόλις ἤλιου (cf. Josh 15:10 LXX) is different from ἤλιου πόλις, the usual way to translate the Egyptian ‫ אוֹן‬in LXX. The connection with Heliopolis seems to appear for the first time in Jerome’s commentary on Dan. 11:14, where he shows an awareness of both readings, ‫( חרס‬Heliopolis) and ‫‘( הרס‬they shall fall to ruin, for both temple and city shall be afterwards destroyed ’). Cf. S.A. McKinion, Isaiah 1–39 (The Ancient Christian Commentary on the Scripture: Old Testament, 10), Leicester 2004, 144. The Isaiah commentary of Cyril of Alexandria locates Onias’ temple to Rhinocolura, near Wadi-el-Arish. 100

the analysis of isaiah 19

229

complicated. The real salvation for Egypt comes only after v. 21, that is after Yhwh turns to Egypt. To conclude, the reading ‫ הרס‬goes back to a very old tradition. Indeed, as the note below will hopefully make it clear, this was most likely the more ancient variant for Isa. 19:18. The reason for ‘correcting’ ‫ ההרס‬to ‫ החרס‬might have been to remove a negative reference in a context considered to be a positive prophecy about Egypt’s conversion to Yhwh102 and to substitute the hapax legomenon ‫ ֶה ֶרס‬with the relatively well-known ‫ ֶח ֶרס‬. At the same time, it cannot be excluded that the development ‫ החרס > ההרס‬was a copyist’s error, but one that appeared very early in the history of the Isaianic text.

‫ר־ל ֶא ָחת‬ ְ ‫יֵ ָא ֵמ‬. Discussions of Isa. 19:18 concentrate on ‫עיר ההרס‬. ‫ יאמר־לאחת‬is almost unanimously rendered as ‘one of them will be

d-d

called’. The problem with this translation is that the other four cities mentioned in this passage are left out of consideration. Why is only the name of one city mentioned and the four others left anonymous? Although commentators assign little significance to this phrase, it holds, in my view, the key to the interpretation of v. 18. Translating ‫ יאמר־לאחת‬as ‘one of them will be called’ is only one option, and it even seems to be the wrong one. The meaning of ‫יֵ ָא ֵמר ל‬, ‘to be told to someone’, ‘to be called’ is clear.103 But occurrences of ‫ לאחת‬/ ‫ לאחד‬with the preposition ‫ מן‬must be distinguished from occurrences without ‫מן‬, as the meaning varies according to the syntagmatic construction. (a) ‫ ְל ַא ַחת‬/ ‫ ְל ֶא ָחד‬with the preposition ‫מן‬ In cases where the preposition ‫ מן‬appears, ‫ לאחת‬/ ‫ לאחד‬may have both undetermined and determined meaning. The following texts may be mentioned as examples of undetermined meaning. In Lev. 5:4–5 ‫ לאחת מאלה‬refers to someone who committed a sin, ‘in (lit. from) anyone of these’. ‫ לאחד מבני‬in Num. 36:3 alludes to Israelite maidens who married ‘anyone of the sons of’ other tribes of Israel. ‫לאחד ממשׁפחת‬ ‫ מטה אביה‬in Num. 36:8 refers to an Israelite woman who had to marry ‘anyone from the clans of her father’s tribe’. Similarly ‫לאחד מהם‬

102

Cf. Motyer, 168 n. 2 and see the exegesis. Num. 23:23; Josh. 2:2; Ps. 87:5 (not of Zion); Isa. 4:3; 32:5; 61:6; 62:4; Jer. 4:11; Hos. 2:1; Zeph. 3:16. Cf. the semantically similar ‫ קרא‬niph‘al imperf. in Gen. 2:23; 21:12; Prov. 16:21; Isa. 1:26; 32:5; 35:8; 62:4, 12; etc. 103

230

chapter five

in Deut. 28:55 means ‘anyone of them’, i.e. the fellows of a certain Israelite. In Ezek. 46:17, ‫ לאחד מעבדיו‬means ‘anyone of his servants’. As for cases with a determined meaning, in some texts ‫ לאחת מן‬/ ‫לאחד‬ refers to one specific person from a group, like ‫לאחד מהנערים‬, ‘one of the servants’ of David (2 Sam. 1:15), or ‫לאחד מבני הנביאים‬, ‘one of the (sons of the) prophets’ (2 Kgs 9:1).104 (b) ‫ ְל ַא ַחת‬/ ‫ ְל ֶא ָחד‬without the preposition ‫מן‬ There is a different group of texts—to which Isa. 19:18 also belongs— where the preposition ‫ מן‬is missing.105 In these texts, ‫ לאחת‬/ ‫לאחד‬ does not have the meaning ‘one of’, but ‘each one’, or ‘one by one’. ‫ שׁני העמר לאחד‬in Exod. 16:22 means ‘each one of them [receives] two omers’, or ‘two omers per person’. Num. 7:3 retells the offerings of Israel’s twelve leaders. In this connection, it mentions six carts and twelve oxen: one cart for every two of the leaders (‫עגלה על־שׁני‬ ‫)הנשׂאים‬, ‘and one ox for each one of them’ (‫)ושׁור לאחד‬. In Num. 15:12, ‫ לאחד כמספרם‬alludes to how the various types of offered animals had to be similarly handled, ‘each one according to their number’, i.e. the number of animals (cf. Num. 15:11). In Isa. 6:2, ‫שׁשׁ כנפים לאחד‬ means that ‘each one (of the seraphim) had six wings’. According to Ezek. 1:6; 10:14, 21, ‘each one (of the cherubim) had four faces’ (‫ )ארבעה פנים לאחת‬and ‘four wings each one of them’ (‫ארבע כנפים‬ ‫)לאחת להם‬.106 We may conclude therefore that ‫ יאמר־לאחת‬in Isa. 19:18 should be translated as ‘each one of them (i.e. those cities) will be called . . .’. This gives additional arguments for reading ‫ עיר ההרס‬instead of ‫עיר החרס‬ in v. 18 as outlined above. Since not all five cities can bear the same geographical name, ‫ החרס‬would not provide a fitting translation.107

104 There are many examples where ‫ אחד‬+ ‫ מן‬are found without the preposition ‫ל‬ and which follow the same pattern as the one outlined here, i.e. the meaning is either ‘anyone of ’, or ‘one of ’ (Gen. 2:21; 3:22; etc.). Note also that the preposition ‫ מן‬can be substituted by a constructive relationship: ‫( אחד העם‬Gen. 26:10) is the same as *‫אחד מן־העם‬. 105 The preposition is included in Syr Isa. 19:18: wḥ dʾ mnhyn hrs ttqrʾ, ‘and one of them will be called hrs’. Similar is also Targ. Isa.: ‫חדא מנהון‬, ‘one of them’. 106 ‫ אחת‬/ ‫ אחד‬can have a similar sense as above without the preposition ‫( ל‬Exod. 36:30; Judg. 8:18; 2 Kgs 15:20). In a few cases ‫ לאחד‬should be translated differently (cf. 1 Kgs 3:25; Eccl. 4:11; 7:27; Isa. 27:12; Zech. 11:17). 107 Dillmann, 177, and Procksch, 250, refer to Bredekamp, who thought ‫ אחד‬could have a partitive meaning, ‘each one’. They reject his suggestion arguing that five cities cannot bear a single name. However, if the name is not geographical but symbolic

the analysis of isaiah 19

231

20 e-e ‫וָ ָרב‬. ‫ ורב‬is usually understood either as a participle of ‫ריב‬, ‘to argue’, ‘to dispute’; ‘to quarrel’, ‘to fight’ (cf. Isa. 45:9; Jer. 51:36),108 or it is emended to ‫וְ ָרב‬, i.e. a qal perf.109 According to the first proposal, ‫ מושׁיע‬and ‫ רב‬allude to the same person whom Yhwh will send to Egypt. In the exegesis, I shall plead for the second option as the most probable reading. The textual variant ‫ וירד‬in 1QIsaa was argued to be a deliberate correction coherent with the view of Qumran’s community expecting a Messiah of the heavens, who would descend (‫ )ירד‬upon earth (cf. Exod. 3:8).110 However, ‫ ירד‬is commonly used for ‘going down’ to Egypt, so that it is also possible that the Qumranic text alluded to a ‫ מושׁיע‬of Judah (?), who will go to Egypt, perhaps even Onias III himself, the builder of the temple at Leontopolis.111

ִ ‫וְ ָﬠ ְבדוּ זֶ ַבח‬. A preposition ‫ ב‬is expected after ‫עבד‬: ‫עבדו‬ 21 f-f ‫וּמנְ ָחה‬ *‫( בזבח ובמנחה‬cf. Josh. 22:27; Isa. 43:23). The case with ‫ עבד‬in v. 23 is different and cannot be taken as a parallel example.112 It is highly probable that ‫ עבד‬is an Aramaism here, corresponding to Hebrew ‫עשׂה‬, which is used in similar contexts.113

(‘city of destruction / ruin’), this counter-argument loses its force (cf. Isa. 48:2, where different persons are called by one symbolic name). Gray gave a short but unsatisfactory assessment of the translation ‘each one of them’, rejecting it with the motivation that ‘in cases where one seems to have such a meaning . . . the distributive idea is suggested by repetition, or by a distributive preposition, or by the context’ (Gray, 334). The repetitive use of ‫ אחת‬/ ‫ אחד‬forms a different group which I did not include to support my arguments. Cases with distributive preposition (‫ )מן‬are likewise a different case, as seen above. The subjective nature of Gray’s third argument, ‘the context’, makes any explanation possible. Van Hoonacker, ‘Deux passages’, 306, also follows the translation ‘each one of them’, though not entering into details. 108 Cf. the Vulg.; the Syr.; Targ. Isa.; Gesenius, 656; Dillmann, 178; Oswalt, 373. 109 Duhm, 146; Marti, 157; Gray, 340; Kissane, 214; Kaiser, 86; Wildberger, 729. 110 So Wildberger, 729; Wodecki, ‘Heights’, 176. 111 Cf. Hayward, ‘Jewish Temple’, 440–41. Cf. also textual note 18 c-c above. 112 Contra Alexander, 362; Dillmann, 179. 113 Exod. 10:25; Num. 15:3, 8; Josh. 22:23; 1 Kgs 12:27; 2 Kgs 5:17; 10:24; Jer. 33:18 (cf. Gesenius, 656; Ehrlich, 72). See the Aramaic ʿbdn hm qrbʾ, ‘they are preparing a sacrifice’ (DNWSI 811), or the syntactically and lexically even closer Egyptian Aramaic text mnḥ h wlbwnh wʿlwh lʾ ʿbdw bʾgwrʾ zk, ‘meal-offering, incense and sacrifice they do not offer in that temple’ (DNWSI 811), or wqn twr ʿnz mqlw lʾ ytʿbd tmh, ‘sheep, oxen, goats will not be offered as burnt offering there’ (DNWSI 815). LXX probably understood the text this way (ποιήσουσιν θυσίας; Van der Kooij, ‘Old-Greek’, 143).

232

chapter five

ִ ‫וְ נָ גַ ף יהוה ֶא‬. Several versions render the noun 22 g-g ‫ת־מ ְצ ַריִ ם נָ גֹף וְ ָרפוֹא‬ ‫ נגף‬instead of the inf.114 1QIsaa has a niph‘al 3rd pers. pl. ‫ ונרפו‬instead of the qal inf. ‫ורפוא‬. LXX paraphrases καὶ ἰάσεται αὐτοὺς ἰάσει (*‫ורפאם‬ ‫)רפואה‬. However, other examples indicate that the text found in MT is more reliable, both in terms of syntax and meaning. The we-qatal verbal form is followed here by two infinitives. The second infinitive (‫ )רפוא‬is constructed in semantic antithesis to the first, as in similar examples in Gen. 8:7 (‫ )ויצא יצוא ושׁוב‬and Joel 2:26 (‫ואכלתם אכול‬ ‫ ;ושׂבוע‬cf. 1 Kgs 20:37; Jer. 12:17). ‫ נגף‬is not the verbal companion to the inf. ‫רפא‬, i.e. it is not the smiting that will bring healing.115 h-h ‫ת־אשּׁוּר‬ ַ ‫ ָﬠ ְבדוּ ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם ֶא‬. The most obvious meaning of this phrase 23 is ‘Egypt will serve Assyria’. This translation is followed by all versions and a few exegetes.116 Nevertheless, scholars argue that the wider context is concerned with granting ‘salvation to the Egyptians’, which does not favour such translation. Therefore ‫ עבד‬is treated as an intransitive verb with cultic connotations. The phrase above is rendered as ‘Egypt will serve (worship) Yhwh with Assyria’. As the exegesis will hopefully make it clear, the general context can be interpreted in various ways and should not be privileged over grammar and semantics, or impose limitations on them. A first significant problem with the above proposed translation is that ‫ עבד‬does not appear anywhere as an intransitive verb with the connotation ‘to serve’.117 In v. 21, ‫ עבד‬is used with an object (‘prepare sacrifice’), and is synonymous to ‫עשׂה‬, as argued. Therefore, ‫ עבד‬in v. 21 cannot be treated as a parallel to ‫ עבד‬in v. 23. Second, ‫ עבד את‬always means ‘to serve

The LXX πληγή, the Vulg. plaga, the Syr. mḥ wtʾ, and Targ. Isa. ‫מחא‬. Contra Wildberger, 727: ‘schlagen mit heilendem Schlag’, and 743: ‘es ist ein Schlagen, das weh tut und zugleich zur Heilung führt’; similarly also Kaiser, 86. 116 Ibn Ezra, 91; A. Schenker, ‘Jesaja 19,16–25: die Endzeit Israels rekapituliert seine Ursprünge’, in: A. Schenker (ed.), Studien zu Propheten und Religionsgeschichte (SBAB, 36), Stuttgart 2003, 8–9; Sweeney, 270. 117 In Job 36:11, which is sometimes compared to Isa. 19:25 (Gesenius, 656–57), ‫ עבד‬appears without an object and in relation to God. Nevertheless, in the phrase ‫ אם־ישׁמעו ויעבדו‬the verb ‫ עבד‬does not seem to have the sense ‘to serve’ (Yhwh), but it is synonymous to ‫שׁמע‬, ‘to listen’; ‘to obey’. This comes close to the usual sense of intransitive ‫עבד‬, namely ‘to work’ (cf. H. Ringgren, ‫עבד‬, ThWAT 5.988), ‘to perform’ (cf. Num. 4:26). The sense of Job 36:11 is that if ‘they’ listen to what was told and perform what was requested, they will complete their days in prosperity. ‫ עבד‬has nothing to do with serving God in a cultic sense, or with Isa. 19:23. 114 115

the analysis of isaiah 19

233

(someone)’ and not ‘to serve with’. A third argument that makes the translation ‘to serve Yhwh together’ unlikely is that ‫ עבד‬is not in itself a cultic term. One has to disagree with Wildberger that the meaning of ‫ עבד‬would have undergone an evolution from a transitive general to an intransitive cultic meaning.118 The cultic aspect needs to be made explicit. Especially in a context in which the world power, Assyria, is mentioned, the author would certainly be expected to include clearer indications of any possible cultic connotation. Indeed, had this verse not appeared in the context of a ‘salvation prophecy’, hardly anyone would strive to show that ‫ עבדו מצרים את־אשׁור‬referred to the cultic service of Yhwh. The analysis below will argue that the context can also be interpreted in a different manner. Hayes and Irvine make use of a different translation for ‫עבד את‬, understanding ‫ עבד‬in terms of ‘to work together’ rather than ‘to worship’ (in a cultic sense).119 Although ‫ עבד‬can mean ‘to work’, ‫ את‬is not generally used in such a context. ‫ עבד‬definitely cannot mean ‘to co-operate’, ‘to trade’, a meaning that they propose for its occurrence in v. 23. 25 i-i ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר ֵבּ ֲרכוֹ‬. The 3rd masc. sg. suffix poses some problem. If we assume that it refers to Israel, it is strange that v. 25 mentions all three nations as blessed and not Israel alone. If it refers to ‫ ארץ‬in v. 24, one would anticipate a fem. form of the suffix. Some exegetes have proposed emending ‫ ֵבּ ֲרכוֹ‬to ‫ ְבּ ֵר ָכהּ‬.120 Others argue that the sg. suffix reflects the idea that the three nations would become one.121 However, it is most convincing to correlate the suffix with ‫ארץ‬, which may occasionally be referred by a masc. grammatical form (suffix, verb, etc.).122 Procksch translated ‫ ברכה )בקרב הארץ( אשׁר ברכו‬as ‘der Segen, mit dem Gott gesegnet hat’.123 The problem with this is that Israel cannot be both the instrument and the object of blessing. ‫ אשׁר‬must refer to ‫ הארץ‬and not ‫ברכה‬.

118 Wildberger, 744. The noun ‫ עבודה‬that Wildberger uses as a paradigm, assuming that its sense evolved to designate the service of Yhwh, is not an appropriate analogy. ‫( עבודה‬like ‫ )עבד‬does not mean the service of Yhwh alone (cf. Gen. 29:27; 30:26; Exod. 1:14). It simply means service, the nature of which is clarified by the context. 119 Hayes & Irvine, 266. 120 Duhm, 147; Procksch, 254; Clements, 172. Cf. ἣν in the LXX. 121 Alexander, 365; Sawyer, ‘Blessed’, 61; Deissler, ‘Gottesbund’, 8. 122 Cf. Gen. 13:6 (masc. ‫ ;)נשׂא‬Isa. 18:2 (‫ חלשׁה‬. . . ‫ ;)ארץ‬37:11, 12; 66:8; Ezek. 21:24. 123 Procksch, 254. Cf. Gen. 27:41; Deut. 33:1.

234

chapter five

ַ ‫ ַﬠ ִמּי ִמ ְצ ַרים‬. LXX translates ‘my people which is j-j ‫וּמ ֲﬠ ֵשׂה יָ ַדי ַאשּׁוּר‬ in Egypt and in Assyria’.124 ‫ מעשׂה ידי‬was dismissed by the Greek text. The Syr. and Targ. Isa. agree with LXX in that they also see this verse as a promise addressing Israel in the diaspora and not the nations. 5.2 Exegetical Section 5.2.1 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 2a 2b 2c 2d 3a 3b 3c 3d 4a 4b 4c

Verses 1–4

The Egypt-pronouncement Look! Yhwh is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt. And the idols of Egypt will tremble in front of him, and the heart of Egypt will melt in its inside. And I shall stir up Egypt against Egypt and they will fight, each against his brother, and each against his neighbour, city against city, kingdom against kingdom. And the spirit of Egypt will be broken in its inside, and its plan I shall destroy. And they will inquire by the idols, and by the ʾiṭṭîm-spirits, and by the ʾôb-spirits, and by the yiddĕʿônî-spirits. And I shall deliver Egypt into the hand of a tough master, and a powerful king will rule over them, utterance of the lord Yhwh of hosts.

This prophecy chiefly concerned with Egypt differs from Isa. 18 in its form as well as its content. The name ‫ מצרים‬appears not less than 26 times in Isa. 19 (once as ‫)מצור‬.125 Though it cannot be excluded that in 19:1–15, ‫ מצרים‬alludes to all of Egypt, the two cities mentioned, Tanis (‫ צען‬in 19:11, 13) and Memphis (‫ נף‬in 19:13), are located in the Delta. In 19:1, God steps off his throne and is on the move.126 The cloud, serving as Yhwh’s chariot (cf. Ps. 18:10–11; 68:5;127 104:3) is not

124 ἐν Ἀσσυρίοις means ‘in Assyria’ not ‘among the Assyrians’, as Van der Kooij translates (Van der Kooij, ‘Old-Greek’, 151; see Brenton; cf. Tob. 14:4 [S]; Hos. 8:13; 9:3; Amos 3:9). See on the other hand ἐν τοῖς Ἀσσυρίοις in Isa. 19:24. 125 The dispersion of ‫ מצרים‬in the first (vv. 1–15) and second (vv. 16–25) half of the chapter is balanced. As a comparison, the name of Moab appears 16 times in Isa. 15–16 and 34 times in Jer. 48. 126 Judg. 5; 2 Sam. 22:7–16; Ps. 68:7–8; Isa. 30:27–28; Mic. 1:2–4; Hab. 3:3–14. 127 For ‫ ב‬cf. Gen. 41:43; 1 Kgs 22:35. ‫ ערבות‬is probably a phonetic variant of Ugaritic ʿrpt, ‘cloud’. Based on Judg. 5:4 and Isa. 40:3, Green argued that interpreting ‫ ערבות‬in Ps. 68:5 as ‘desert’ would also make sense (A.R.W. Green, The Storm-God

the analysis of isaiah 19

235

standing still as in Isa. 18:4 but moving swiftly (‫)קל‬, towards Egypt. Exegetes often point to the Canaanite origin of the imagery in v. 1. One of the frequent titles of Baal is ‘the rider of the clouds’ (rkb ʿrpt).128 It should however be noted that, in Ugaritic, rkb ʿrpt is a title for Baal, often used parallel with his other names, unlike in the Bible, where riding on a cloud is a theophany element, appearing with other poetical pictures, like stepping on the mountain hills, riding on the winds, etc.129 From a strategical and military point of view Egypt was located on favourable territory, being guarded by sea and desert from all powers of the East and these natural barriers may have given the country an enhanced feeling of security (cf. Nah. 3:8). Nevertheless, Isa. 19:1b proclaims that the God of Israel arrives on the clouds and enters the land without obstacles. Egypt’s decline begins not by outside intervention of an Asiatic country, but from within as a result of the confusion caused in the divine and human world by Yhwh. Recalling the time during the ten plagues when Yhwh brought judgment on all the gods of Egypt (Exod. 12:12), Egypt’s gods again tremble in front of him. The name given the gods of Egypt reflects their feebleness: ‫אלילים‬, the noughts, the vanities. ‫אלילים‬, also appearing in Isa. 2:8, 18, 20 (31:7) and 10:11,130 is a theologically loaded term presenting foreign gods as powerless, falling short of every characteristic of a real divinity. According to Ps. 96:5 (| 1 Chron. 16:26), there is a clear discrepancy between ‫ אלהים‬of Israel, who is in the heaven, and man-made and hand-made ‫אלהים‬, who cannot help and are not worthy of their name.131 Like their gods, Egypt’s inhabitants will lose their courage when Yhwh arrives in Egypt. Their heart melts (‫ )מסס‬in fear, their courage

in the Ancient Near East [BJS, 8], Winona Lake, IN 2003, 240, n. 91). However, the pl. of ‫ ערבות‬appears only in geographical constructions like ‫( בערבת ירחו‬Jer. 52:8); ‫( בערבות מואב‬Num. 22:1). 128 rkb ʿrpt appears 16 times in the Ugaritic texts. On this title for Baal, cf. N. Wyatt, ‘The Titles of the Ugaritic Storm-God’, UF 24 (1992), 420. 129 This imagery is also attested elsewhere in the Near East. Cf. Enuma Elish iv 50–51; K. Tallqvist, Akkadische Götterepitheta (StOr, 7), Helsinki 1938, 175; M. Weinfeld, ‘“Rider of the Clouds” and “Gatherer of the Clouds” ’, JANES 5 (1973), 422–25. In the Ugaritic context, rkb ʿrpt apparently refers to Baal as the god of natural phenomena, particularly the master of the rainy season (M.C.A. Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine, Münster 1990, 598). This aspect is important for Isa. 19:5–7. 130 Cf. Lev. 19:4; 26:1; 1 Chron. 16:26 (| Ps. 96:5); Ps. 97:7; Ezek. 30:13; Hab. 2:18. Ezek. 30:13 was inspired by Isa. 19. In Isa. 10:10, ‫ אליל‬means ‘vanity’. When used in connection with gods, ‫ אלילים‬appears always in plural. 131 Contrast Isa. 36:19–20 and 37:12 with Isa. 10:11, two apparently related texts with ‫ אלהים‬and ‫ אלילים‬interchanged.

236

chapter five

to undertake any resistance disappears.132 The literary topos of 19:1 is very common in Near Eastern accounts of conquest. When Egyptians and Arabians heard about Sargon’s coming ‘their hearts palpitated, their arms collapsed’.133 While describing Taharka’s defeat, Assurbanipal’s scribes state that ‘terror and fright has come upon him (Taharka), and he lost his mind’ (Prism E. Stück 10 1–2; BIWA 211). Again on Prism B i 80–82: ‘The majesty (namrīru) of Assur and Istar struck him, and he became frenzied (illika maḫḫûttaš). The splendour of my kingship (melammê šarrūtīya) overwhelmed him’ (BIWA, 212–13). Isa. 19:2–4 is formulated as an oracle in the first person. The arrival of Yhwh will cause chaos in Egypt’s pantheon and it will lead to a complete disintegration of the society, described in four concentric circles: family life (‫)אישׁ־באחיו‬, wider family relationships (‫)אישׁ ברעהו‬, community life (‫ )עיר בעיר‬and the entire country (‫)ממלכה בממלכה‬.134 The language of the prophecy on this point is again stereotypical. Conflicts among brothers, friends, families, citizens, and kingdoms express distortion of spiritual and moral harmony in human communities. Important closely related examples appear in Isa. 3:5 and 9:19–20 (cf. §5.3.1). This imagery is not restricted to Isaiah or the Bible,135 but it appears with relative frequency in other predictive texts from the Near East.136 A most striking parallel is the Erra and Ishum Epic iv 130–36.137

132 The verb ‫ מסס‬also has this sense in Deut. 1:28; 20:8; Josh. 2:11; 5:1; 7:5; 2 Sam. 17:10; Ps. 22:15; Isa. 13:7; Ezek. 21:12; Nah. 2:11. 133 Nimrud Prism iv 44. Cf. C.J. Gadd, ‘Inscribed Prisms of Sargon II from Nimrud’, Iraq 16 (1954), 191–92. The same inscription states that the Cypriots’ ‘hearts palpitated, fright fell upon them’ (iv 35). Cf. also FHN 1.9:30. 134 LXX interpreted ‫ ממלכה‬as the Hebrew term for Egyptian nomes. For administrative divisions, Hebrew has ‫( חבל‬1 Kgs 4:13), ‫( פלך‬Neh. 3:9), ‫( מדינה‬frequent, only in late texts). ‫ ממלכה‬may allude to areas with a king as leader. 135 Cf. Judg. 7:22; 9:23; 1 Sam. 14:20; 2 Kgs 3:23; 2 Chron. 15:6; Ezek. 38:21; Hag. 2:21; Zech. 14:13. See also Mt. 10:21; 12:25; 24:7. 136 Cf. W.H. Hallo, ‘Akkadian Apocalypses’, IEJ 16 (1966), 231–42; R. Borger, ‘Gott Marduk und Gott-König Šulgi als Propheten: Zwei prophetische Texte’, BibOr 28 (1971), 3–24; T. Longman III, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study, Winona Lake, IN 1991, 167–78. In Babylon, these compositions show significant similarities with omen-literature (A.K. Grayson, W.G. Lambert, ‘Akkadian Prophecies’, JCS 18 [1964], 7). Some of these predictive texts were recovered from omen text archives, probably belonging to libraries of magicians (cf. H. Hunger, S.A. Kaufman, ‘A New Akkadian Prophecy Text’, JAOS 95 [1975], 371, 373). This kind of predictive literature is also known in Egypt. Cf. N. Shupak, ‘Egyptian ‘Prophecy’ and Biblical ‘Prophecy’: Did the Phenomenon of Prophecy in the Biblical Sense, Exist in Ancient Egypt?’, JEOL 31 (1989–1990), 5–41. Egyptian scholars (ḫarṭibū) and scribes (a.ba.meš) were present at the Assyrian court in the 7th century (SAA 7 1 rev. i 12–ii 7), explaining why there is such a close relationship between these literary types. 137 This text is variously dated between the 14th (Von Soden) and the early 7th cen-

the analysis of isaiah 19

237

And warrior Erra spoke thus: Sea (people)138 shall not spare sea (people),139 nor Subartian Subartian, nor Assyrian Assyrian, nor Elamite Elamite, nor Kassite Kassite, nor Sutean Sutean, nor Gutian Gutian, nor Lullubean Lullubean, nor country country, nor city city, nor tribe (bītu) tribe, nor man man, nor brother brother, and they shall slay one another. But afterwards a man of Akkad shall rise up, and fell them all, and shepherd all (the rest) of them. This text does not only present a turbulent society but it also ends similarly to Isa. 19:4. The antagonists on this list appear in the reverse order compared to Isa. 19: kingdoms, cities, neighbours, families. An Akkadian prophetic-predictive text called Text B describes the chaotic situation in Mesopotamia as follows: ‘City will rebel against city (ālu itti āli), tribe against tribe (bītu itti bīti), brother will put brother (aḫu aḫāšu) to the sword, friend will put a friend (rūʾa rūʾāšu) to the sword, abundance will depart.’140 Ln. 19 goes on: ‘The great gods will consult one another (mitḫāriš imtallikū; cf. Isa. 19:3b, 11c) and send words to each other, they will restore the king’s reign’ (cf. ln 26). This capacity is taken away from the gods of Egypt in Isa. 19:3, as it is Yhwh who will install a new king. Another predictive composition, Text A, announces an Elamite attack against ‘Akkad’:141 ‘The sanctuaries of the great gods will be confused . . . There will be confusion, disorder, and unfortunate events in the land. The great will be made small.’ (ii 9’–14’). The Marduk Prophecy142 provides a personal account of the god Marduk (cf. Erra in the text above), with a large section of predictive material (ii 19–iii 30’). When Marduk went into exile in Elam (i 22’), he left chaos

tury (P.F. Gössmann Oesa, Das Era-Epos, Würtzburg 1955, 89; cf. L. Cagni, L’epopea di Erra [SS, 34], Roma 1969, 37–45, esp. 44). Citations from this poem have been found on wall inscriptions of Sargon II and Merodach-baladan II, testifying to its popularity (S. Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others, Oxford 1989, 282). 138 tâmtim probably alludes to māt tâmti, the Sea-land, in the south. 139 The Akkadian text is constructed as a list of accusatives and nominatives (subarta subartu aššura aššuru [. . .] mātu māta etc.). 140 Text B 15–16 (Grayson & Lambert, ‘Prophecies’, 16–17). Cf. also ln. 26: kussû kussâ idarris, ‘one throne will overthrow the other’. 141 Cf. Grayson & Lambert, ‘Prophecies’, 12–16; Longman, Autobiography, 152–63, 240–42. 142 Cf. Borger, ‘Gott Marduk’, 5–13, 16–20; Longman, Autobiography, 132–42, 233–35; COS 1.149; and Text D of Grayson & Lambert, ‘Prophecies’, 22. The Marduk prophecy possibly derives from the time of Nebuchadnezzar I (1125–1104; Borger, ‘Gott Marduk’, 21–22; Longman, Autobiography, 138–39).

238

chapter five behind: aḫu aḫāšu ikkal rūʾa rūʾāšu ina kakki irassib, ‘brother consumes brother, friend strikes his friend with a weapon’ (ii 3–4). After returning from exile he ‘predicts’ that ‘a king of Babylon will arise, and he will renew the house of announcement (. . .)’ (ii 19). The restoration-section reverses the images applied earlier for portraying the chaotic situation:143 ‘brother will love his brother’ (iii 14’). In view of Isa. 19, it is important to note the abundance in nature that the installation of a pious king will bring about (iii 1’–21’).144 These texts are strongly reminiscent of omen texts. Šumma Izbu i 82, one of the birth omen series, states that a certain type of birth will cause the reign of Nergal (= Erra) to befall the land: ‘a fierce attack; there will be a mighty person in the land; pestilence; one street will be hostile to the other; one house will plunder the other.’145 Description of a reversed social order is common in Egyptian literature as well. The Admonitions of Ipuwer (COS 1.42) mentions the chaos caused by the insurgence of foreigners into the Delta: ‘the man looks upon his son as his enemy’, ‘the poor have become owners of wealth’, ‘the noblemen are in mourning and the poor man is full of joy’, ‘a man strikes his maternal brother’, etc. (cf. COS 1.42:1.1–10.5). Even more significant in view of Isa. 19 is The Prophecy of Neferti (COS 1.45). In an extensive passage (COS 1.45:20–71), Neferti, the lector priest of Bastet, bewails the turbulent situation depressing the land of Egypt.146 It is particularly important in these descriptions that social anarchy is paralleled by chaos in nature.

The heart melting in fear (v. 3) is often connected to a crushed spirit. ‫עצה‬, ‫ לבב‬and ‫ רוח‬belong together.147 ‫ עצה‬is also frequently used with political overtones. Assurbanipal reports as follows about his Egyptian campaigns and the counsel(lor)s of Egypt:148 Afterwards, Necho, Sharru-lu-dari and Paqruru, kings whom my father has installed in Egypt, transgressed the treaty sworn by Assur and the great gods, my lords, and broke their oath. They forgot the good deeds of my father, their heart planned evil (ikpudū lemuttu), they talked false

143

See W. Schenkel, ‘Sonst-Jetzt: Variationen eines literarischen Formelelements’, WO (1984), 51–61; W. Westendorf, ‘Einst-Jetzt-Einst: Oder: Die Rückkehr zum Uhrsprung’, WO 17 (1986), 5–8; A. Blasius, B.U. Schipper, ‘Apokalyptik und Ägypten? Erkenntnisse und Perspektiven’, AÄ, 286–94. 144 See Borger, ‘Gott Marduk’, 14–15, 20–21; Longman, Autobiography, 142–46, 236–37; and Text C in Grayson & Lambert, ‘Prophecies’, 19–20. 145 E. Leichty, The Omen Series Šumma Izbu, Locust Valley 1970, 39. 146 This text is set in the 4th Dynasty, but scholars assume it was written between 1990–1960 bc. The single complete version dates from the 18th Dyn. 147 For ‫ עצה‬/ ‫לבב‬, cf. Ps. 20:5; 33:11; Prov. 19:21. For ‫ עצה‬/ ‫רוח‬, cf. Isa. 40:13. Cf. also S. Tengström, ‫רוח‬, ThWAT 7.397–98. 148 Compare Isa. 19:11; Jer. 18:18; 49:7 with 1 Kgs 12:8; Ezek. 7:26.

the analysis of isaiah 19

239

speech, and discussed profitless counsels (milik lā kušīri imlikū) among themselves [. . .] (Prism E. Stück 11 1–10; BIWA 211, 213–14).

Perplexed Egypt will look for help from the gods, the ghosts, and the spirits of the dead. Egyptians were familiar with various ways of inquiring about the future, though their methods seem to have been less sophisticated and exhaustive than those in Canaan or Mesopotamia.149 Amon was the lord of oracles, ‘who foresees the future before it happens’ (FHN 1.26). Egypt became first acquainted with oracles during the 18th Dynasty, but a renaissance in their popularity took place between the Ramesside and the Saite era.150 Frequent contacts with Asia in this period possibly account for a Semitic influence. Most frequently, the gods were interviewed in dreams, although direct questioning of divinity is also known. The statues of the god moving forwards or backwards represented a positive or negative answer. Necromancy is ubiquitous in the Semitic world, and its practice was also known in Egypt. Kings Ahmose, Amenophis I and Ramses II are mentioned in connection with this form of divination.151 Letters were sent to dead relatives in order to settle family disputes, assist in matters of everyday life, or mediate on behalf of the living.152 Isa. 19:3 maintains that Egypt will exhaust all its spiritual resources in its effort to gain insight.153 During critical situations, the gods and spirits of another world, who are assumed to have been responsible for everything that happens on earth, were expected to make sense of history.154 What is hidden from the eyes of Egypt and their gods is revealed to Judah.

149 Kákosy, ‘Orakel’, 4.600–6; J.F. Borghouts, ‘Witchcraft, Magic, and Divination in Ancient Egypt’, CANE 3.1775–85; J.D. Currid, Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament, Grand Rapids, MI 1997, 219–28; Herodotus, Hist. ii 83. 150 L. Kákosy, Az ókori Egyiptom története és kultúrája, Budapest 1998, 202. 151 Kákosy, ‘Orakel’, 4.603. 152 Currid, Ancient Egypt, 222. 153 Cf. 1 Sam. 28:5. The Hittite King Murshili requests dream information from the storm-god by means of an oracle, prophecy, or incubation oracle (COS 1.60A rev. 41’–44’). 154 According to The Admonitions of Ipuwer, the chaotic situation will lead Egyptians to look for god, but ‘the hot-tempered man says: “If I knew where god is, then I would serve him.” ’ In the description of a deep political crisis in Isa. 8, Yhwh is said to have hidden his face from the house of Jacob (8:17). The prophet and his sons, whose names have symbolic significance, are left as the only signs regarding the divine will (8:18). Yet instead of looking at the signs, the people inquire of the dead (‫ )דרשׁו אל־האבות ואל־הידענים‬on behalf of the living (8:19).

240

chapter five

In this chaotic circumstance, a hard master (‫)אדנים קשׁה‬, a powerful king (‫ )מלך עז‬will take over the rule over the country. As already observed above, social and political disorder ending by the emergence of a new king supposed to restore order was a familiar literary topos. The Erra and Ishum Epic foretells the advent of a man of Akkad who brings peace after upheaval. The king of Babylon from the Marduk prophecy leads history towards a promising future. In the Prophecy of Neferti, the disorder caused by foreigners will end when ‘a king will come from the south’ (COS 1.45:58–59). In Isa. 19:4, however, the arrival of the new king is not a comforting prediction (cf. Isa. 3:4, 6–7). The new leader will be cruel and harsh,155 expressing divine disfavour towards Egypt. 5.2.2 5a 5b 6a 6b 6c 7a 7b 7c 8a 8b 8c 9a 9b 10a 10b

Verses 5–10 And the water will be exhausted from the sea and the river will dry up and be parched. And the rivers will stink, and the streams of Egypt will grow lean and dry up. The reed and the papyrus will get mouldy. The sedge on the Nile, on the brink of the Nile, and all the sowing of the Nile will be dried up, driven away and be no more. And the fishermen will be moaning, and mourning all those casting hook in the Nile, and those who spread nets upon the water languish. And those working with combed flax will be ashamed and the weavers will grow pale. And its pillars will be crushed, all those working for wages will be distressed.

It is often assumed that the imagery of natural catastrophe differs from the setting of the previous verses which describe political turmoil. Nevertheless, it should be noted that in the ‘type’ of literature that parallels the above passage, the themes of political prosperity or chaos in the human and divine worlds, the emergence of a king and the welfare or

Cf. ‫ קשׁה‬in 1 Sam. 25:3; 2 Sam. 3:39; see Ezek. 21:36 (‫ ;)אנשׁים בערים‬30:11 (‫ ;)עריצי גוים‬31:11 (‫ ;)איל גוים‬Dan. 8:23 (‫ ;)מלך עז־פנים‬etc. The theme is not typically Isaianic, but it appears frequently in Isaiah in connection with Assyria, Babylon and Media (5:26–30; 8:7; 10:34; 13:11, 17–18; 28:2; 30:27). 155

the analysis of isaiah 19

241

regression in nature and economy are often interconnected (§5.3.1). One of these texts, viz. Text A ii 2’–8’, mentions that A prince will arise, he will exercise kingship for eighteen years. The land will remain secure, fare well, and its people will experience prosperity. The gods will determine good things for the land, the winds will blow favourably. The [. . .] and the furrow will yield its crops. Šakkan (god of the beasts) and Nisaba (god of the grain)156 will [. . .] in the land. There will be rains and floods. The people of the land will experience joy. The prince will be defeated in a revolution.157

The emergence of another king will change the existing situation (ii 9’–18’). During the reign of a prince who will rule for 13 years, Elam will attack and defeat Akkad. This event is described as follows: The sanctuaries of the great gods will be confused. The defeat of Akkad will be decreed. There will be confusion, disorder, and unfortunate events in the land. The great will be made small. Another man whose name is not mentioned will arise. As a king he will seize the throne and will put to death his officials. He will fill the lowland of Tupliaš, plain and level ground, with half the massive army of Akkad. The people will experience severe famine. (. . .)

Again, the restoration of the land will be followed later by abundance instead of famine, safety instead of disorder (iii 1’–8’).158 In these texts, calamity and prosperity are the direct results of what happens to the divinities of Akkad. In Text A, the disorder is introduced by the destruction of sanctuaries and the removal of regular offerings.159 Regaining welfare is directly related to the restoration of the demolished temples and the renewal of offerings. Isa. 19:5–10 fits well this vision of history subjected to and dependent on the mercy of divinities. When Isa. 19:1, 3 states that Yhwh will cause confusion in the divine world, the consequences of this disorder are reflected in the human sphere by a lack of harmony, prosperity and abundance.160

156 According to the Marduk prophecy (i 18ff ), Šakkan and Nisaba were forced to leave and go to heaven after Marduk had cut off the nindabû offering. 157 Grayson & Lambert, ‘Prophecies’, 12–14; Longman, Autobiography, 240–41. See also the Marduk Prophecy iii 5’-20’ (Longman, Autobiography, 235). 158 Cf. Text B 22–23 describing the arrival of Erra in the land, i.e. pestilence, famine, and starvation (Grayson & Lambert, ‘Prophecies’, 17–18). 159 Cf. in the Admonitions of Ipuwer (COS 1.42:11.1–11.6). 160 On the Famine Stele, god Khnum, the guardian of the caves of Elephantine, which the Egyptians held to be the source of the Nile (cf. §5.2), is described as follows: ‘It is he who governs barley, [emmer], fowl and fish and all one lives on’ (COS 1.53:10).

242

chapter five

Isa. 19:5–10 projects these foreseen calamities into an Egyptian context. The Nile was the source of life in Egypt, providing fertile soil for its agriculture.161 From June to September every year, the Nile rose to up to eight times its normal level throughout the rest of the year. The Egyptians sang about the river bringing food and life to the land in hymns.162 It was well known in most cultures of antiquity (Herodotus, Hist. ii 5), including Judah, that Egypt was dependent on the periodic inundation of the Nile.163 Egypt worshipped Nile River in a personified form as the god Hapy. Quite early in Egyptian thought, Hapy was connected with Nun, the primeval waters, and Osiris.164 The king of Egypt was the guarantor of the fruitfulness of the river.165 He may appear as the beloved of Hapy or even Hapy himself. It was his task to cause the Nile to rise by performing cultic rituals and procession ceremonies (cf. COS 1.53:17–18; Ezek. 29:3, 8–10) and thus guaranteeing fertility and prosperity to the land.166 Among other pharaohs, Taharka considered the abundant Nile as a favourable sign sent by the divinity confirming the legitimacy of his kingship.167 The emergence of a cruel despot on the throne of Egypt will be followed by the unfavourable ‘signs’ in the world of nature (Isa. 19:4), such as the drying up of the Nile.168 The Prophecies of Neferti which combine social and natural turbulences give a picture from Egypt that is close to Isa. 19:5–10. The cause of calamity is mentioned in lns 25–26 and 51–54: Re, ‘the sun is

For cosmic catastrophe as the result of divinities leaving their dwelling places, see J.F. Quack, ‘Ein neuer prophetischer Text aus Tebtynis’, AÄ, 262. 161 The close parallel between Isa. 19:5 (‫ )ונשׁתו־מים מהים ונהר יחרב ויבשׁ‬and Job 14:11 (‫ )אזלו־מים מני־ים ונהר יחרב ויבשׁ‬is striking. But the expressions ‫ יבשׁ‬and ‫חרב‬ are commonly used in reference to water (Isa. 42:15; 44:27; Jer. 50:38; 51:36; Nah. 1:4), and there is nothing peculiar in this expression that would suggest that Isa. 19:5 cites Job 14:11 (contra W. Werner, Studien zur alttestamentlichen Vorstellung vom Plan Jahwes [BZAW, 173], Berlin 1986, 48). 162 Currid, Ancient Egypt, 240–45. 163 Cf. the more detailed descriptions of Tyre and Egypt in Ezek. 25–32, testifying to a thorough knowledge of these countries. See also S. Ahituv, ‘Egypt that Isaiah Knew’, in: I. Shirun-Grumach (ed.), Jerusalem Studies in Egyptology (ÄAT, 40), Wiesbaden 1998, 3–7. 164 D. Bonneau, ‘Nilgott’, LÄ 4.486–87; Currid, Ancient Egypt, 242–43. 165 B.B. Williams, ‘Nile, Geography’, ABD 4.1115. 166 Bonneau, ‘Nilgott’, 4.486. 167 FHN 1.26:9. See further Currid, Ancient Egypt, 243. 168 The Nile is low when Thutmosis III dies (Currid, Ancient Egypt, 244).

the analysis of isaiah 19

243

covered and does not shine for the people to see, no one can live when the clouds cover (the sun)’ (cf. Isa. 19:1). The river of Egypt is empty, one can cross the water on foot. One will seek water for the ships to sail on. Its course has become a riverbank, a riverbank will be water (?) (. . .) Perished indeed are those good things, those fish ponds (where there were) those who clean fish, overflowing with fish and fowl. All good things have passed away. The land is burdened with misfortune because of those looking (?) for food, Asiatics roaming the land. Foes have arisen in the east, Asiatics have descended into Egypt (. . .) The land has perished, laws are destined for it, deprived of produce, lacking in crops (. . .) (COS 1.45).169

When the Assyrian king boasts to have conquered Egypt, he maintains that he dried up all the water channels of Egypt with his foot (‫יארי‬ ‫ ;מצור‬Isa. 37:25 | 2 Kgs 19:24).170 In his prophecy on Egypt, possibly alluding to Isa. 19 (cf. §5.3.1), Ezekiel combines the defeat of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar with the desiccation of the Nile (Ezek. 30:10–12): I shall put an end to the wealth (‫ ;המון‬cf. Ezek. 29:19) of Egypt through King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon. He together with his army, the most ruthless of the nations (‫)עריצי גוים‬, will be brought to ravage the land (. . .) I shall turn the river channels (‫ )יארים‬into dry ground, and I shall deliver the land into the hands of evil men (‫)רעים‬. I shall lay waste the land and everything in it by the hands of strangers (‫)זרים‬.

In a prophecy directed against Babylon, likewise famous for its water ways, Jer. 50:35–37 connects the judgment on the Chaldaeans and its princes (‫)שׂר‬, wise men (‫)חכם‬, diviners (‫)בד‬, warriors (‫)גבור‬, etc. with the drying up of its waters (Jer. 50:38).171 Ps. 72; Isa. 15:1–9; 24:4–12; 33:7–8; Jer. 4:23–29; 12:4; 23:10, and Hos. 4:3 give further evidence how Israel believed that political order was reflected in and reinforced by tributes from natural order. These examples may suffice to show that chaos among the divinities, social disorder, foreign rule and natural disaster were seen as being interrelated.

169 See also H. Marlow, ‘The Lament over the River Nile—Isaiah xix 5–10 in its Wider Context’, VT 57 (2007), 229–42. On such events during the Ptolemaic era, see L. Koenen, ‘Die Apologie des Töpfers an König Amenophis oder das Töpferorakel’, AÄ, 139–87, esp. 144 [P2 2, 7; P3 13, 18–19], 147 [P2 43–47; P3 72–79], 172–79; Quack, ‘Ein neuer prophetischer Text aus Tebtynis’, AÄ, 253–73, esp. 256–57. 170 Contrast this with Deut. 11:10. 171 Note the wordplay in ‫ חרב על־כשׂדים‬/ ‫חרב אל־מימיה‬. Cf. also Jer. 51:36

244

chapter five

The wide range of terms designating water in Isa. 19:5–6 (‫נהרות‬, ‫ים‬, ‫ )יאור‬depict a total disaster in Egypt.172 The gradually parching waters (‫ דלל‬/ ‫ חרב‬/ ‫ )יבשׁ‬will stink throughout the land.173 The lack of water will affect Egypt’s entire ecosystem. Typical water plants like papyrus and reed, inseparably linked to the Egyptian landscape, the hieroglyphic symbols of Lower and Upper Egypt, will wither. The fields where agricultural plants should grow (‫ )מזרע‬will also dry up once the Nile stops flooding. The desiccation of the Nile will affect its fauna as well. There will be no fish in the rivers, and consequently no work and food for Egypt’s fishermen and those relying on their products. Egypt was world-renowned because of its textile industry. Water is, however, essential for growing and combing flax. Once the river has dried up, Egypt’s textile-workers will lose their jobs. This change in nature will affect everyone from the most prominent members of society, the pillars of Egypt (‫)שׁתות‬, to low-ranking paid workers (‫)עשׂי־שׂכר‬.174 5.2.3 11a 11b 11c 11d 11e 11f 12 13a 13b 13c 14 15

Verses 11–15 Ah, foolish are the officials of Zoan, the wisest counsellors of the pharaoh! The counsel turned out to be stupid. How can you say to the pharaoh: ‘I am (a son) of wise men, (a son) of eastern/ancient kings’? Where then are your wise men? Let them inform you and let you know what Yhwh of hosts has planned for Egypt! Silly are the officials of Zoan, and the officials of Noph deceive themselves, and the cornerstones of its tribes have led Egypt astray. And Yhwh has mingled in it the spirit of perversion, so that they make Egypt stagger in all it is about to do, as the drunken staggers in his vomit. And there will be no work that Egypt can do, either the head or the tail, the shoot or the stalk.

172 Most commentators consider ‫ ים‬to refer to the ‘Nile’. This opinion is based on the parallelism between ‫ ים‬and ‫( נהר‬cf. Isa. 11:15). However, it is more likely that the prophecy enumerates all water supplies of Egypt, including its ‘sea(s)’ (the Delta lakes, the Fayyum, the Yam Suph, etc.). 173 The verbs ‫ יחרב ויבשׁ‬appear together in Job 14:11; Isa. 42:15; 44:27; Jer. 51:36; Hos. 13:15; Nah. 1:4; cf. Jer. 50:38; Zech. 11:17 (read ‫)חרב‬. 174 For this terminology, cf. Isa. 2:9, 11, 17; 5:15; 7:20; 9:13, 15, 16; etc.

the analysis of isaiah 19

245

While the preceding verses focused on Egyptians in general, vv. 11–15 comprise a fictional dialogue addressing the social and ruling elites, already alluded to in v. 10 (‫)שׁתתיה‬. Even those who claim to have deeper insight into history fail to make sense of the unfolding ‘plan’ of Yhwh. The leaders of Egypt called ‫שׂרים‬, who are probably identical with the ‫חכמי יעצי פרעה‬, ‘the wisest counsellors of the pharaoh’, appear in parallel. They characterise themselves as ‫ בן־חכמים‬and ‫בן־מלכי־‬ ‫קדם‬. The same group of leaders are also referred to as ‫ חכמים‬and ‫פנת שׁבטיה‬. According to vv. 11–13, the task of Egypt’s leaders (‫ )שׂר‬is to advise (‫ )יעץ‬the king. One of the frequent Egyptian terms for high-ranking officials is sr, phonetically close to Hebrew ‫שׂר‬.175 There is also another word, sr, that appears in Egyptian prophetic texts and that means ‘to foretell’, ‘to proclaim’, ‘to prophesy’.176 The prophet might have built his message on an Egyptian wordplay or semantic ambiguity. It would be the task of Egyptian leaders (sr) to foretell (sr) the plan of Yhwh, to foresee the situation and propose preventive measures. Although Egyptians were acquainted with the verb ‘to prophesy’ (sr) and the noun ‘prophecy’ (srw), they apparently possessed no distinctive term for ‘prophet’. Foretelling the future is connected in Egyptian texts with high-ranking functionaries such as sages or priests.177 It is this association that makes sense of ‫ בן־חכמים‬and ‫ חכמים‬in Isa. 19:11–13. In the framework of The Prophecy of Neferti, a text that has already provided some significant parallels with Isa. 19, Neferti retells how, while sitting amidst his administrative council, King Snofru gave the following task: . . . seek for me a son of yours who is wise, a brother of yours who is excellent, a friend of yours who has done a good deed, who will tell me some good words, choice formulations, which should entertain my majesty on hearing them (COS 1.45:6–8).

175 It should be noted, however, that the Egyptian sr is composed of two syllables (cf. the Egyptian personal name p¡ sr, transcribed into Akkadian as Pa-ši-ia-ra), and is reconstructed as *sayyaraw or *seyaro. I am indebted to Dr. Jaap van Dijk, for calling my attention to this issue. For Egyptian sr as ‘Fürst’, ‘Herrscher’, see WÄS 4.188. Cf. also G.P.F. van den Boorn, The Duties of the Vizier: Civil Administration in the Early New Kingdom, London 1988, 80, 209–12. 176 WÄS 4.189–90; Shupak, ‘Egyptian Prophecy’, 25. 177 Shupak, ‘Egyptian Prophecy’, 25–28.

246

chapter five

When Neferti is brought in front of the king, he is told to speak not of things that had happened, but to foretell (sr) what was about to happen (COS 1.45:15–16). Neferti is introduced as ‘a sage (rḫ-jḫt) from the east’ (COS 1.45:17),178 called earlier ‘the chief lector priest’, h̠rj ḥ b, an abbreviated form of h̠rj ḥ b ḥ rj tp, ‘chief celebrant of the ritual’. This same term later appears as ḥ rj tb and ḥ rj tm, the Egyptian cognate of Hebrew ‫חרטם‬.179 In fact, all Egyptian works associated with prophecy also belong to wisdom literature.180 Papyrus Chester Beatty IV, dating to the 19th Dynasty, mentions eight classical Egyptian sages of ancient times, three of them also connected to Egyptian prophetic-wisdom texts: Hardedef, Neferti and Khakheperre-sonb. Papyrus Chester Beatty IV links prophecy more explicitly with wisdom when it speaks of these ancients as ‘the sages (rḫ-jḫt) who foretold the future’.181 The Egyptian ‫ שׂר‬and ‫חכמים‬, who are supposed to foretell the future, are unable to do so.182 After recounting the natural disasters in Egypt, ‘the prophet’ Neferti says: ‘No one knows the result, what will happen is hidden . . .’ (COS 1.45:37).183 Khakheperre-sonb, while meditating on the land in confusion, complains similarly: ‘none is wise (enough) to recognise it, none is angry (enough) to cry out’ (COS 1.44: verso 3–4;

178 The eastern origin of Neferti is made explicit in the Egyptian text: ‘one belonging to Bastet . . . a child of the Heliopolitan nome’ (COS 1.45). 179 Shupak, ‘Egyptian Prophecy’, 25 n. 46; Muchiki, Proper Names, 245. ‫חרטם‬ appears in connection with foretelling the future. In Gen. 41:48, ‫ חרטמים‬and ‫חכמים‬ are expected to reveal the pharaoh’s dream. In contrast to Joseph, the Hebrew ‘prophet’, they cannot decipher the significance of the dream-oracle (41:24). ‫חרטמים‬ appear as opponents of the prophet Moses (cf. Exod. 7:11 with ‫חכמים‬, ‘wise men’ and ‫מכשׁפים‬, ‘magicians’; 7:22; 8:3, 14, 15; 9:11). Cf. also the Chaldaean ‫ חרטמים‬in Dan. 1:20; 2:2, 10, 27; 4:4, 6; 5:11. 180 The Eloquent Peasant (COS 1.43); The Admonitions of Ipuwer (COS 1.42); The Complaints of Khakheperre-Sonb (COS 1.44). Like Neferti, Khakheperre-sonb also appears as a Heliopolitan priest (COS 1.42: recto 1; but he is called an wʿb-priest, as also noted by Shupak, ‘Egyptian Prophecy’, 25). According to The Famine Stele (COS 1.53), on a similar occasion when the Nile failed to arrive in time for seven consecutive years, King Djoser inquired after the causes by consulting the chief lector-priest Imhotep (!). 181 Shupak, ‘Egyptian Prophecy’, 26. Cf. also The Instructions of Merikare (COS 1.35:69). For the connection between sages and prophecy, refer to Hos. 14:10 (cf. Khakheperre-sonb’s complaint in COS 1.44: verso 3–4). 182 For the rhetoric of the passage, cf. Isa. 47:12–13; Jer. 8:8; 48:14; 49:7. 183 Shupak’s translation in COS 1.45:26 suggests that an inability to foretell future is mentioned in ln. 26 of Neferti’s prophecy. However, the line ‘I cannot foretell (sr) what has not yet come’, should be rendered ‘I shall never foretell what is not to come’ (so correctly Shupak, ‘Egyptian Prophecy’, 27).

the analysis of isaiah 19

247

cf. Hos. 14:10). In Isa. 19:11,13, the sages appear as foolish (‫)אויל‬, silly (‫ יאל‬niph‘al), deceived (‫ נשׁא‬niph‘al), misleading the people. The rhetorical question addressed to Egypt’s wise men fits well into Egyptian traditions, in particular the one associating prophecy with high-ranking officials (‫ )שׂר‬and wise man (‫)חכמים‬. ‫ בן־מלכי־קדם‬makes a great deal of sense in an Egyptian context. The family background of an Egyptian sage holds the secret to his personality. The provenance of sages is usually mentioned when their literary work is being presented. ‫ קדם‬in Isa. 19:11 can be translated in three ways. (1) First, ‫ קדם‬may mean ‘ancient’. An Egyptian prose narrative which deals with prophecy, Papyrus Westcar, specifically refers to the ancient King Kheops and the magicians. Hardedef, one of the sons of pharaoh Kheops, appears in the Chester Beatty Papyrus IV as one of the eight famous ancient sages, who foretold the future (cf. ‫)בן־מלכי־קדם‬.184 Following this interpretation, v. 11 questions the boasting of Egypt’s sages who claim to derive from eloquent families of ancient heritage. (2) Second, ‫ קדם‬may also be rendered as ‘former’ (kings), the possible historical significance of which I shall explore in §5.3.3. (3) Third, ‫ קדם‬can also have a geographical connotation, referring to the eastern Delta. The advisors of Zoan present themselves as descendants of eastern kings. Neferti, the famous sage, also originated from the east, from the Heliopolitan nome, as mentioned in his ‘prophecy’.185 Zoan (‫)צען‬186 is one of the Egyptian cities frequently mentioned in the Old Testament (Num. 13:22; Ezek. 30:14). It is the city from where the exodus originated (Ps. 78:12, 43),187 and to which Israel sent messengers (Isa. 30:4). It was a relatively young city, the capital of the 19th

184 Shupak, ‘Egyptian Prophecy’, 7–8. A similar tradition appears in Assyria where the scholars of the royal court were seen as the successors of the mythical antediluvian sages, the apkallu (M.J. de Jong, Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets: A Comparative Study of the Earliest Stages of the Isaiah Tradition and the Neo-Assyrian Prophecies [VT.S, 116], Leiden 2007, 317). The relation between ‫ בן־חכמים‬and ‫בן־‬ ‫ מלכי־קדם‬is illuminated further by one of Assurbanipal’s texts, SAA 10 174:7–9: ‘Assur, in a dream, called the grandfather (Sennacherib) of the king, my lord (Assurbanipal ), a sage (apkallu). The king, lord of kings (Assurbanipal), is an offspring of a sage and Adapa (= the ancestor of all sages): you have surpassed the wisdom of the Abyss and all scholarship.’ 185 The sage’s origin is also mentioned in The Eloquent Peasant (COS 1.43 r1). 186 Greek Τάνις, Egyptian D̠ ʿnt, Assyrian Ṣāʾnu, today San el-Hagar. Cf. Num. 13:22. Zoan was formerly erroneously identified with Avaris and Pi-Ramesse. Cf. W. Wycichl, ‘Ägyptische Ortsnamen in der Bibel’, ZÄS 76 (1940), 91–93; M. Romer, ‘Tanis’, LÄ 6.194–95. 187 ‫שׂדה־צען‬, Egyptian sḫt D̠ ʿnt, the place where the sea was split (Ps. 78:13)?

248

chapter five

nome of Egypt in the Third Intermediate Period. During the reign of the kings of the 21st–22nd Dynasties, Tanis functioned as a ‘northern Thebes’. Its important temples were dedicated to the principal deities of Thebes, and priestly functionaries bore titles from Thebes. Most kings of the 21st–22nd Dynasties were crowned, built their monuments, and were buried in Zoan.188 On the Victory Stele of Piye commemorating the Kushite conquest of Egypt in the 8th century, Zoan is probably included in the dominion of Osorkon IV, who appears as the king of Bubastis (‫ ;פיבסת‬Ezek. 30:17) and Ranofer. Osorkon IV (Šilkanni šar māt Muṣri) brought tributes to Sargon in 716 bc.189 Esarhaddon (re)appointed King Petubastet II (Puṭubišti) in Ṣāʾnu sometimes after 671. The name of Petubastet II’s predecessor, Gemenef-khonsu-bak, has been recovered from building blocks on the site of Tanis.190 Due to their long experience in dealing with Asians, the leaders of eastern Zoan proved to be the pharaoh’s wisest counsellors. If there was anyone in Egypt able to advise a pharaoh threatened by Asian foes (cf. Isa. 19:4) then a leader of Zoan certainly was a suitable candidate. Noph (‫ ;נף‬Memphis),191 ‘the balance of the two lands’ (mḫ¡t-t¡wj) (i.e. Upper and Lower Egypt), as the Egyptians called it, was the most important city of the Egyptian Delta. From ancient times, it often functioned as the capital of Egypt. During the 8th–7th centuries, Memphis was the royal residence of Tefnakht, Bakenrenef, Shabaka, Shabataka, Taharka, Tanutamani, Psametik I.192 The temple of Ptah from Memphis, Ḥ wt-k¡-Ptḥ ,193 is the etymological precursor of Αἴγυπτος. Memphis is probably the seat of the unnamed pharaoh of Isa. 19:12.

188 Romer, ‘Tanis’, 6.196. According to K.A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period, London 21986, 129, Shoshenq II, Osorkon II, Takeloth II and Shoshenq III were buried in Tanis, and there are major building works by Osorkon II, Takeloth II, Shoshenq III and V. 189 Cf. Assur prism lns. 1–11 (A. Fuchs, Die Annalen des Jahres 711 v. Chr. nach Prismenfragmenten aus Ninive und Assur [SAAS, 8], Helsinki 1998). Osorkon IV’s predecessor, Shoshenq V, was probably the king to whom the rebellious Philistine Hanunu had fled. It was likely Shoshenq V or Osorkon IV who brought gifts to Tiglath-pileser III as mentioned on three fragmentary Summary Inscriptions of the Assyrian king (SI 8:20’–21’; SI 9: rev. 23–25; SI 13:1’–2’). Cf. H. Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, King of Assyria, Jerusalem 1994; Kitchen, Period, 372–74. 190 R.G. Morkot, The Black Pharaohs: Egypt’s Nubian Rulers, London 2000, 232, 274, 284–85. 191 Egyptian Mn-nfr, Assyrian Mimpi or Mempi. In Hos. 9:6, the name of the city is written as ‫מף‬. For ‫ נף‬cf. Jer. 2:16; 44:1; 46:14, 19; Ezek. 30:13, 16. 192 The seat of Necho I was Sais (cf. Assurbanipal’s Prism A ii 16–18). 193 Akkadian Ḫ ikuptaḫ (EA 84:37; 139:8), Ugaritic Ḫ kpt (KTU 1.17 v 21).

the analysis of isaiah 19

249

The term ‫ עצה‬may remind one of the sages and wisdom literature for which Egypt was famous (1 Kgs 4:30). But as noted above, in Egypt Egyptian wisdom sometimes implies a prophetic capability. Biblical ‫ יעץ‬probably refers to prediction in Num. 24:14; Isa. 45:21; Jer. 38:15. ‫ עצה‬certainly has a political undertone as well, as in 2 Kgs 18:20; 2 Sam. 15:22; 16:23. In Judg. 20:2 and 1 Sam. 14:38 ‫ פנה‬is used for the chiefs of Israel’s tribes.194 The term ‫ שׁבט‬mentioned in Isa. 19:13 is of particular interest. The Targ. Isa. understood this as a reference to the Egyptian nomes, or administrative divisions, but both ‫ פנה‬and ‫ שׁבט‬may hint at the Lybian-type structure of Egypt’s ruling society and its nomadic background. V. 14 reveals that Yhwh mingled (‫ )מסך‬the spirit of perversion and twisting in Egypt (‫ ;רוח עועים‬cf. 1 Kgs 22:19–23; Isa. 28:7; 29:9–10). ‫ מסך‬is used in connection with drinking (Prov. 9:5; Isa. 5:22), a context that fits the images of staggering and confusion in our prophecy. The verb ‫ עוה‬from which ‫ עועים‬derives means ‘to pervert’, ‘to twist’, likewise appearing in the context of wisdom (Prov. 12:8). ‫תעה‬ hiph‘il is semantically close to ‫עוה‬. The prophet reproaches the leaders for leading Egypt astray (19:13, 14). They make Egypt stagger as a drunken man (Job 12:25; Isa. 28:7), twisting its paths. A similar charge is brought against Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:9 | 2 Chron. 33:9), leaders in general (Isa. 3:12; 9:15; Jer. 50:6), or prophetic advisors (Jer. 23:13, 32; Mic. 3:5). V. 15 emphasises once again the failure of Egypt to undertake anything. ‫ מעשׂה אשׁר יעשׂה‬may be simply translated as ‘to do anything’. ‫ מעשׂה‬does not refer to specific jobs that Egypt would not be able to do, but it is probably a synonym of ‫עצה‬.195 ‫ ראשׁ‬refers to the leaders and ‫ זנב‬to those being led (Deut. 28:13, 44; Isa. 9:13). The parallelism of ‫ כפה ואגמון‬with ‫ ראשׁ וזנב‬suggests that the two expressions refer to similar things. Eventually ‫ אגמון‬may designate the ‘stalk’ as opposed to the ‘leafage’. If ‫ כפה‬has anything to

194 Note also ‫ שׁתתיה‬in Isa. 19:10 and ‫ סלע‬in Isa. 31:9. Cf. στῦλος in Gal 2:9. The assumption of A. Niccacci, ‘Isaiah xviii–xx from an Egyptological Perspective’, VT 48 (1998), 218, that ‫ פנת שׁבטיה‬alluded to the symbolic name of Memphis (Noph), mḫ¡t-t¡wj, ‘balance of the two lands’, is not convincing. 195 Cf. ‫ עשׂה‬and ‫ עצה‬in 2 Sam. 16:20; 17:6; Isa. 5:19. For ‫ מעשׂה‬in the sense of ‫עצה‬, see J. Fichtner, ‘Jahwes Plan in der Botschaft des Jesaja’, in: Idem, Gottes Weisheit: Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, Stuttgart 1965, 29.

250

chapter five

do with ‫כפף‬, ‘to bend’, ‘to bow down’, ‫ כפה‬may be a symbol for the elderly people. According to DNWSI 529, Jewish Aramaic ‫ כפי‬describes an elderly person. All this, however, is hardly more than speculation. 5.2.4 16 17

Verses 16–17

On that day Egypt will be like women, and it will shiver and tremble because of the raising of the hand of Yhwh of hosts that he raises against it. And the land of Judah will become a dizziness for Egypt. Everyone to whom one mentions it (Judah) will tremble because of the plan that Yhwh of hosts plans against it.

Vv. 16–17 have a similar structure (‫)עצת יהוה | תנופת יד־יהוה‬.196 Egypt will tremble in front of its enemies like a woman (Nah. 3:13; Jer. 50:37; 51:30). The raising of the hand of Yhwh is a familiar gesture in Isaiah, although the verbs used in this connection may differ.197 The expression ‫ אדמת יהודה‬is strange. Country names are rarely constructed with ‫אדמה‬, mainly because ‫ אדמה‬has the more specific meaning of ‘agricultural land’.198 ‫ אדמה‬alluding to Israel as a country is more frequent in the book of Ezekiel, while in other cases, suffixes attached to ‫ אדמה‬may express a similar geographical connotation.199 In this connection, ‫ אדמה‬possibly denotes the homeland as opposed to a foreign country (cf. Dan. 11:9; Jon. 4:2), which would explain the word choice in Isa. 19:17.200

196 Although the word ‫ תנופה‬appears in connection with sacrifices (Exod. 29:24; Lev. 7:30), ‫ תנופה‬is void of ritual connotations in Isa. 19:16. The object of ‫ נוף‬is not an offering, but the hand of Yhwh (cf. 2 Kgs 5:11; Job 31:21; Isa. 10:32; 11:14; 13:2; Zech. 2:13). ‫ תנופה‬does not mean ‘the waving of hands like with an offering’, but simply ‘waving’ or ‘lifting up’ (see Auvray, 191, in contrast to Fohrer, 1.229; Wildberger, 732; Deissler, ‘Gottesbund’, 14). 197 See especially ‫ נטה‬in 5:25; 9:11, 16, 20; 10:4; 14:26, 27; 23:11. For the parallel sense of ‫ נטה‬and ‫נוף‬, cf. Isa. 11:15 and Exod. 14:16, 21, 26, 27, or Isa. 10:32; 13:2 and Josh. 8:19; Isa. 23:11. See further §5.3.2. 198 Cf. ‫ אדמת מצרים‬in Gen. 47:20. See H.H. Schmid, ‫אדמה‬, THAT 1.58. 199 Cf. Deut. 29:28; 2 Kgs 17:23; 25:21; 2 Chron. 7:20; Ps. 137:4; Isa. 14:1, 2; Jer. 12:14; 16:15; 23:8; 27:10, 11; 52:27; Ezek. 34:13, 27; 36:17, 24; 37:14, 21; 39:26, 28; Amos 7:11, 17; 9:15; Jon. 4:2; Zech. 2:16; 9:16. The most frequent idea is the exile of Israel from its homeland (‫)מעל אדמתו‬, in which the metaphor of uprooting recalls the agricultural connotations of ‫אדמה‬. 200 The distinction between homeland and foreign country is common in the Ancient Near East. Cf. G. Steiner, ‘Der Gegensatz “eigenes Land”, “Ausland, Fremdland, Feindland” in den Vorstellungen des Alten Orients’, in: H.J. Nissen, J. Renger (eds), Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn: Politische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehun-

the analysis of isaiah 19

251

The disputed question of these verses concerns the exact nature of the threat being indicated. The formulation of Isa. 19:17 does not seem to presuppose a political or military threat caused by Judah itself. Egypt will be afraid when hearing about Judah because it reminds one of the plan of Yhwh against Egypt (‫)עליו‬. From the point of view of an Egyptian foreigner, Judah is associated with Yhwh, the God of this land.201 5.2.5 Verse 18 18

On that day there will be five cities in the land of Egypt speaking the language of Canaan and swearing to Yhwh of hosts. City of destruction will be called each one of them.

Isa. 19:18 is generally regarded to be a salvation oracle on Egypt. As mentioned in note 18 c-c above, it is for this reason that most scholars uphold the reading ‫ עיר החרס‬instead of ‫עיר ההרס‬. As far as this translation has become questionable from textual and semantic points of view (cf. notes 18 c-c and d-d), it remains to be clarified how ‫עיר ההרס‬, ‘city of destruction’ fits its context. Is v. 18 a salvation prophecy? If Isa. 19:18 is regarded (as it often is) as an independent addition to 19:1–17 and 19:19–25 (cf. §5.3.1), then this latter can hardly determine the primary sense of v. 18. Isa. 19:18 mentions five Egyptian cities which speak Canaanite and swear to Yhwh of hosts. Is five a real or a symbolic number? Some commentators have argued for the literal sense of the ‘five cities’. So Hitzig, and following him Fohrer, believe that Jer. 43:13 and 44:1 provide the key for Isa. 19:18. Jer. 44:1 mentions four locations with Jewish (i.e. Canaanite-speaking) inhabitants, namely Migdol, Tahpanhes, Memphis and the land of Pathros. Jer. 43:13 adds ‫ בית שׁמשׁ‬to this list as one of the places in Egypt destined for destruction, which Hitzig, Fohrer and other authors understood as a reference to Heliopolis.202 However, Jer. 43:13 is a prediction, while Jer. 44:1 describes historical

gen im Alten Vorderasien vom 4. bis 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (BBVO, 1/2), Berlin 1982, 633–64. 201 Note the Victory Stele of Piye: ‘It is your valor that gives strength of arm; one is frightened when your name is called to mind’ (FHN 1.9:15). 202 Fohrer, 1.230. Pesikta De-Rab Kahana 7:5 and Pesikta Rabbati 17:4 identified the five cities as No (Alexandria!), Nof (Memphis), Tachpanes (Chupianas), (‫)עיר החרס‬ ‫ עיר ההרס‬and ‫ׁעיר שׁמשׁ‬.

252

chapter five

events. There is some question whether Isa. 19:18 can be related to these texts. Note that while Jer. 44:1 mentions places in connection with Jewish residents, Jer. 43 has little to do with Jews, as its vision concerns the destruction of Egyptians. Furthermore, ‫( בית שׁמשׁ‬Jer. 43:13) does not refer to Heliopolis, but to the temple of the Egyptian sun-god.203 Moreover, Jer. 44:1 mentions only three cities, since ‫ארץ פתרוס‬, Upper Egypt, is not a city.204 Finally, the Egyptian diaspora was much larger than suggested by Jer. 44:1.205 Whether or not ‘five’ is a real number in Isa. 19:18, it is unlikely that this verse has anything to do with Jer. 43:13 and 44:1. In Kissane’s opinion Isa. 19:18 alludes to Josh. 10 and the first five cities conquered in Canaan. This conquest was the beginning of a total occupation of Canaan. Here the ‘spiritual conquest’ of Egypt also begins with five cities. One of the five cities conquered by Joshua was Jerusalem, the city of righteousness (Isa. 1:26). Kissane assumed this explains ‫( עיר הצדק‬which he accepts as the correct reading for ‫)עיר ההרס‬.206 No doubt, the history of Israel plays a significant role in Isa. 19:16–25, yet the analogy between Josh. 10 and Isa. 19:18 remains doubtful. The more so since Josh. 10 is actually not the beginning of the conquest of Canaan, as the fall of three other Canaanite cities, Jericho, Ai and Gibeon mark the beginning of the Israelite conquest. V. 18 does not provide any explanation why only five cities would speak the Canaanite language. While five can be used in a literal sense, it can also acquire symbolic significance. For instance, five can represent a whole,207 it may symbolise a handful instead of a large number,208

203 Cf. the Vulg.; Aq.; Sym. ‫‘( מצבות בית־שׁמשׁ‬the pillars of the house of the Sun’) is paired in MT with ‫בתי אלהי־מצרים‬, just as ‫ שׁבר‬is paralleled by ‫באש ׁ ישׂרף‬. For ‫מצבות בית־שׁמשׁ‬, cf. also ‫ מצבות בית־הבעל‬in 2 Kgs 16:20–21. 204 The possibility that ‫ ארץ פתרוס‬specifically alludes to the military colony at Elephantine is questionable, given the fact that there were more Jewish settlements in Upper Egypt than Elephantine. 205 V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, Peabody, MA 1999 (repr. from 1959), 284–86. 206 Kissane, 218–19. Cf. Feuillet, ‘Sommet’, 264–66; N.K. Gottwald, ‘All the Kingdoms of the Earth’: Israelite Prophecy and International Relations in the Ancient Near East, New York 1964, 226; Vogels, ‘Égypte’, 503; S. Erlandsson, The Burden of Babylon: A Study of Isaiah 13:2–14:23 (CBOT, 4), Lund 1970, 78; Sawyer, ‘Blessed’, 59–60; Berges, 167–68; Wodecki, ‘Heights’, 188–89. 207 Joseph chooses five of his eleven brothers to appear before the pharaoh on behalf of his family (Gen. 47:2). 208 A handful (five people) can chase a hundred (Lev. 26:8). See also Judg. 18:2, 7, 14, 17; 2 Kgs 1:9.

the analysis of isaiah 19

253

or the idea of totality can be expressed by this number.209 Accordingly, the five cities of Isa. 19:18 may represent the many thousands of Egyptian settlements, i.e. the entire land of Egypt, which according to the following verses will share the same experience.210 A different possibility is to take into account the contrast between a large and a small number, as in Lev. 26:8 or Isa. 17:4–6. From the hundreds of Egyptian cities and thousands of villages, only five towns (a few) will be left after execution of the previously described judgment (cf. 2 Kgs 13:7). When Ezek. 29 pronounces judgment over the Egyptians, it proclaims that Egypt’s cities will be destroyed, its inhabitants scattered among the nations (Ezek. 29:12). When they will gather again after forty years (note again the numeric symbolism), they will form ‘a small kingdom’, ‫( ממלכה שׁפלה‬Ezek. 29:14). As a consequence, the number ‘five’ may be understood symbolically, in addition to its literal sense. Notably, the number five appears frequently in the Egypt-related Joseph-narratives (Gen. 41:34; 43:34; 45:22; 47:2, 24, 26) and it may have been deliberately chosen in these passages.211 How and why will these Egyptian cities speak Canaanite? Under the influence of Jer. 43–44, it is often believed that Isa. 19:18 refers to Canaanite-speaking Jews of Egypt rather than to native Egyptians.212 Yet, beyond the problems noted above with respect to connecting these texts with each other, the religion of the immigrants of Jer. 44 could have hardly served as a model for Isa. 19:18 (cf. Jer. 44:15–30).213 Isa. 19:18 was clearly written as an extension to the previous prophecy, 19:1–17, which is concerned with Egyptians, rather than Jews. I doubt therefore that ‫ מצרים‬would have a different meaning in v. 18.214 209

Num. 31:8; Josh. 10:5; 13:3; Judg. 3:3; 1 Sam. 6:16. For exaggerated numbers of Egyptian cities, note Herodotus, Hist. ii 177; Diodorus i 31; Theocritus xvii 82–84. 211 Note the five titles of the Egyptian pharaoh (cf. U. Kaplony, ‘Königstitulatur’, LÄ 3.641–61). The reign of the ideal king will last 55 years in the Potter’s Oracle P2 39–40; P3 63–64 (Koenen, ‘Die Apologie des Töpfers an König Amenophis oder das Töpferorakel’, AÄ, 146–47, n. 51, 52, 63, 82). Esarhaddon mentions that he wounded the Kushite king five times with his arrow (IAKA §57:9; §65:40). 212 Cf. Duhm, 144–45; Marti, 156; Gray, 337; Von Orelli, 79; Procksch, 252; Fohrer, 1.230; Kaiser, 86; Schoors, 121; Clements, 171; Sawyer, ‘Blessed’, 60; Höffken, 158; Blenkinsopp, 318. 213 Motyer, 168. 214 Cf. also Penna, 188; Vogels, ‘Égypte’, 496; W. Groß, ‘Israel und die Völker: Die Krise der YHWH-Volk-Konzepts im Jesajabuch’, in: E. Zenger (ed.), Der Neue Bund im Alten: Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente (QD 146), Herder, 1993, 210

254

chapter five

The fact that Egyptians (not Judeans in Egypt) will turn to Yhwh also seems evident in the closing verses (compare them in LXX and the Targ.). The name ‘Canaan’ is used variously in the Bible, a full discussion of which is neither possible nor necessary at this time. The geographical Canaan could include the whole region of the Mediterranean coast (Philistia, Phoenicia), but it can also refer to the territories of Judah and Israel on the left side of the Jordan. In view of ‫ אדמת יהודה‬in 19:17, it is probable that the language of Canaan is to be identified here with the language of Judah. Although this name for Hebrew is unique,215 it may be explained in relation to the Egyptian element in this prophecy: this is how Egyptians referred to the language spoken by Judeans.216 The ‘language of Canaan’ is not Aramaic, which was the common language in the Near East and not specific to ‘Canaan’. This verse which is usually understood as a salvation prophecy concerning Egypt reveals how problematic this categorisation can be. In antiquity language is one of the important elements by which ethnicity and foreignness are defined (Gen. 10:5, 20, 31).217 According to Herodotus, the Egyptians (as many other nations, indeed) called everyone speaking a foreign language ‘barbarian’.218 Therefore, it is important to pay particular attention to Isa. 19:18 noting that Egypt (from its point of view) will speak a ‘barbaric’ language. There is nothing in Isa.

159 n. 14; J. Krašovec, ‘Healing of Egypt Through Judgment and the Creation of a Universal Chosen People (Isaiah 19:16–25)’, in: I. Shirun-Grumach (ed.), Jerusalem Studies in Egyptology (ÄAT, 40), Wiesbaden 1998, 299. 215 For ‫יהודית‬, cf. 2 Kgs 18:26 (2 Chron. 32:18); Neh. 13:24; Est. 8:9. 216 Cf. Marti, 156. On the Israel stele of Merneptah, Canaan is mentioned with Lidya (Anatolia), Hatti (North-Syria), Ashkelon, Gezer, Yenoam (south of the Galilean Sea), Hurru (Syria) (cf. COS 2.6). p¡ knʿnʿ designates the territory of the later land of Judah (cf. J.K. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition, Oxford 1996, 27–29). The name ‫ כנען‬used in Isa. 19:18 from the viewpoint of a foreign nation can be compared to ‫ עברי‬as an ethnic identifier in Exod. 3:18; 5:3; 7:16; 9:1, 13; 10:3. 217 For language as ethnic identifier in Assyria, see C. Zaccagnini, ‘The Enemy in the Neo-Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: The ‘Ethnographic’ Description’, in: H.J. Nissen, J. Renger (eds), Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn: Politische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im Alten Vorderasien vom 4. bis 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (BBVO, 1/2), Berlin 1982, 414–15. 218 Hist. ii 158. For The Story of Sinuhe as an example of how ethnicity and language played a role in Egyptian life, see K.L. Sparks, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel: Prolegomena to the Study of Ethnic Sentiments and Their Expression in the Hebrew Bible, Winona Lake, IN 1998, 78–79; cf. also W. Weinberg, ‘Language Consciousness in the Old Testament’, ZAW 92 (1980), 185–204.

the analysis of isaiah 19

255

19:18 which would suggest that Egypt opts for Canaanite language on its own free will. This is rather a language imposed on the Egyptians by an overlord. This verse reminds one of similar threats uttered to Israel if they disobey Yhwh. In such event, they will have to listen to (and speak) a language they do not understand, namely that of an occupying force whose vassal the nation will become.219 The adoption of the Canaanite language should therefore be seen as a political necessity after Yhwh, the Canaanite-speaking overlord, has conquered and subdued the country (cf. 19:1). That is, in contrast to how this passage is usually interpreted, I believe that from Egypt’s point of view the adoption of the foreign Canaanite language by Egyptians has negative rather than positive connotations. It is not a development that Egypt itself has long been looking for. This conquest of Egypt is presented as an analogy to the conquest of Canaan by Israel (cf. §5.3.2). The ‘language of Canaan’ may have even evoked this past. The political overtone mentioned above becomes particularly emphatic when oaths are sworn to Yhwh in Canaanite. Although some scholars pay little attention to this phenomenon,220 two different prepositions can be used in connection with ‫ שׁבע‬niph‘al, with different connotations. ‫ נשׁבע ב‬means that the oath is made by (the life of ) a particular person or concept.221 The preposition ‫ ל‬indicates the person to whom the oath is addressed.222 Again, this aspect of Isa. 19:18 is also understood as part of a salvation oracle, in which the swearing of oaths implies that the Egyptians are ‘converted’ to Yhwh. However, it is not until 19:20b–21 that the text begins to describe the favour that Yhwh grants to Egypt by making himself known to them.223 The self-revelation of Yhwh is essential to religion (cf. Exod. 3 and 6), so that one may speak of Egypt’s adoption of the cult of Yhwh only after he has made himself known to Egypt (19:21). If one can speak of a turning point in Isa. 19:16–25, it comes no earlier than v. 20b, with Yhwh’s change of attitude concerning Egypt. For the moment, swearing to Yhwh only means that Egypt has become subdued as his vassal,

219

Cf. Deut. 28:49; Jer. 5:15; Pss 81:6; 114:1; Isa. 28:11; 33:19. E.g., Deissler, ‘Gottesbund’, 15; Berges, 168. 221 E.g., ‫נשׁבע באלהים‬, ‘he swore by (the life of ) God’, i.e. uttered ‫( חי יהוה‬Jer. 12:16; cf. Gen. 21:23; 31:53; Lev. 19:12; Deut. 6:13; Isa. 45:23; 62:8). 222 E.g., ‫נשׁבע לי‬, ‘he swore to me’, etc. (e.g., Gen. 21:23; 24:7, 9; 25:33; 26:3; Deut. 9:5; Josh. 9:19; Judg. 15:12; for an oath between God and men as in Isa. 19:18, cf. 2 Chron. 15:14; Ps. 132:2; Zeph. 1:5). 223 Cf. Schenker’s view of v. 21 as ‘Achse und Wendepunkt’ (‘Jesaja 19’, 6). 220

256

chapter five

swearing allegiance to him in the same way that a nation occupied by the Assyrians or Babylonians would swear allegiance to the foreign overlord (Ezek. 16:59; 17:13, 16, 18, 19).224 Therefore the message of v. 18 actually continues vv. 16–17 in which Yhwh appears as a fearful lord to the Egyptians. Yhwh’s takeover of Egypt in v. 18 appears thus far without substantial positive effects. Obviously, this reading of the prophecy implies that the ‫ביום ההוא‬-extensions are added sequentialy and reveal the consecutive development of events, an issue to be discussed below in more details (§5.3.1). It is therefore most likely that ‫ עיר ההרס‬still reflects the situation in which the previous prophecy of judgment reached its fulfilment. ‫עיר ההרס‬, ‘city of ruins’ makes it clear that the threat of vv. 16–17 has actually become a reality. Isa. 19:16–17 reads like a prelude to a coming destruction, but ‫ עיר ההרס‬makes the reader aware of the fulfilment of the prediction. In Assyrian accounts of conquest, cities overrun by Assyrian kings are often compared to ruined hills. One example concerns the following text in which Shalmaneser III describes a campaign against the countries on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea: I captured the great cities of the Patinean. I overwhelmed the cities on the shore of the Upper Sea of the land of Amurru, also called the Western Sea, so that they looked like ruin hills (created by) the deluge (til abūbe). I received tribute from the kings on the seashore. I marched about by right of victory in the extensive area of the seashore. I made an image of my lordship [. . .] (RIMA A.0.102.1 73’–77’).225

The idea that Egypt will submit itself to Yhwh standing on the ruins of its cities is not unique. A notable example appears in Isa. 25:2–3: ‘For you have made the city a heap, / the fortified city a ruin; the palace of aliens is a city no more, / it will never be rebuilt; therefore strong peoples will glorify thee, / the city (sg!) of ruthless nations will fear thee.’ The destruction of the city of the ruthless nation will lead its inhabitants to praise Yhwh while dwelling amidst its ruins. Likewise, after Yhwh punishes Egypt, the survivors will subject themselves to Yhwh. 224 Even though the term ‫ נשׁבע ל‬is not mentioned explicitly in these texts (cf., however, ‫ ויבא אתו באלה‬in Ezek. 17:13), the act of taking an oath was part of covenant (‫ )ברית‬ceremonies in general to which these texts refer. See in this respect Gen. 21:23; 31:53; Josh. 9:15, 18, 19, 20, and §5.3.3 below. 225 Cf. P. Machinist, ‘Assyria and Its Image in First Isaiah’, JAOS 103 (1983), 725–26.

the analysis of isaiah 19

257

The renaming of Egyptian cities reminds one of an Assyrian policy documented in various inscriptions. When a city was conquered, the king occasionally changed its former name into an Assyrian name. Shalmaneser III renames Til-Barsip to Kar-Shalmaneser, Napiggu to LitaAssur, Alligu to Asbat-la-kunu and Rugullitu to Qibit-Assur (RIMA A.0.102.2 ii 34–35). Likewise, Sennacherib renamed the conquered city of Elenzash as Kar-Sennacherib (Rassam Cylinder ii 25–26). One of Assurbanipal’s texts maintains that, after conquering Egypt, Esarhaddon gave Assyrian names to Egyptian cities.226 This practice underlines again that Isa. 19:18 presents Egypt as an overpowered vassal kingdom now under the royal jurisdiction of Yhwh (cf. §5.3.3). To conclude, Isa. 19:18 cannot be considered a salvation prophecy. The five cities of Egypt will be destroyed and its inhabitants will have to submit themselves to Yhwh, their new overlord, whose language they will have to learn and to whom they will swear allegiance. 5.2.6 19 20 21 22

Verses 19–22

On that day there will be an altar of Yhwh in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a stele of Yhwh beside its border. And this will be asign and a witness of Yhwh of hosts in the land of Egypt. For they will cry to Yhwh before their oppressors, and he will send them a saviour and he will strive and save them. And Yhwh will make himself known to Egypt, and the Egyptians will recognise Yhwh on that day. And they will prepare sacrifice and food offering, and they will make vows to Yhwh and they will fulfil them. And Yhwh will smite the Egyptians, but heal (them), and they will turn to Yhwh and he will respond their plea, and heal them.

In this ‫ביום ההוא‬-section a shift takes place from the judgment to the salvation of Egypt. On the debris of Egypt’s cities a new altar emerges, one built for Yhwh (‫)מזבח ליהוה‬. While some scholars believe that this altar was not supposed to be a place of offering but function only

226 Cf. B. Pongratz-Leisten, ‘Toponyme als Ausdruck assyrischen Herrschaftsanspruchs’, in: B. Pongratz-Leisten et al. (eds), Ana sadî Labnâni lû allik: Beiträge zu altorientalischen und mittelmeerischen Kulturen (Festschrift für W. Röllig) (AOAT, 247), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1997, 325–43; I. Eph’al, ‘Esarhaddon, Egypt, and Shubria: Politics and Propaganda’, JCS 57 (2005), 109–10.

258

chapter five

as a symbol similar to the altar built near the Jordan in Josh. 22:10, 25,227 sacrifices are explicitly mentioned in v. 21.228 However, in a context echoing motifs common in Assyrian royal inscriptions (cf. v. 18 above), a foreign altar should probably be understood as a sign of submission (cf. 2 Kgs 16:10–14): the altar of Yhwh in Egypt was the symbol of Egypt’s submission to Yhwh after Egypt became Yhwh’s territory. The altar gifts represent the tributes brought to the vassal overlord. When Esarhaddon conquered Egypt and established the rule of the god Assur there, Assyrian authority was symbolised in various ways. He installed new heads of the nomes and cities and changed the names of several cities. One of its inscriptions (IAKA §65:48–53) states that I established regular offerings (sattukku) and cultic offerings (ginû) for Assur and the great gods, my lords, forever. I imposed upon them tribute and obligation of my lordship, every year continually. I let a stele (narû) be made with my name, and the praise of the heroism of my lord, Assur, my mighty deeds (that I accomplished when I was) walking in reliance upon Assur, my lord, and the victorious achievements of my hands I let be written on it. I let (it) be erected to the wonderment of all the enemies forever after.

This is close to what we read in Isa. 19, where Yhwh takes on the role of god Assur from the Assyrian texts, to whom offerings are made. ‫ מצבה‬can have a cultic function in the Bible (cf. Exod. 23:24; Lev. 26:1), but ‫ מצבה‬does not mean a ‘cultic pillar’; the cultic connotation is not inherent to the word itself.229 ‫ מצבה‬may also refer to a memorial stone marking a grave (Gen. 35:20) or reminding onlookers of a person or an event (2 Sam. 18:18; cf. 1 Sam. 15:2). The story of Gen. 31:43–54 is particularly interesting for Isa. 19:19. This text recounts the making of a covenant between Laban and Jacob. The ‫ מצבה‬and a heap (‫ )גל‬of stones set up at the border between the territories of Laban and Jacob are the visible evidence of and witness (‫ )עד‬to a treaty restating certain regulations agreed by Jacob and Laban (Gen. 31:51–52).230 It is most likely that the function of the ‫ מצבה‬in Isa. 19:19 is similar to such a commemorative treaty-stele. It has cultic dimensions insofar

227

Cheyne, 121; Procksch, 252. Feuillet, ‘Sommet’, 267; Penna, 190; Young, 2.37; Groß, ‘Israel’, 153. 229 See Dillmann, 178; König, 204; Penna, 190; Schoors, 123, over against Duhm, 145; Wildberger, 740; Krašovec, ‘Healing’, 299. 230 In Josh. 22, the altar built to affirm the religious connections of the Transjordanian tribes is placed on the border between the tribes on the two sides of the Jordan. 228

the analysis of isaiah 19

259

as it is a stele of Yhwh, but not because it is venerated as a cultic object. The Assyrian text of Esarhaddon cited above in connection with the establishment of an altar as a symbol of foreign rule also explains the function of the stele of Yhwh (‫ )מצבה ליהוה‬set up beside Egypt’s border. The altar built for the god Assur in Egypt is supplemented by a stele (narû) with Esarhaddon’s name written on it. When Assyrian kings conquered foreign territories and subdued a nation, they set up steles (narû or ṣalmu) commemorating campaigns and fixing covenantal regulations. These steles often appear in the border zones demarcating the expansion of the Assyrian empire. The stele is called ṣalmu, ‘image’, ‘statue’ (e.g., the stele marking the northern border in the land of Nairi beside the sea in RIMA A.0.102.1:35), ṣalam šarrūtīya (‘my royal image’ in Aramaean territory RIMA A.0.102.1:63’; A.0.102.2 i 49), or ṣalam bēlūtīya (‘my lordly image’ along the Mediterranean sea (RIMA A.0.102.1:76’). The kings Tiglathpileser III (SI 8:16–17) and Esarhaddon are known to have set up steles on the border of Philistia with Egypt. Similar steles appear not only on the borders of the empire, but sometimes inside the conquered region or even in the temple of the occupied nation (RIMA A.0.102.2 ii 62–63; RIMA A.0.102.16:285’). According to RIMA A.0.102.10 iv 22–34, Shalmaneser III erected two steles in the land of Que, indicating that both the nearest and furthest cities of the land were Assyrian property. As for the content of the text on the stele, Shalmaneser III writes: ‘I made manifest the heroism of Assur and the god Shamash for posterity, by creating a colossal royal statue of myself (and) writing thereupon my heroic deeds and victorious actions.’ (RIMA A.0.102.2 i 49–50; cf. IAKA §65:50–53 for Esarhaddon and Sennacherib’s Rassam Cylinder ii 4–5). Elsewhere the stele establishes fame for eternity (RIMA A.0.102.2 ii 8) or praises Assur (RIMA A.0.102.2 ii 44).231

To conclude, in Isa. 19:19 ‫ מצבה‬is a commemorative treaty-stele with a role similar to the Assyrian kings’ ṣalmu or narû. Above I suggested that v. 18 describes a campaign against Egypt in the course of which the Nile land is subdued to the status of a vassal kingdom. The oath of 231 For secondary literature, see I. Winter, ‘Art in Empire: The Royal Image and the Visual Dimensions of Assyrian Ideology’, in: S. Parpola, R.M. Whiting (eds), Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project Helsinki, September 7–11, 1995, Helsinki 1997, 359–81; S. Parpola, ‘Assyria’s Expansion in the 8th and 7th Centuries and Its Long-Term Repercussions in the West’, in: W.G. Dever, S. Gitin (eds), Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors, from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina, Winona Lake, IN 2003, 100–1.

260

chapter five

Egypt in v. 18 is like the oath of a vassal uttered towards his overlord. The altar and the stele are built for the conqueror Yhwh. After Yhwh defeated Egypt and the country had become his vassal, the ‫מצבה‬, ‘the stele’, identifies the new territory as his kingdom. As I shall discuss in §5.3.3, the treaty-stele of Yhwh may implicitly hint at a stele of Assur erected in Egypt by one of the Assyrian kings, possibly also celebrated with offerings and festal meals as described in Gen. 31.232 In Isa. 19:19, ‫ מצבה‬is mentioned together with the altar of Yhwh. ‘Near the borders’ (‫ )אצל־גבולה‬and ‘amidst (‫ )בתוך‬the land’ could refer to different places. However, ‫ בתוך‬may also have a similar connotation to ‫ בקרב‬and ‫ב‬,233 so that ‫ אצל־גבולה‬and ‫ בתוך‬can also designate the same place close to the border of Egypt. Explicit reference to the border zone also reflects Assyrian terminology. The scribes of Assurbanipal mention that after the conquest of Lower Egypt, Esarhaddon counted the subjugated land as the new border of his country ([ana] miṣir mātīšu).234 ‫ ליהוה‬in v. 20 can be interpreted in two different ways. (a) The altar and the stone is a sign ‘to/for Yhwh’ prepared by (?) the Egyptians. (b) These objects can be signs ‘concerning Yhwh’, i.e. a testimony to Egyptians and others.235 It is more likely that the stele and the altar are signs and markers aimed at the Egyptians and others indicating the extent of Yhwh’s power in a manner that closely parallels Esarhaddon’s narâ šiṭir šumīya, ‘a stele with my name written on it’ (IAKA §65:50). Isa. 19:20b is the point where the text describing judgment on Egypt turns into a prophecy of salvation. From this moment on, Egypt will experience the protective benefits of being a vassal of Yhwh. From

232 H. Spieckermann, Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit (FRLANT, 129), Göttingen 1982, 331–44, enumerates several examples of treaty ceremonies celebrated by Assyria and its vassals in which there were festal meals and offers brought to the Assyrian gods as a sign of submission. 233 Cf. Van Hoonacker, ‘Deux passages’, 302. Van Hoonacker’s view that the altar and the stele refer to the same object is, however, unconvincing. 234 Prism A i 60–62; Prism B i 61–62; Prism C i 13–15; cf. Isa. 10:13. It is not likely that Isa. 19:20 would allude to the temple of the Jewish colony of Elephantine, as suggested by B. Porten, ‘Settlement of Jews at Elephantine and the Arameans at Syene’, in: O. Lipschits, M. Oeming (eds), Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, Winona Lake, IN 2006, 461. 235 For a discussion, cf. Monsengwo-Pasinya, ‘Isaïe XIX 16–25’, 194–95. See Gen. 9:13; Josh. 24:27. See also Isa. 8:2 and 55:4.

the analysis of isaiah 19

261

among its ruined cities, Egypt will request the help of Yhwh, its new overlord.236 The conjunction ‫ כי‬in v. 20b is not temporal,237 but explicative, illuminating how the stele will function as a witness. Reminding the reader of Egypt’s oppression, (19:1–15), Yhwh shall heed the cry (‫ )צעק‬of its vassals suffering oppression (‫)לחץ‬, and he will send them a saviour.238 God will plead their cause and he will save them. The language adopted here alludes to narratives from Israel’s early history (§5.3.2).239 Yhwh will fulfil the commitments of a vassal’s overlord in lending support to Egypt. The coming ‫ מושׁיע‬will bring salvation from the oppressor of Isa. 19:4. The emergence of a saviour in time of need is an extensively wide-spread theme in Near Eastern literature but is also evidenced throughout the Bible (cf. §5.3.2). ‫ ריב‬means ‘to quarrel’, ‘to dispute’; ‘to strive’, ‘to fight’ (but not ‘to wage war’). Among its many occurrences in Hebrew, ‫ ריב‬is related to conflicts between nations only in a few texts: Judg. 11:25 (cf. Ps. 35:1); 12:2, and perhaps 1 Sam. 15:5. In these cases, ‫ ריב‬designates the dispute (negotiation) preceding a battle. This is most clear in Judg. 11:25 and 12:2, where ‫ ריב‬is used in connection with a debate concerning the ownership of Ammonite territories (Judg. 11:13). In 1 Sam. 15:5, ‫ ריב‬marks the dispute taking place between Saul’s army and the Amalekites preceding the military conflict described in the following verses. It is probably this sense of ‫ ריב‬which is used in Isa. 19:20. In this case, Yhwh is the one leading the dispute (cf. 1 Sam. 24:16; Ps. 18:44; Isa. 63:1). Egypt’s cry for help was motivated by fear, in response to which Yhwh will reveal himself to Egypt, who will get to know him. The relatively rare form of the niph‘al of ‫ ידע‬is being used in connection with a foreign nation.240 Most often, nations recognise Yhwh only as

236

Philistia was delivered from a plague in a similar way (1 Sam. 5–6). Despite the arguments of Gray, 340; Wildberger, 727; Van der Kooij, ‘OldGreek’, 139. 238 The human character of the deliverer (‫ )מושׁיע‬is emphasised in LXX as ἄνθρωπον ὃς σώσει αὐτούς. σωτήρ is probably avoided because this was only used in connection with God in Isaiah (Van der Kooij, ‘Old-Greek’, 141). 239 The suggestion that 19:19–20 concerns Jews in Egypt oppressed by Egyptians and ultimately delivered from them is unconvincing. There is no reference to Jews in these verses, and their presence is only indirectly inferred as part of an explanation for the Canaanite language and the five cities of v. 18. 240 Cf. Exod. 6:3; 1 Kgs 18:36; Ps. 76:2; Ezek. 20:5, 9; 35:11; 38:23. 237

262

chapter five

their judge,241 but Egypt will, in this case, get to know Yhwh as a deliverer (contrast Exod. 5:2). Yhwh will reveal himself to Egypt as he has previously done only to his own people.242 The parallel experience of Egypt and Israel is particularly interesting. Egypt’s history bears all the hallmarks of the history of God’s people. The way is paved here to becoming an ‫( עם יהוה‬cf. v. 25). The recognition of Yhwh as God by the Egyptians in v. 21 results in preparing offerings (‫ )עבדו זבח ומנחה‬and fulfilling vows (‫נדרו־נדר‬ ‫)ושׁלמו‬. This activity resembles the reaction of Jonah’s travel companions after recognising the power of Yhwh and being delivered from the sea (Jon. 1:16). The vows indicate that Egypt not only expresses its thankfulness to Yhwh for its deliverance, but commits itself to him in the future.243 The precise role of Isa. 19:22 is disputed. This verse mentions the smiting and healing of Egypt, its turning to God, who listens to its prayers. What is meant by ‘smiting the Egyptians and healing them’? Undergoing a process of punishment in the form of being smitten by Yhwh and healing in the form of restoration to well-being is a prominent theme in prophetic books as well as in the exodus narratives.244 The disobedient Judah is often told to be sick. According to Isa. 6:10, seeing, hearing, turning to Yhwh (‫)שׁוב‬, and grasping the prophetic word would bring healing (‫ )רפא‬to God’s people.245 ‫ נגף‬may refer to some kind of plague as a form of punishment (1 Sam. 25:38; 2 Chron. 13:20), to illness (2 Sam. 12:15; 2 Chron. 21:18), but it can signify military defeat as well. This last option makes the most sense in Isa. 19:22.246 A significant number of scholars understand the events of 19:22 as temporally following those previously described. Yhwh will smite

241

Ezek. 28:22; 30:8; 32:15; 33:29; 39:6; see also Exod. 7:5; 14:4, 18. 1 Kgs 20:13, 28; 2 Chron. 33:13; Isa. 45:3; 49:23; 60:16; Ezek. 16:62; 20:42, 44. Cf. also Monsengwo-Pasinya, ‘Isaië xix 16–25’, 198; Goldingay, 120. 243 H. Tita, Gelübde als Bekenntnis: Eine Studie zu den Gelübden im Alten Testament (OBO, 181), Freiburg 2001, 204. For ‫ נדר‬in the Latter Prophets, cf. Jon. 1:16; Jer. 44:25; Nah. 2:1; Mal. 1:14. 244 Cf. Jer. 3:22; 30:17; 51:8–9; Hos. 5:13; 6:1; 7:1; 11:3:14:4. See Z. Kustár, ‘Durch seine Wunden sind wir geheilt’: Eine Untersuchung zur Metaphorik von Israels Krankheit und Heilung im Jesajabuch (BWANT, 154), Stuttgart 2002. 245 See Deut. 32:39; 1 Kgs 8:33–34; Isa. 9:12; 30:26; 57:17–19; Jer. 30:17; 33:6; Lam. 2:13; Hos. 5:13; 7:1; 11:3; 14:5; cf. also Jer. 3:22; Hos. 6:1. 246 Deut. 1:42; Judg. 20:35; 1 Sam. 4:3; 2 Chron. 13:15; 14:11; Ps. 89:24. For ‫ רפא‬in the sense of restoration, cf. Jer. 30:17; 33:6; 51:8–9; Hos. 5:13; 6:1; 7:1. 242

the analysis of isaiah 19

263

Egypt ‘to correct faults committed after its conversion to the true religion’.247 Others take it as a ‘purposeful discipline of the Lord in part of life under his care’.248 Yet a prophecy envisaging a bright future for Egypt leaves no room for the idea that they may turn away from Yhwh again in the future.249 It makes the most sense therefore if ‫נגף‬ is taken to refer to the punishment of Yhwh that the Egyptians had to face in the past, as described above.250 The healing (‫ )רפא‬of Egypt refers to their deliverance. 5.2.7 23

Verse 23

On that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and Assyria will go to Egypt and Egypt will go to Assyria, and Egypt will serve Assyria.

On the day when Egypt is healed, there will be a highway (‫)מסלה‬251 between Egypt and Assyria (the latter is mentioned here for the first time). As a matter of fact there has always been a highway from Egypt to Assyria (Gen. 25:18). Why then is this pronouncement so remarkable? While some exegetes relate the ‫מסלה‬-motif to texts mentioning the return of Israel from the exile,252 Isa. 19:23 is not a text about the diaspora. What is common to all contexts is that ‫ מסלה‬alludes to the end of chaos, symbolised either by the desert, a place without roads (Ps. 104:4, 40; Job 12:24; Isa. 35:7–8), through which the dispersed Jews will return, or war and mutual hostility. When there is war, travelling is unsafe, the roads become empty (Judg. 5:6; Isa. 33:8). Assyria and Egypt have been opposing powers for a long time, but a

247

Wade, 131; cf. Kissane, 220–21; Höffken, 159; Wodecki, ‘Heights’, 184. Motyer, 169; cf. Z. Kustár, ‘Ein Gottesvolk—oder mehrere Völker Gottes? Ein Konzept aus der ‘Peripherie’ der biblischen Eschatologie’ in: E. Noort, W. Wischmeyer, Europa, Minderheiten und die Globalisierung: Theologische Überlegungen zu der sich erweiternden Welt, Groningen 2006, 29. 249 Clements argues that punishment after conversion is inadequate ‘and seems to represent the work of an expansive editor, who felt that the Egyptians should not be let off without punishment’ (Clements, 172). The problem with his reading is that the editor should have already noted the punishment of the Egyptians mentioned in the preceding verses. 250 Cf. Gesenius, 656; Cheyne, 121. 251 D.A. Dorsey, The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel, Baltimore 1989, 228. 252 E.g., Blenkinsopp, 319. ‫ מסלה‬is indeed frequently used in this sense (Isa. 11:16 [cf. ‫ דרך‬in Isa. 51:10]; 40:3; 49:11–12; 62:10). 248

264

chapter five

peace-treaty between these powers will turn the world into a safer place. A similar motif is used on the Dream Stele of the 7th century Kushite king, Tanutamani: (And from that time on) the southerners have been sailing northwards, the northerners southwards, to the place where his Majesty is (i.e. Memphis), with every good thing of South-land and every kind of provision of North-land (. . .) (FHN 1.29:41–42)

Motyer calls attention to the fact that vv. 16–25 inverts ideas from vv. 1–15.253 Instead of chaos (vv. 1–15) the order is restored, instead of cruel kings (v. 4) a just saviour arrives, social disorder (vv. 2–3) is replaced by prosperity. The restored route between Egypt and Assyria may be considered the reversal of the chaos scene of 19:1–15. While ‫ עבדו מצרים את־אשׁור‬is most often translated as ‘Egypt and Assyria will serve Yhwh’ (see note), this widespread agreement is regrettably based on theological and literary critical premises and not sound linguistic arguments. Three crucial points make this reading highly unlikely: ‫ עבד‬is not intransitive, ‫ עבד את‬always means ‘to serve someone’ and ‫ עבד‬is not a religious term which could refer to the service of Yhwh without any further clarification. One would expect a clear formulation in order to avoid misunderstanding, especially in a context where the world power Assyria is mentioned. While the context of v. 23 is argued to cast doubt on the translation ‘Egypt will serve Assyria’, it is strange that none of the ancient versions follow the above-proposed translation (LXX; Syr.; Vulg., Targ. Isa.). After all, is the representation of a new world under ‘Assyrian’ control (cf. §5.3.3) difficult to reconcile with the promised salvation of Egypt in the previous verses? A particularly interesting text, 2 Kgs 13:4–5, contains many terms and themes familiar from Isa. 19:19–23 (cf. §5.3.2). After Jehoahaz, king of Israel, prays to Yhwh (‫ )חלה‬to deliver his country from Aramaean oppressors (‫)לחץ‬, Yhwh heeds his prayer and sends (‫)נתן‬ Israel a deliverer, a ‫( מושׁיע‬cf. Isa. 19:20). This ‫ מושׁיע‬can historically be identified as a foreign king, the Assyrian Adad-nirari III, who was the overlord of the Israelite Jehoahaz, since Jehu, the latter’s father

253

Motyer, 167.

the analysis of isaiah 19

265

had submitted to Assyrian power. Yhwh showed his favour towards Israel in a world under Assyrian supremacy, using the Assyrians as his instrument. Following the invasion of Judah in 597 by the Babylonians, Jeremiah had to put a yoke around his neck as a symbol of subordination to Babylon (Jer. 27:2). The message attached to this symbolic act was this: Yhwh, the ruler of the world, sovereignly decided to whom he gave it. He chose to hand over all the lands of Judah, Tyre, Sidon, Ammon and Moab to his ‘servant’, Nebuchadnezzar. Any nation that did not serve the Babylonian king would be wiped out, but ‘any nation that will bring its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serve him, [will be left] on its own land, to till it and dwell there’ (27:11). According to this view, subordination to the Babylonian king resulted in a prosperous if somewhat confined future. Keeping peace with the dominant power established by Yhwh and living under its rule should not necessarily be considered a proclamation of judgment. On another occasion Cyrus is called the shepherd (Isa. 44:28) and messiah of Yhwh (45:1), the man of his counsel (46:11), the one whom Yhwh loves (48:14). Although these texts are first of all ‘salvation’ oracles about King Cyrus, Israel and the other nations under his patronage are clearly also guaranteed a prosperous future life. Although elsewhere the book of Isaiah does not explicitly refer to Assyria as a liberator, it certainly views this power as an instrument through which God establishes his rule in the world (10:5–15). This view must also be the reason why the Isaianic prophecies so often discourage any rebellion against Assyria, i.e. implicitly against a world order established by Yhwh. Isa. 19:23 is different insofar as it makes explicit what is implicit in those other texts (cf. Jer. 27; Isa. 45). In other words, a prophecy which proclaims the rule of Yhwh through a foreign ‘servant of Yhwh’ should not be considered a judgment speech, at least not as long as the relationship between the dominant power and its subordinate is peaceful. As the last two verses of Isa. 19 make clear, the Assyria that Egypt will serve is no longer a harsh master (cf. 19:4) but a nation under the patronage of Yhwh. The observation that 19:23 does not reiterate certain types of eschatological visions is correct (cf. §5.3.2) but hardly legitimates emendation. Instead, it raises questions about the appropriateness of the eschatological interpretation of Isa. 19:23.

266

chapter five

5.2.8 24 25

Verses 24–25

On that day Israel will be the third beside Egypt and Assyria, blessing in the midst of the earth, which Yhwh of the hosts will bless saying: ‘Blessed be my people, Egypt, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my inheritance.’

The pronouncement mentioning Israel as the third (‫ )שׁלישׁיה‬to receive blessing, after Egypt and Assyria, is remarkable, sometimes even considered unparalleled.254 While other passages portray the future as an Israel-centred world in which foreigners serve Yhwh’s chosen nation,255 here Egypt, Assyria and Israel appear side by side. The countries of Moab, Ammon, Edom, Philistia, and Aram vanish from the map of the future world (cf. Isa. 11:14–16). In the history of Judah and Israel, Egypt and Assyria are the two neighbours against which they struggle for national independence (Jer. 2:18; Lam. 5:6; Hos. 7:11; 12:2). Egypt and Assyria are the instruments of Yhwh (Isa. 7:18; 10:24; Zech. 10:11) or homes for God’s nation during captivity (Isa. 27:12–13; Hos. 9:3; 11:5, 11; Mic. 7:12; Zech. 10:10). Kilian has astutely argued that, in Isa. 19:24–25, Egypt and Assyria, the north and the south, represent the whole world.256 Israel between them, the centre of the earth (cf. Ezek. 38:12), will become a blessing for the whole world. Far beyond being a tiny province or satrapy of a world empire, it will enjoy the fame of the mightiest nations on earth. Isa. 19:24 obviously alludes to the promise of Gen. 12:2–3, given to Abraham, Israel’s ancestor, who himself made this journey from ‘Assyria’ (Mesopotamia) to Egypt and finally back to Canaan.257 I shall make of you a great nation (‫)אעשׂך לגוי גדול‬, and I shall bless you (‫)ואברכך‬, and I shall make your name great (‫)ואגדלה שׁמך‬, so that you will be a blessing (‫)והיה ברכה‬. I shall bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I shall curse; and by you all the families of the earth will bless each other (‫)ונברכו בך‬.258

254 I. Wilson, ‘In That Day: From Text to Sermon on Isaiah 19:23–25’, Int. 21 (1967), 82; Groß, ‘Israel’, 157. 255 Isa. 14:1–2; 49:23; 60:3, 10, 16; 66:12. 256 Kilian, 125. 257 Cf. also Gen. 18:18; 22:17–18; 28:14. 258 The niph‘al form of ‫ ברך‬should better be rendered in the reciprocal sense and not as a passive, as usually done, which corresponds to the pu‘al. Cf. K. Berge, Die Zeit des Jahwisten: Ein Beitrag zur Datierung jahwistischer Vätertexte (BZAW, 186),

the analysis of isaiah 19

267

The great nation (‫ )גוי גדול‬that Abraham will become does not only refer to the increased number of his descendants, but also to political significance (cf. Deut. 4:7, 38; 9:1; Jer. 6:22; 50:9, 41), a point made even more explicit by use of the expression ‫ואגדלה שׁמך‬, ‘and I shall make you famous’. This agrees with Isa. 19:24 when it mentions Israel as the third member of the most powerful nations on earth. However, this power will not be misused at anybody’s expense. The verse refers to peaceful cohabitation, as was Abraham’s sojourn in Canaan. Blessing is ‘nation-friendly’ and not militant.259 What does it mean to be(come) a blessing? It is assumed that Israel will become the beneficiary,260 the source,261 or the channel262 of blessing, through which blessing is poured out on nations. These interpretations are unlikely, however. While ‘becoming a blessing’ is a rarelyused expression in the Bible, Zech. 8:13 suggests that ‫היה )ל(ברכה‬ is the antonym of ‫היה )ל(קללה‬, ‘to become a curse’. This second phrase is used more frequently, and its analysis may help us elucidate the meaning of the first.263 As the texts suggest, ‘becoming a curse’ (individually or collectively) does not mean that an individual or a community becomes a source of a curse, nor that others would curse the respective individual or group. Becoming a curse means that a person or group will be mentioned in cursing formulas, songs, proverbs, or oaths as an individual or a community with an undesirable fate.264 The person who has become a ‫ משׁל‬will be sung of, as in a prophet’s song.265 The names of those who become a curse are mentioned in

Berlin 1990, 50; Cs. Balogh, ‘Mit ígért Isten Ábrahámnak? Megjegyzések 1Móz 12,3b értelmezéséhez’, Református Szemle 102 (2009), 165–85. 259 This intertextual hint at the blessing of Abraham is perhaps the reason why the name Israel rather than Judah is used here (cf. v. 16). The promise to Abraham was realised in the empire of David, with its borders reaching from Assyria on the Euphrates to the Nile of Egypt, with Moab, Ammon, Edom, Philistia, and Aram as its vassal kingdoms. Cf. Gen. 15:18; 2 Sam. 8:3; 1 Kgs 4:21; 1 Chron. 18:3; 2 Chron. 9:26. 260 εὐλογημένος in the LXX means ‘blessed’, but not ‘blessing’ as does the Hebrew ‫( ברכה‬also in Gen. 12:2; Van der Kooij, ‘Old-Greek’, 149). 261 Deissler, ‘Gottesbund’, 11, 18. 262 Groß, ‘Israel’, 156; Wildberger, 745. 263 Cf. Num. 5:21, 27; 2 Kgs 22:19; Jer. 24:9; 25:18; 26:6; 29:18; 42:18; 44:8, 12, 22; 49:13. The verb ‫ היה‬is occasionally interchanged with ‫נתן‬. 264 Cf. K.N. Grüneberg, Abraham, Blessing and the Nations: A Philological and Exegetical Study of Genesis 12:3 in its Narrative Context (BZAW, 332), Berlin 2003, 170. 265 Num. 24:20, 21; Isa. 14:4; Joel 2:17; Hab. 2:6; see also Ps. 44:15; 69:12.

268

chapter five

curse formulas,266 as Jer. 29:22 shows: ‘And from them (the two false prophets) will take a curse (‫ קללה‬. . . ‫ )ולקח‬all the exiles of Judah in Babylon: “May Yhwh make you like Zedekiah and Ahab, whom the king of Babylon has roasted in fire.” ’ Conversely, becoming a blessing (‫ )היה ברכה‬means that an individual (Gen. 12:2) or a nation (Isa. 19:24) is mentioned in a blessing formula as people with a desirable fate, as exemplified in Gen. 48:20 (cf. Ruth 4:11–12): ‘So he (Jacob) blessed (‫ )ויברכם‬them (the sons of Joseph) that day, saying: “By you Israel will bless each other (‫בך יִ ָבּ ֵרְך‬ ‫)ישׂראל‬,267 saying, ‘God make you as Ephraim and as Manasseh’’ (. . .). Accordingly, in Isa. 19:24, when blessing each other, the people from different nations will utter the formula: ‘may dn (=Yhwh?) make you like Israel!’268 This is indeed the fulfilment of a promise specific to Israel. In the famous blessing formula of Isa. 19:25, Egypt is called ‫עמי‬, ‘my people’, a term usually reserved for Israel.269 During Israel’s sojourn in Egypt, God distinguished his people by treating them with love and care (cf. Exod. 8:21, 22, 23). In the future, Egypt will also become the people of Yhwh. Being the people of someone implies a strong (family) relationship (1 Sam. 5:10; 15:30). As 1 Sam. 26:19 makes it clear, the unity of worship (cf. Isa. 19:19–22) means the unity of the nation. Assyria is blessed as ‫מעשׂה ידי‬, ‘the work of my hands’, an expression attested in the Bible in connection with Israel.270 Similarly to ‫עמי‬, ‫ מעשׂה ידי‬means ownership. Yhwh made Assyria, it is the work of his hands, it belongs to him. In Assyrian texts, the king often appears as the work (creation) of the hands of Assur (binūt qātīšu), Mulissu, or Istar, a motif particularly favoured in the texts of Assurbanipal. Assurbanipal’s coronation hymn celebrates his enthronisation with the words: ‘Assur is king, indeed Assur is king! Assurbanipal is the representative of Assur, the creation of his hands’ (SAA 3 11).271 While

266

Cf. Sodom/Gomorrah in Isa. 1:9, 10; 3:9; Jer. 23:14; Lam. 4:6. Reading niph‘al, not pi‘el. Cf. Berge, Zeit, 49–50; Balogh, Mit ígért, 170. 268 Cf. H. Gunkel, Genesis, Göttingen 1966, 164; Groß, ‘Israel’, 156. This interpretation questions Berges’ opinion that ‘Assur und Ägypten haben als eigenständige Jhwh-Völker nicht nur Anteil an der ‫ברכה‬, sie sind selbst ein Segen inmitten der Welt’ (169). 269 Israel is first called ‫ עמי‬in Exod. 3:7. Cf. Exod. 5:1; 7:4; Isa. 1:3; 3:15; etc. 270 Cf. Isa. 29:23 (= ‫ ;)ילדיו‬60:21; 64:7. 271 Cf. Assurbanipal’s Prism A vii 95–96. 267

the analysis of isaiah 19

269

citing a dream revelation of Istar of Arbela, Assurbanipal’s Prism A says: ‘I myself will walk before Assurbanipal, for the king is the creation of my hands’ (vv. 100–1).272 The third nation mentioned in the blessing, Israel, is called Yhwh’s inheritance (‫)נחלה‬. This well-known description in the Old Testament273 emphasises Yhwh’s ownership of Israel. According to Deut. 32:8–9, when Elyon gave inheritance to the nations, when he fixed the boundaries of the nations according to the sons of El (cf. LXX; 4QDeutj), Israel became the inheritance of Yhwh.274 Some exegetes argue that ‫ נחלה‬is theologically more significant than ‫ עמי‬and ‫מעשׂה ידי‬, thus claiming a special position for Israel.275 Yet in view of Gen. 48:20, the stated order of the nations would rather suggest that Egypt receives greater prominence in Isa. 19:25; the one blessed first inherits a greater blessing (cf. Gen. 27:36). Nevertheless, ‫ עם‬and ‫ נחלה‬appear often in synonymous parallelism,276 suggesting that the theological difference between the first and the last line of the blessing is minor or insignificant. The same may also be true for ‫מעשׂה ידי‬. As mentioned, all three terms include the connotation of ownership. Egypt is Yhwh’s people, but so are Assyria and Israel. Assyria is the work of his hands, but so are Egypt and Israel as well. Israel is his inheritance, but so are Egypt and Assyria to a similar extent. The threefold formula reminds us of the threefold blessing in Num. 6:24–26. 5.2.9

Conclusion

In Isa. 19, a pronouncement of judgment against Egypt is gradually transformed into a prophecy of salvation. The exegetical analysis concluded that the turning point in this text appears in 19:20b–21 and not in v. 16 or 18, as it is usually presupposed. The judgment on Egypt is

272

This is how Assurbanipal is addressed in many oracles of Mulissu and Istar of Arbela (Mulissu was the wife of Assur, a manifestation of Istar [of Arbela], with whom she is often united), as seen for instance in PPANE 94:5; 94: rev. 2 (= SAA 9 9:5; 9: rev. 2). In his prayer to the Lady of Arbela, Assurbanipal says: ‘O Lady of Arbela! I am Assurbanipal, king of Assyria, creation of your hands, whom Assur, the father who made you, desired and whom he called by name . . .’ (PPANE 101:29–31 [= Prism B v 29–31]). 273 Exod. 34:9; Deut. 4:20; 9:26; Ps. 28:9; 33:12; 74:12; Joel 2:17; Zech. 2:16. 274 Ps. 82:8 may reflect a similar view if ‫ תנחל‬is vocalised as a hiph‘il ‫תנחל‬. 275 Duhm, 147, assumed that this text made Assyria and Egypt ‘Kinder zweiter Ordnung’. Cf. also Procksch, 254; Fischer, 146. 276 Deut. 9:26, 29; 1 Kgs 8:51; Ps. 28:9; 78:62, 71; 94:5, 14; 106:40; Isa. 47:6.

270

chapter five

presented in the form of a Yhwh theophany (v. 1), which will negatively affect the divine (vv. 2–3), natural (vv. 5–7) and social world of the land of the Nile (vv. 2–4, 8–10). The leaders and wise men on which society relies are described in a way that resembles the Egyptian perception of the upper stratum of society (v. 11). As v. 4 makes clear, beyond the divine dimension of Yhwh’s arrival to Egypt, there is also a historical human element at which the prophecy hints in recounting the supposed arrival of the unnamed tough master and powerful king. The fulfilment of this ominous prophecy is alluded to in Isa. 19:18, which mentions five ruined cities, each one of those called ‫עיר ההרס‬. Vv. 18–20 strongly resemble Assyrian literature. Swearing allegiance, speaking a foreign language, renaming the cities, establishing an altar and stele for a foreign god in the land of Egypt reflect the view that Egypt has become a subdued vassal of Yhwh. The turning point in the prophecy appears at v. 20b when Yhwh changes his mind with regard to Egypt and the name of Yhwh is revealed to the Egyptians. By submitting to Yhwh, the Egyptians will share the benefits of being the vassal of Yhwh. The experience of Egypt (vv. 20b–22) is similar to that of Israel in the days of Moses. When Egypt is adopted into the family of God, to which Assyria, its human master (cf. ‫ ועבדו‬in v. 23) and ‘staff in God’s hands’ (Isa. 10:5), as well as Israel also belong, peace will be restored on earth, which will share the blessing of the one God.

5.3 Isaiah 19 in Context 5.3.1

Literary Issues in Isaiah 19

R.D. Weis suggested that the ‫ משׂא‬prophecies form a certain type of literature in the Bible. ‫ משׂא‬is not a Yhwh word (like the messenger speech), but it represents a prophetic exposition of a previous revelation, explained according to new historical situations and addressed to a new community.277 However, Weis’ reliance on the final form of the texts and his implicit assumption that the final form and the 277

R.D. Weis, A Definition of the Genre maśśāʾ in the Hebrew Bible (Ph.D. diss.), Claremont, CA 1986; Idem, ‘Oracle’, ABD 5.28–29. Cf. also M.H. Floyd, ‘The ‫ַמ ָשּׁא‬ (Maśśaʾ) as a Type of Prophetic Book’, JBL 121 (2002), 401–22; cf. also Sweeney in his Isaiah-commentary.

the analysis of isaiah 19

271

original form coincide are problematic points in his thesis.278 Furthermore, Weis’ contention that a ‫ משׂא‬is not a Yhwh word also remains doubtful.279 The characteristics he considers specific for the ‫משׂא‬-texts are vague and without much practical relevance when defining specific types of prophetic texts. The assumption that ‫משׂא‬-prophecies reinterpret earlier divine oracles (which are included in the same prophecy) remains another matter of debate if one is reluctant to treat all contradictory examples as exceptions.280 In fact, the ‫משׂא‬-compositions diverge from each other to such a large extent that a common literary form for these prophecies remains unlikely. The Integrity of Isaiah 19 Isa. 19 contains several significant structural markers: (a) the change from 3rd person to 1st person in 19:2; (b) the oracular formula, ‫נאם‬ ‫האדון יהוה צבאות‬, closing the section 19:2–4; (c) Isa. 19:1–11, 13 being written as poetry, unlike vv. 12, 14–15, 16–25; (d) the five ‫ביום‬ ‫ההוא‬-formulas in 19:16–25; (e) the negative predictions in vv. 1–20a, and the proclamation of salvation in vv. 20b–25. Due to these divergences, it is difficult to read Isa. 19 as an original unified composition written on one particular occasion.281 Most exegetes separate either vv. 1–15 and 16–25 or vv. 1–17 and 18–25 into two distinctive textual blocks.282 Nevertheless, 19:(16–17)18–25 is not treated as an independent prophecy (cf. Isa. 20), but as an expansion of 19:1–15(16–17) written for its present position. Beyond the caesura at v. 16 or 18, the coherence of the two great constitutive parts of Isa. 19 has also been questioned. Isa. 19:1–15 is usually divided into three subsections: vv. 1–4, 5–10, 11–15: vv. 1–4 deal with Yhwh’s arrival in Egypt and the chaos caused in the life of

278 For the criticism of Weis, see also B. Jones, Howling over Moab: Irony and Rhetoric in Isaiah 15–16 (SBL.DS, 157), Atlanta, GA 1996, 65–74; M. Boda, ‘Freeing the Burden of Prophecy: Maśśāʾ and the Legitimacy of Prophecy in Zech 9–14’, Bib. 87 (2006), 347–50. 279 ‫ משׂא‬and Yhwh are connected in Jer. 23:33–40 and ‫ משׂא‬and El are related in the Deir ‘Alla-text. Ezek. 12:10–16 is also a Yhwh-speech, and not a prophetic exposition (contra Weis, maśśāʾ, 147–48). Similarly, ‫ כדבר יהוה‬in 2 Kgs 9:25–26 is the alternative to ‫משׂא‬, a Yhwh-speech. 280 In contrast to, e.g., Weis, maśśāʾ, 229. 281 Delitzsch, 240; Ridderbos, 137–38, 143; Young, 2.48; Oswalt, 274–75; Hayes & Irvine, 263; Motyer, 167. 282 For the former, see Gray, 318; Procksch, 244; Wildberger, 703–4; Schoors, 118. For the latter, see Watts, 255.

272

chapter five

Egyptians; vv. 5–10 describe the desiccation of the Nile and its consequence; vv. 11–15 present Egypt’s leaders as incapable of dealing with the chaotic situation. Loretz considered these three sections of different origin, brought together by a final author living in Egypt.283 More often, however, it has been argued that vv. 5–10 are secondary interpolations between 19:1–4 and 11–15.284 The concern of vv. 5–10 for nature and economy rather than politics is assumed to support this opinion. It is indeed remarkable that the otherwise frequently-occurring ‫ מצרים‬does not appear in vv. 5–10 (though cf. ‫ מצור‬in v. 6b). Nevertheless, the reference to typically Egyptian realia (e.g. the Nile) may explain why the name ‫ מצרים‬is missing in 19:5–10. Second, the imagery of Yhwh as riding on a cloud and arriving in Egypt (19:1) already introduces a divinity of nature, ruling over rain and drought (cf. Ps. 104). The effects of his coming are portrayed in vv. 5–10.285 Third, theophanies are often coupled with massive changes in nature.286 Fourth, given that v. 1 describes Yhwh’s arrival in Egypt as a source of confusion among the Egyptian gods, the drying up of the Nile (Hapy), whose inundation is regarded as a divine gift of Nun, Amon, or Aton, may symbolise a further aspect of this conflict among the divinities. Sixth, as remarked in §5.2.2, the installation of a harsh ruler is often paralleled by decay in the natural habitat. In Egyptian religion, the person of the king (pharaoh) is strongly connected to welfare in the land and the inundation of the Nile. This belongs to the basic Egyptian concept of m¡ʿt, social order and justice, but the notion is not typically Egyptian (cf. Ps. 72; SAA 3 11). Seventh, Isa. 19:10, by mentioning the ordinary men (wage workers) and the leaders (pillars) of Egypt, forms an excellent bridge between vv. 5–10 and 11–15, which deal with these leaders in more detail.

283 O. Loretz, ‘Der Ugaritische Topos bʿl rkb und die ‘Sprache Kanaans’ in Jes 19:1– 25’, UF 19 (1987), 110–11. 284 T.K. Cheyne, ‘The Nineteenth Chapter of Isaiah’, ZAW 13 (1893), 127; Marti, 155; Vermeylen, 1.322; Wildberger, 703; Clements, 168; Höffken, 143. 285 Yhwh’s drying out the rivers and seas seems like a historicised version of Baal’s fight with Yam / Naharu in Ugarit. Baal (Seth) was particularly well-known in the eastern Delta. 286 Judg. 5:4–5; 2 Sam. 22:7–16; Ps. 68:7–8; Mic. 1; Hab. 3.

the analysis of isaiah 19

273

We may conclude that vv. 5–10 can hardly be considered an independent text.287 These verses fit well the current context in which they stand. Nevertheless, the possibility that this passage was taken over as a fragment from an earlier source cannot be excluded (see further discussion below). The case might be comparable to Isa. 15, which also appears to include an earlier lamentation concerning Moab with metaphors strikingly similar to Isa. 19:5–10 adapted for the purposes of a prophecy (cf. §3.2.3). But even so, vv. 5–10 could have been interpolated by the same author who wrote 19:1–4, 11–15. This process may eventually explain both the ‘foreignness’ and the coherence of the present passage. Attention also needs to be paid to the peculiar character of vv. 2–4. These verses contain a speech by Yhwh spoken in the 1st person using a typical oracular formula (‫)נאם האדון יהוה צבאות‬.288 Vv. 1, 12, 14 on the other hand are formulated in the 3rd person. As we have seen in Isa. 18, such changes are typical when prophetic comments are added to a received revelation. It cannot be excluded that the first-person formulation and characteristic closure of vv. 2–4 indicate that an earlier prophecy was integrated into Isa. 19, but this view is again conjectural. It is nevertheless important that the name ‫האדון יהוה צבאות‬ is typically Isaianic, appearing in passages commonly ascribed to the 8th century prophet.289 The prosaic Isa. 19:15 is occasionally considered to be a later addition to 19:1–14.290 However, if poetry is considered a sign of earlier origin, then vv. 12 and 14 must also be regarded as secondary additions.291 Parallelism is mostly absent in these verses (cf., however, v. 15b). To conclude, Isa. 19:1–15 forms a literary unit that also includes vv. 5–10. If the prose-poetry distinction is taken to be a sign of editorial intervention in the text of Isa. 19, then vv. 12, 14–15 can be regarded as later additions, though this remains uncertain. Opinions also differ regarding the integrity of vv. 16–25. There is some dispute about whether this was attached as a unit to 19:1–15 or

287 Höffken, 143. On the coherence of 19:5–10, see W. Werner, Studien zur alttestamentlichen Vorstellung vom Plan Jahwes (BZAW, 173), Berlin 1986, 40–41, 48–49; Sweeney, 269. 288 Duhm, 141, Loretz, ‘Ugaritische Topos’, 105, and Höffken, 143, are suspicious about the change of speaker in these verses. 289 Cf. Isa. 1:24; 3:1; 10:16, 33. 290 For instance, Procksch, 248; Wildberger, 724–25; Clements, 169; Schoors, 120. 291 Loretz, ‘Ugaritische Topos’, 109, believes that 19:12b, 14b–15 is prose.

274

chapter five

whether it was a collection of shorter pieces distinct from each other in terms of time and possibly authorship.292 It is sometimes assumed that the subsequent expansions were intended to contrast and correct former theological viewpoints,293 but others maintain that these verses contain theological ideas that are gradually developed and that culminate in the final verse. Ancient witnesses do not hesitate to distinguish various sections in vv. 16–25 any less than modern exegetes. 1QIsaa inserts division signs after vv. 15, 18, 21, 23. At v. 17, the end of the verse and the end of the column coincide. The Aleppo Codex has delimitation markers after vv. 17, 18, 22, 23. The Cairo Geniza manuscript gives section markers after vv. 17, 18, 23. Codex Sinaiticus marks the transition after vv. 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23. The Syriac Codex Ambrosianus contains division markers after vv. 17, 18, 22, 23, 25. It is noteworthy that 1QIsaa, Codex Leningradensis and Sinaiticus consider the beginning of v. 16 a new section, while others do not. It is likewise important that v. 18 is delimited from the next verse in all variants. Some of these witnesses follow a strict logic in textual division. For example, 1QIsaa usually marks off passages beginning with ‫ביום ההוא‬,294 a principle evident at v. 21, where ‫ ביום ההוא‬was regarded by the copyist as the beginning of a new section. Whether vv. 16–25 form one coherent unit or whether they are the result of gradual growth is largely dependent on presuppositions concerning the rhetorical significance of the ‫ביום ההוא‬-formula, which is often assumed to start editorial sections in prophecies. The question is how the expression ‫ ביום ההוא‬functions in this specific case? Although ‫ ביום ההוא‬may appear in texts dealing with past events (e.g., Josh. 8:25; 1 Sam. 3:2; 2 Kgs 3:6), it is quite clear that such occurrences of ‫ ביום ההוא‬are integral to the passages in which they occur. While exegetes occasionally make a difference between narrative and

292 Exegetes distinguish two (19:16–17, 18–25; Kilian, 123; Sweeney, 270–71; Kustár, ‘Ein Gottesvolk’, 27), three (19:16–17, 18–22, 23–25; Procksch, 249; Schoors, 121), or five paragraphs (according to ‫ ;ביום ההוא‬Fohrer, 1.211; Kaiser, 86; Höffken, 146; Blenkinsopp, 318). Some argue that one author composed 19:16–25, but elaborated it in five steps (Duhm, 144; Wildberger, 730; Feuillet, ‘Sommet’, 262; Vogels, ‘Égypte’, 497; Berges, 165). 293 Kaiser, 86; Kilian, 122. 294 J.W. Olley, ‘ “Hear the Word of Yahweh”: The Structure of the Book of Isaiah in 1QIsaa’, VT 43 (1993), 32; O.H. Steck, Die erste Jesajarolle von Qumran (1QIsaa) (SBS, 173), Stuttgart 1998.

the analysis of isaiah 19

275

prophetic texts on this point, there is a common element here: in both cases ‫ ביום ההוא‬is used in a descriptive context, with events presented in temporal relation, regardless whether past or future. It is important to observe the integral character of the ‫ ביום ההוא‬texts in Exod. 8:18 (Exod. 8:16–19); Deut. 31:17–18; 1 Sam. 3:12 (3:11–14); 8:18 (8:11– 18); 1 Kgs 22:25 (| 2 Chron. 18:24). These examples appear outside prophetic books but, as known from the Latter Prophets, remain close to prophetic texts.295 Although the study of Munch on ‫ ביום ההוא‬was rightly criticised on some points, his contention that ‫ ביום ההוא‬should not be labelled automatically as a term introducing eschatological passages is valid.296 In principle, there are at least four possible explanations with regard to ‫ביום ההוא‬: (a) ‫ ביום ההוא‬may represent a mere shift in the logical structure of a text without implying a secondary origin for the verse in which it appears. (b) ‫ ביום ההוא‬may function as a gloss, but not so the verse to which it was added. (c) As a related option, ‫ ביום ההוא‬may not necessarily introduce an expansion of a previous prophecy but connect two originally independent textual blocks. (d) Finally, ‫ביום‬ ‫ ההוא‬may introduce a text that was entirely written as a reinterpretation of a previous prophetic passage. A case like Isa. 19:16–25, with six ‫ ביום ההוא‬expressions following each other is not commonly attested in the Bible, but it should not be considered a unique phenomenon either. In theory, it is possible that several temporal transition markers follow each other without urging us to take each individual verse containing ‫ ביום ההוא‬as a secondary addition. There must be other more reliable arguments that would warrant such a conclusion. As part of a text of undisputed coherence,

295

In his detailed analysis of temporal transitions in prophetic texts, De Vries acknowledged that the verses mentioned above show ‘remarkable similarities in structure and function’ with the ‘classical’ prophecies, but he failed to take advantage of this observation (S.J. De Vries, From Old Revelation to New: A Tradition-Historical and Redaction-Critical Study of Temporal Transitions in Prophetic Prediction, Grand Rapids, MI 1995, 108–9). 296 P.A. Munch, The Expression bayyôm hāhūʾ: Is It an Eschatological Terminus Technicus? Oslo 1936. Cf. A. Lefèvre, ‘L’expression »en ce jour-là« dans le livre d’Isaïe’, in: Mélanges bibliques rédigés en l’honneur d’André Robert, Paris 1957, 174–79. One has to disagree with De Vries, Old Revelation, 17, that ‫ ביום ההוא‬can be considered integral to the text only when it does not appear at the beginning of a verse. The location of ‫ ביום ההוא‬can be a matter of syntax.

276

chapter five

‫ ביום ההוא‬appears in successive verses in historical texts,297 but also in prophecies. The integrity of Deut. 31:17–18 can hardly be questioned, yet here, too, ‫ ביום ההוא‬is attested three times. The textual unity of similar prophetic passages in the Latter Prophets has been subject to debate. Most notable are Isa. 7:18, 20, 21, 23; 17:4, 7, 9; Hos. 2:18, 20, 23; Zech. 12:3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11; 13:1, 2, 4; 14:4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 20, 21. While it is likely that ‫ ביום ההוא‬introduces a secondary editorial section in these prophetic books, it is much less certain that each ‫ ביום ההוא‬inside such editorial expansions would have originated at different times, from different sources. If—in order to avoid circular reasoning—we leave the expression ‫ ביום ההוא‬out of consideration, one way of determining the integrity of the respective verses would be to look at internal coherence and tensions. These general observations prove insufficient when we wish to condense them into concrete literary critical conclusions. (a) As I have argued in the textual analysis of vv. 16–25, we have a consistently developing line of thought in these verses, with no contradicting elements. (b) Isa. 19:17 mentions the land of Judah as a source of threat for the Egyptians, but the name ‘Israel’ is used in v. 24. This might point to the secondary origin of vv. 24–25 with respect to 19:17, though it must be acknowledged that the historical Judah (v. 17) and the ideal future Israel (v. 24–25) are not necessarily contradictory ideas. (c) The image of Assyria in v. 25 is somewhat less triumphant than v. 23 presupposes, and this might be a further argument for the different origin of the two verses. I have to admit, however, that this modest evidence can also be interpreted otherwise, namely as referring to peaceful cohabitation of the nations. The nations Egypt and Assyria (as well as Israel ) are presented as equals from Yhwh’s point of view in that they belong to him. But that does not necessarily imply equal political significance (cf. Ps. 87). (d) There is no clear indication that vv. 23 and 24–25 must be connected.298 (e) It is also conceivable that the text retrospectively describes the history of Egypt from a moment mentioned in v. 23. In that case judgment could be part of the past just like salvation.299

297 E.g., Judg. 20:15, 21, 26, 35, 46 (5x); 1 Sam. 6:15, 16 (2x); 1 Sam. 14:23, 24, 31 (3x); 2 Sam. 18:7, 8 (2x); 19:3, 4 (3x). 298 Contra Wildberger, 730, and Clements, 170. 299 Contra Sweeney, 270. His distinction between singular forms in 19:16-17 and plural forms in 19:18–25 is problematic. Cf. ‫( יאמר‬v. 18), ‫( גבולה‬v. 19), ‫( בא‬v. 23), ‫( יהיה‬v. 24), ‫( ברכו‬v. 25). For the interchange of sg. and pl., see also vv. 1–15.

the analysis of isaiah 19

277

To conclude, the examples provided by other biblical texts in which

‫ ביום ההוא‬appears several times and the textual coherence of Isa. 19:16–25 question the idea that this passage contains five independent additions. If the interchange of the names Judah / Israel and the nuanced view of Assyria in v. 25 is allowed to play a role, vv. 24–25 could be considered as secondary additions to vv. 16–23. I am inclined to treat vv. 16–23 as a unity, but this question must ultimately be kept open.300 The Intertextual Connections of Isaiah 19 The intertextual connections of Isa. 19 provide additional insight into its literary formation. There are some striking thematic and lexical similarities between Isa. 19:1–15, Isa. 2:22–3:7, 12 and Isa. 9:7–20 relating to the following subjects: • the common divine name, ‫( האדון יהוה צבאות‬Isa. 3:1; Isa. 19:4), occurs rarely and only in the book of Isaiah; • the theme of the unfavourable ruler (Isa. 3:4: ‫;ותעלולים ימשׁלו־בם‬ Isa. 19:4: ‫)ומלך עז ימשׁל־בם‬ • the imagery of chaos (Isa. 3:5; Isa. 19:1); • the idea of misleading officials (Isa. 3:12: ‫ ;מאשׁריך מתעים‬Isa. 19:13: ‫;)התעו את־מצרים‬ • the idea of destroying the plans or ways of the people (cf. Isa. 3:12: ‫ ;ודרך ארחתיך בלעו‬Isa. 19:3: ‫ בלע ;)ועצתו אבלע‬pi‘el occurs in Isa. 1–39 only in 25:7–8 and ‫ תעה‬hiph‘il is found elsewhere only in Isa. 30:28. • the removal of incompetent leaders (Isa. 3:2, 4; Isa. 19:3, 11, 13); • citation of the words of the addressed (Isa. 3:6–7; Isa. 19:11). Another text, closely related to Isa. 19 in its ideas and vocabulary is Isa. 9:7–20, a prophecy addressed to Northern Israel. Note especially: • the verb ‫ סוך‬is used only in Isa. 9:10 and Isa. 19:2; • the expression ‫ ראשׁ וזנב כפה ואגמון‬is also unique to Isa. 19:13 and 15; 300

Vogels, ‘Égypte’, 513, deciphered a chiastic structure in 19:16–25: (a) curse (vv. 16–17) (b) peace (v. 18) (c) covenantal promise (vv. 19–21a) (c’) covenantal promise (vv. 21b–22) (b’) peace (v. 23) (a’) blessing (vv. 24–25). But his scheme is often problematic, especially at 19:18 and 22.

278

chapter five

• the idea of misleading officials (Isa. 9:13: ‫;מאשׁרי העם־הזה מתעים‬ Isa. 19:12: ‫;)התעו את־מצרים‬ • destruction or confusion of the leaders (Isa. 9:15: ‫;ומאשׁריו מבלעים‬ Isa. 19:3: ‫;)ועצתו אבלע‬ • the imagery of chaos in close social units (Isa. 9:19, 20; Isa. 19:2). The even distribution of the common vocabulary in Isa. 19:1–15 strengthens the literary critical conclusion of the previous section that, at the very least, vv. 1–4, 11–15 were not originally independent from each other. At the same time, it is remarkable that the direct parallels to Isa. 19:5–10 seem to be missing in either Isa. 3 or 9. This absence of common vocabulary might suggest that vv. 5–10 would be of a separate origin for which Isa. 19 was not the original context (see discussion above). I admit though that the lack of common theme could also be explained to a certain extent with the typically Egyptian focus of 19:5–10. It would be unrealistic to expect the appearance of vocabulary designating Egyptian realia in a non-Egyptian setting and vice versa. Moreover, the theme of lack of water and food as a consequence of judgment could also be considered common to Isa. 3:1, 7; 9:19, on the one hand, and 19:5–10, on the other, even though this motif is obviously treated in a different way in the Judaeo-Israelite and the Egyptian contexts. The prophecies of Ezekiel concerning Egypt contain common elements with Isa. 19, although some of these motifs are stereotypical.301 The parallels with Isaiah are rarely literal, but general characteristic of the book of Ezekiel is the fact that its allusions to other books are often thematic rather than literal. Ezek. 30:1–19 contains the following parallels: • the cloud (Isa. 19:1: ‫ ;עב‬Ezek. 30:3: ‫;)יום ענן‬ • Yhwh / the sword enters Egypt (Isa. 19:1; Ezek. 30:4); • the gods of Egypt (Isa. 19:1: ‫ ;אלילי מצרים‬Ezek. 30:13: ‫אלילים‬ ‫;)מנף‬

301 See also L. Boadt, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt: A Literary and Philological Study of Ezekiel 29–32 (BibOr, 37), Rome 1980, 174. Note also in the context of Ezekiel’s Egypt-related prophecies the expressions ‫ משׁענת קנה‬in Ezek. 29:6, alluding to Isa. 36:6 and ‫ יום ליהוה‬in Ezek. 30:3, which appears only once more in Isa. 2:12 (‫ צבאות‬is never used in Ezekiel).

the analysis of isaiah 19

279

• deliver Egypt to . . . (Isa. 19:4: ‫;סכרתי את־מצרים ביד אדנים קשׁה‬ Ezek. 30:12: ‫)מכרתי את־הארץ ביד־רעים‬ • reference to divine revelation (Isa. 19:4: ‫;נאם האדון יהוה צבאות‬ Ezek. 30:12: ‫;)אני יהוה דברתי‬ • desiccation of rivers (Isa. 19:5; Ezek. 30:12); • destruction of the pillars of Egypt (Isa. 19:18: ‫;היו שׁתתיה מדכאים‬ Ezek. 30:4: ‫;)נהרסו יסודתיה‬ • city of destruction (Isa. 19:18: ‫ ;עיר ההרס‬Ezek. 30:7: ‫ערים‬ ‫)נחרבות‬. The similarities between the two texts suggest that the author of Ezek. 30:1–19 was familiar with Isa. 19:1–15, perhaps even 19:1–22.302 Ezek. 29:13–15(16) also contains a prophecy of salvation for Egypt, although this is different from the salvation prophecy closing Isa. 19 and more strongly resembles Jer. 46:26b (missing from Jeremiah in LXX). 5.3.2

Theological Perspectives in Isaiah 19

Exegetes who believe that Isa. 19 was composed in the 8th century argue that—like most oracles dealing with Egypt—this one also criticises Judah on the subject of anti-Assyrian alliances. The fall of Egypt, which the text announces, implicitly predicts doom for Judah.303 Given that Isa. 19 nowhere refers to 8th century freedom movements, Kilian and Werner consider 19:1–15 an implicit salvation prophecy addressed to Judah, formulated against the background of a later conflict between Judah and Egypt. Werner admits though that this is not made explicit either.304 Isaiah 19:1–15 One of the recurring motifs in 19:1–15 is ‫ עצה‬in 19:3, 11 (cf. v. 17) and its verbal form ‫ יעץ‬in 19:11, 12 (cf. v. 17). While ‫ עצה‬and ‫ יעץ‬appear

302 The selective citation of judgment passages can be one reason why the prophecies deemed to be positive about Egypt in Isa. 19:16–25 were left out in Ezekiel. 303 Kissane, 210; Erlandsson, Burden, 76; G.R. Hamborg, ‘Reasons for Judgement in the Oracles against the Nations of the Prophet Isaiah’, VT 31 (1981), 148; Sweeney, 271. 304 Kilian, 122–23; Werner, Plan Jahwes, 52. Cf. also P.E. Dion, Dieu universel et peuple élu: l’universalisme religieux en Israël depuis les origines jusqu’a la veille des luttes maccabéennes (Lectio Divina, 83), Paris 1975, 108, on 19:16–17.

280

chapter five

outside the FNPs, we find them at key places in Isa. 13–23.305 Fichtner distinguishes between a plan of Yhwh against his people (5:19; 30:1) and a plan against other nations (7:5; 8:9–10; 10:5–15; 14:24–27; 19; 23).306 It is important to observe, however, that the plan of Yhwh constitutes a divine intention prevailing over human endeavours. Whether this appears in relation to Israel or a foreign nation is less important. The plan of Yhwh is a counter-plan against human undertaking. As far as these human plans have concrete—mostly political—objectives in view, the plan of Yhwh is also related to his concrete historical manifestation in the near future. It refers to an occasional rather than a well-fixed, century-long determined, consistent and unchangeable divine project.307 This motif also appears in the Assyrian inscriptions. When Assurbanipal discloses the plans of his Egyptian enemies, he writes: ‘they (the three leaders of Egypt) talked false speech, and discussed profitless counsels (milik lā kušīri imlikū) among themselves [. . .]’.308 The contrast between the intentions of Egypt and Yhwh in Isa. 19:3, 11, 12 might be the theologised version of a historical conflict, similar to the clash between Egypt and Assurbanipal. As for the context of the ‫עצה‬-motif in the FNPs of Isa. 13–23, one should note close formal similarities, such as the use of rhetorical questions in Isa. 14:27; 19:12 and 23:8–9: Isa. 14:27 Isa. 19:12 Isa. 23:8–9

For Yhwh of hosts has planned—who will annul it? His hand is stretched out—who will turn it back? Where then are your wise men? Let them inform you and let you know what Yhwh of hosts has planned for Egypt! Who has made this plan concerning Tyre? [. . .] Yhwh of hosts has planned this [. . .]

305 ‫ עצה‬appears in 14:26; 16:3 (cf. 5:19; 8:10; 11:2; 25:1; 28:29; 29:15; 30:1; 36:5), ‫יעץ‬ in 14:24, 26, 27; 23:8, 9 (cf. 1:26; 3:3; 7:5; 8:10; 9:5; 32:7–8). Note also the synonyms ‫דמה‬, ‫חשׁב‬, ‫צוה‬. Werner’s suggestion that all ‘plan of Yhwh’ texts (Jer. 49:20; 50:45; etc.) imply a common origin is unconvincing (see his comments on, e.g., Isa. 5:19, or 30:1–5 in Werner, Plan Jahwes, 20, 92–93). 306 Fichtner, ‘Jahwes Plan’, 37. 307 Cf. G. Fohrer, ‘Wandlungen des Jesajas’, in: Ibid., Studien zu alttestamentlichen Texten und Themen (1966–1972) (BZAW, 155), Berlin 1981, 11–12. However, Isa. 37:26 and 46:10–11 presuppose a more enhanced view of the plan. 308 Fragment 82-5-22,10 (BIWA, 26–27); Prism E iv 29–80. Cf. also below.

the analysis of isaiah 19

281

In §3.1, it was argued that the connection between the prophecies concerning Egypt (Isa. 19) and Tyre (Isa. 23) was more evident before Isa. 21–22 was inserted into its present context. The ties between the two countries were particularly strong throughout history. They were allied against Assyria during the rebellion of 701, as well as during the reigns of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. The stele of Esarhaddon from Zenjirli (IAKA §65) pictures the crown prince of Kush and Egypt, Ushanhuru, and Ba‘al, king of Tyre, kneeling before the colossal figure of Esarhaddon, who holds the two small-sized monarchs on ropes (Figure 2).309 Isa. 23:5 seemingly connects the destruction of Tyre with Egypt. This pair of prophecies in Isa. 19 and 23 is paralleled by a similar Tyre-Egypt-structure in Ezek. 26–32. The presumption that Isa. 19:1–15 warns against allying with Egypt is not positively confirmed by the prophecy. However, even in other prophecies, this background is rarely mentioned explicitly, since it would have been apparent to the community reading or hearing those texts.310 The intertextual relationship between Isa. 19:1–15 and 2:22– 3:7, 12, which probably also addresses the theme of political support from Egypt, might point to this function of Isa. 19:1–15.311 If this latter is assumed to derive from the 8th century bc, this explanation would make the most sense. However, it is also possible that Isa. 19:1–15 addresses the theme of Egypt from a different angle. The text may sound like a theological treatise dealing with Egypt’s role in the unfolding plan of Yhwh concerning all the world’s nations, especially if v. 12 is seen as integral to the text. From this point of view, the text may reflect on attempts to subdue Egypt by one of the Assyrian monarchs without any particular

309 Cf. also AOB 144 Tafel LXIII. For the identification of the kneeling Kushite figure with Ushanhuru, see D. Kahn, ‘Taharqa, King of Kush and the Assyrians’, JSSEA 31 (2004), 116. 310 While Egypt offered support for the Judaean kings against Babylon, most prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel against Egypt fail to mention this fact in their prophecies. Cf. Jer. 46:1–12, 13–23; Ezek. 29:1–6a, 9b–12, 17–20. Egypt as a false source of hope is mentioned in Jer. 46:25–26a; Ezek. 29:6b–9a, 16. 311 Isa. 2:22 questions the attitude of the people of Yhwh in relying on man (‫)האדם‬ instead of God. That is exactly the point made in Isaiah’s early anti-Egyptian prophecies (31:3). ‫ משׁען ומשׁענה‬in 3:1 (glossed by: ‫ )כל משׁען־לחם וכל משׁען־מים‬recalls Israel’s reliance (‫ )שׁען‬on Egypt (Isa. 10:20; 30:12; 31:1). It is therefore tempting to relate the two pericopes not only with regard to their common vocabulary, but also in terms of their rhetorical intention.

282

chapter five

Figure 2

The Zenjirli stele of Esarhaddon

the analysis of isaiah 19

283

implication concerning anti-Assyrian alliances. At any rate, there is no positive support that the intention of Isa. 19:1–15 is to denounce Egypt because of a threat against Judah, as Kilian and Werner presupposed. Biblical prophecies concerning Egypt nowhere link judgment against Egypt with any attempt to occupy Judah. Isaiah 19:16–25 In connection with Isa. 19:16–26, we need to discuss two important theological questions. First, as I noted above, part of 19:16–25 seems to be constructed in reference to Israel’s past. Second, the type of universalism that appears in 19:16–25 is particularly intriguing, and will be further investigated. Where do the theologically significant expressions found in 19:16– 25 occur in the Old Testament in a similar context?312 The word ‫חרד‬ in 19:16 refers to the fear that Israel instils in foreigners and is used in a similar manner in Judg. 8:12, in the war of Gideon against Zebah and Zalmunna, in 1 Sam. 14:15, in the war between Jonathan (Saul ) and the Philistines. The verb ‫ פחד‬in Isa. 19:16 is found in a similar context in Exod. 15:16; Deut. 2:25; 11:25; 1 Chron. 14:17; 2 Chron. 14:13; 17:10; 20:29; Est. 8:17; 9:2; Ps. 105:38; Jer. 33:9; Mic. 7:17. These texts emphasise that the nations’ fear of Israel is caused by Yhwh. Deut. 2:25 is particularly interesting in connecting the fear of all nations under the sky with the report they hear about Israel as in Isa. 19:17 (‫)ישׁמעון שׁמעך ורגזו וחלו מפניך‬.313 The hand raised against the enemy (‫ יד‬+ ‫( )נוף‬Isa. 19:17) appears in Isa. 10:32 (Assur/Yhwh against Jerusalem); 11:15 (Yhwh against the Euphrates); Zech. 2:13 (against the nations). However, in Isa. 19:16– 17 the motif of the raised hand is connected with the plan of Yhwh (‫)יהוה עצת‬. The same connection of the two elements appears in Isa. 14:26–27 as ‫ העצה היעוצה‬and ‫ היד הנטויה‬as well as in Isa. 23:8–9, 11. The notion of the stretched outhand (‫ יד‬+ ‫ )נטה‬is frequent in the Egypt stories (Exod. 7:5, 19; 8:1, 2, 13; 9:22; 10:12, 21, 22; 14:16, 21,

312 Concordance-like comparison of the vocabulary of 19:16–25 is only meaningful if the parallel occurrences involve a similar context. 313 For other expressions of fear, cf. Exod. 1:12; 14:25; 15:14–16; Deut. 28:10; Josh. 2:9–11; 5:1; 9:24; 2 Kgs 7:6; Neh. 6:16; Ps. 48:5–6.

284

chapter five

26, 27; cf. Josh. 8:19),314 but also a recurrent theme in Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Zephaniah.315 As noted in §5.2.5, ‫ שׂפת כנען‬may have been chosen because it reminded the reader of the Judaean history, the conquest and the settlement of the land. Canaan appears rarely after the book of Judges. When it does, it refers either to Israel’s past (Ezek. 16:3; Hos. 12:8) or to the Phoenicians on the seacoast (Isa. 23:8, 11; Obad. 20; Zeph. 2:5). The need to make an offering (Isa. 19:19) was the primary reason for which the Israelites in Egypt asked permission from the pharaoh to leave for the desert (Exod. 5:3; 8:25–26). Sacrifices performed by foreigners are described in 1 Sam. 6; 2 Kgs 5:17; Jon. 1:16. As for the function of the altar and the stele as a sign and witness, Isa. 19:20a can be compared to Josh. 22, with its altar built near the Jordan as a witness to the faith of the Transjordanian tribes (22:27, 28, 34). Nowhere is the literary parallel to Israel’s history as strong as in Isa. 19:20b–21.316 The cry for help by Egypt (‫ )צעק‬echoes Israel’s cry (‫)זעק‬ when suffering under its Egyptian oppressors in Exod. 2:23. Both ‫צעק‬ and ‫ לחץ‬appear together in Exod. 3:9 (cf. Isa. 19:20), where Moses (cf. ‫ מושׁיע‬in Isa. 19:20), is told: ‘The cry (‫ )צעק‬of the Israelites has come to me. I have also seen how the Egyptians oppress (‫ )לחץ‬them.’ The verb ‫ נצל‬appears in Exod. 3:8 and ‫ שׁלח‬in 3:10 (cf. Judg. 6:14). The cry of suffering under oppression and the call for a deliverer (judge/ king) is particularly favoured by Deuteronomy and related literature.317 I already mentioned above the interesting case of 2 Kgs 13:4–5, where Jehoahaz, king of Israel, is delivered from Aramaean oppressors (‫)לחץ‬ byan Assyrian ‫מושׁיע‬. The revelation of Yhwh to Egypt recalls Exod. 3 and 5:2. The idea of serving Yhwh in Isa. 19:21 is also close to the promise and sign (‫)אות‬ given to Moses in Exod. 3:12.

314 For ‫נטה זרע‬, cf. Exod. 6:6; Deut. 4:34; 5:15; 7:19; 9:29; 11:2; 26:8; 1 Kgs 8:42; 2 Kgs 17:36; Ps. 136:12. ‫ שׁלח יד‬is used in, e.g., Exod. 3:20; 9:15; (24:11). 315 Against his people: Isa. 5:25; 9:11, 16, 20; 31:3; Jer. 6:12; 15:6; Ezek. 6:14; 14:9, 13; 16:27; Zeph. 1:4. Against other nations: Isa. 10:4; 14:26, 27; 23:11; Jer. 51:25; Ezek. 25:7, 13, 16; 30:25; 35:3; Zeph. 2:13. 316 See also Vogels, ‘Égypte’, 505–8. 317 Note Deut. 26:7 (‫ צעק‬/ ‫ ;)לחץ‬Judg. 2:18 (‫ נאקה‬/ ‫ לחץ‬/ ‫ ;)ישׁע‬4:3 (‫ צעק‬/ ‫ ;)לחץ‬6:7, 9 (‫ זעק‬/ ‫ לחץ‬/ ‫ ;)נצל‬10:12 (‫ צעק‬/ ‫ לחץ‬/ ‫ ;)ישׁע‬Ps. 106:42–44 (‫ לחץ‬/ ‫ נצל‬/ ‫)רנה‬. ‫לחץ‬ appears again in a Deuteronomistic context in 1 Sam. 10:18; 2 Kgs 13:22, or otherwise in Amos 6:14. Cf. also Ps. 42:10; 43:2; 44:25.

the analysis of isaiah 19

285

The verb ‫( נגף‬19:22) in connection with Egypt appears in the Exodus narratives (Exod. 7:27; 12:13, 23, 27; Josh. 24:5), while Yhwh as the healer of Israel, who will not bring the diseases of Egypt upon his people, is found in Exod. 15:26 (cf. Deut. 28:27, 35). Israel becoming a blessing amidst the earth in 19:24 appears as the fulfilment of a promise given to Abraham in Gen. 12:3. The name of Israel appearing in 19:24–25 as the third between Egypt and Assyria, may be reminiscent of the land promised to Abraham, reaching from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates (Gen. 15:18; cf. 1 Kgs 4:21). This portrayal of Egypt’s future based on Israel’s past reminds anyone reading the book of Isaiah of the theology expounded in other passages of this book where future vision is constantly formulated by analogy to the past. Isa. 8:23–9:6 mentions Yhwh breaking the rod of the oppressor of Israel as he did in the days of Midian, alluding to Judg. 7. The child ruler of 9:5–6 will reign on the throne of David. Isa. 10:20 alludes to Israel’s servitude in Egypt, which is called ‘the one who struck them’. Similarly, Isa. 10:24, 26 compares the defeat of Assyria to the defeat of the Midianites in Judg. 7:25 and to the humiliation of the pharaoh by Yhwh in the stories of Exodus. The exodus story also provides the background for Isa. 11:11–12:6, as does 14:1– 4a, which we have already discussed in §3.2.1. One may also observe a close relationship with the theology of Assyrian prophecies, which promise Esarhaddon that ‘the future shall be like the past’ (urkīūte lū kî pānīūte),318 that is, as glorious, as the past. Since Isa. 9–10 focus on the deliverance from the oppression of Assur while Isa. 11:11–12:6 on the return from the exile, one may conclude that this presentation of the future by analogy to the past appears in both pre-exilic and post-exilic literature. Because the idea of the new exodus is emphatically present in exilic and post-exilic literature, scholars often tend to date Isa. 19:16–25 to after the exile.319 It is, however, important to note that at least the core of the story of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt is earlier than the exilic era. Furthermore, while the deliverance from Egypt is seen as an analogue to the return from Babylon for the exilic and post-exilic authors, 19:16–25 has little to do with the deliverance from Egypt (i.e. a second exodus) but is far more concerned with the stories of Exodus (among others)

318 319

PPANE 71 ii 37’; cf. PPANE 79 i 17–18. Vogels, ‘Égypte’, 496.

286

chapter five

as such. This means that Isa. 19:16–25 is more closely related to Isa. 9–10, than to 11:11–12:6. To conclude, the theological investigation of Isa. 19:16–25 has led thus far to two significant conclusions. First, Isa. 19:16–25 makes use of expressions and words that remind the reader of Israel-related texts. By this presentation of the future of Egypt, the author underlines that Egypt will get to know Yhwh in the same way as Israel did. Second, making use of the analogy of the past in order to present the future is a characteristic of several pericopes in Isaiah, one of which is Isa. 19:16–25. The second problem is the universalistic perspective of this prophecy. Universalism in the Bible is often related to the exilic and post-exilic periods. For this reason, Isa. 19:16–25 is frequently dated to the Persian or Hellenistic era. Parallel texts frequently mentioned include Isa. 66:18–21; Jon. 1:16; 3–4; Zech. 14:20; Mal. 1:11.320 It must be emphasised from the start that, while the Babylonian captivity facilitated the development of universalistic ideas (cf. Isa. 40–55),321 the idea of the supremacy of Yhwh over all other gods and nations originated in an earlier period. To avoid unhelpful generalisations, we should consider more closely the type of universalism expounded in 19:16–25. I am not so interested in universalism in the sense of Yhwh’s universal rule, but in the direct relationship between foreigners and Yhwh. The texts to be investigated can be subdivided into three groups.322 (a) Foreigners acknowledging Yhwh’s awesomeness. On different occasions, we find foreigners implicitly or explicitly acknowledging Yhwh:323 the Egyptians (Exod. 8:19; 9:20, 27; 10:7), the foreign travel mates of Jonah (Jon. 1:16), Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 2:47; 3:28–33), Darius (Dan. 6:24–27). These texts mostly deal with specific individuals or groups, rather than entire nations. A close parallel to Isa. 19 appears in 1 Sam. 5–6, a story proclaiming the superiority of Yhwh above the god Dagan. Essentially the same is suggested by Zeph. 2:11, which mentions nations bowing down before Yhwh ‘each in its own place’ (‫)וישׁתחוו־לו אישׁ ממקומו‬. The cause for this reverence of Yhwh is, 320

Feuillet, ‘Sommet’, 274–77; Schoors, 120–21; Berges, 167. A. Gelston, ‘The Universalism of Second Isaiah’, JTS 43 (1992), 377–98. 322 I exclude Exod. 18 from these passages. Jethro’s previous relationship with Yhwh is not clarified by the text (neither rejected nor presupposed). 323 On the general topic of foreign worshippers of ‘national’ deities, cf. D.I. Block, The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology, Grand Rapids, MI 22000, 71–72. 321

the analysis of isaiah 19

287

however, not a direct self-revelation of Yhwh to those nations (cf. ‫ נודע‬in Isa. 19:21), but it is rather induced by his awesomeness and the judgment that he passes on their national gods (cf. Ps. 22:28–29; 95:3; 96:4; 97:9). In most cases, the recognition of Yhwh (including bringing him offerings) does not imply that the nations or persons will have a positive, long-standing relationship with Yhwh. These stories confirm the superiority of Yhwh to an Israelite audience rather than to foreigners. This idea cannot be constrained to the post-exilic era. The concept of Yhwh’s superiority above the nations and their gods can therefore be traced back to the pre-exilic period (cf. Isa. 6:3).324 (b) There is only one God, whom the foreigners also revere. A somewhat related yet still a different idea is formulated in Mal. 1:11, a text often mentioned in connection with Isa. 19:16–25. Malachi speaks of nations bringing offerings to Yhwh ‘in all places’ (‫)בכל־מקום‬. Two important aspects distinguish this text from Isa. 19:16–25. First, like the former group, Mal. 1:11 also appears in a polemic context, only in a reversed sense: Israel should learn to fear Yhwh from the examples of other nations. Second, one wonders whether this foreign worship of Yhwh should not be understood as indicating, in Malachi’s view, that Yhwh is actually the true God of the world, so that every sacrifice offered by other nations is actually brought to him. This inclusive monotheism may also be the idea behind the story of Jon. 3–4, which is clearly different from Isa. 19:16–25. While Jonah, serving the God of the Hebrews (Jon. 1:9) is ordained by Yhwh, the name ‫ יהוה‬plays no role whatsoever in relation to the people of Nineveh. They are not Yhwh-fearing nations but god-fearing. They believe in ‫( אלהים‬Jon. 3:5, 8, 9, 10). They do not return to Yhwh and do not recognise him as a new God as in Isa. 19:21.325 Indeed, God’s name is not even an issue in this story. Yhwh is here the universal ruler of the world and has, therefore, direct relationships with other nations through creation 324 Ps. 82 is recognised as one of the oldest psalms. Note, however, 82:8, which presents Yhwh (?) as the uppermost judge of the entire world (reminiscent of the Canaanite Elyon). Kraus notes that ‘der »Universalismus« in der Theologie der Psalmen nicht das Spätprodukt eines religiösen Entwicklungsprozesses innerhalb der Geschichte Israels, sondern vielmehr ein im Typos der Verehrung des »höchsten Gottes« bereits vorgegebenes Element der kanaanäischen Welt ist’ (H.J. Kraus, Psalmen [BKAT, 15], Neukirchen-Vluyn 51978, 97). Amos 9:7 is another striking example, which refers to concrete nations, whose history is governed by Yhwh. This text parallels the exodus (!) of Israel with the exodus of other nations. For the pre-exilic origin of Amos 9:7, see A.S. van der Woude, Amos-Obadja-Jona (T&T), Kampen 1993, 103–4. 325 Contra Feuillet, ‘Sommet’, 275.

288

chapter five

(cf. Jon. 1:9; 4:10–11), not through covenant.326 It is the same concept as the one underlying the book of Job. (c) In order to get to know Yhwh, one has to go to Israel. The cases of Rahab (Josh. 2:9–13) and Ruth (Ruth 1:16) are also mentioned in connection with Isa. 19:16–25. However, these texts can be considered universalist only insofar as Israel is the centre of the universe. The stories of Rahab and Ruth convince the reader that experiencing the benefits of worshipping Yhwh is only realised by leaving former national and religious identities behind and joining the people of Yhwh. This is also the idea reflected in the story of Naaman (2 Kgs 5:15, 17), and more importantly in the Israel-centred texts concerned with foreign nations (Isa. 66:20–23; Jer. 12:14–17; Zech. 2:15–16; 14; etc.). Zeph. 3:9–10, which is closest to Isa. 19:16–25, may also be seen as part of this group. According to v. 9 Yhwh will gather the foreign nations for judgment, he ‘will change the lips of the nations into pure lips (‫ )אהפך אל־עמים שׂפה ברורה‬so that they may call on the name of Yhwh (‫ )לקרא כלם בשׁם יהוה‬and serve him with one accord (‫לעבדו שׁכם‬ ‫’)אחד‬. Isa. 19:16–25 may have been the source of Zeph. 3:9, as Zeph. 3:10 is also clearly built on Isa. 18:7 (cf. §§2.4.4; 4.3.1). A notable difference between the two texts is, however, that according to Zeph. 3:10, the other nations will worship Yhwh in Jerusalem and not in their homeland, unlike in Isa. 19:16–25. Therefore, the above mentioned texts hardly represent complete parallels for the ideas raised in Isa. 19:16–25, and they are unlikely to have played a role in the formation of this text. Isa. 19:16–25 is not merely about the fear of Yhwh characterising foreigners but the particular experience of Egypt with Israel’s God, who will be revealed to Egypt as he was revealed to Israel. Egypt will honour Yhwh, not Elohim; not the creator of the world, but Yhwh, who had smitten them, and healed them. They will not worship him in Jerusalem, but in their own land. Despite claims to the contrary, this type of universalism has no parallels in the texts mentioned above. In my view, it is an essential point that Isa. 19:16–25 does not present an eschatological scene in which nations stand in front of the throne of Yhwh but a scene set on historical soil, with actions that may have 326

I doubt that Jon. 3–4 would have had any influence on Isa. 19:25 in describing Assyria as the ‘creation of my hands’, as Feuillet assumes. As argued, this literary topic connects Isa. 19:25 to Assyrian theological conventions, where the king appears as the creation of Assur’s or Istar’s hands. This does not allude to a creation story, but it expresses strong relationship with the divinity.

the analysis of isaiah 19

289

been part of a nation’s history. This is a key issue in understanding the theological background of 19:16–25. The figure of the deliverer in v. 20 presupposes that Yhwh will act through human mediation, i.e., he will exercise his power and theocracy indirectly (cf. v. 4). This human involvement is absent in many texts describing Israel’s future in the exilic or post-exilic period. Indeed, texts such as Isa. 11:11–16; 25:6–9; 27:1, 12 use a heavily metaphorical language, often with mythological undertones. Moreover, the future of Egypt is portrayed here in clear historical terms as determined by its subjection to Assyria (v. 23). These considerations turn our attention towards another type of literature, the royal psalms, which likewise speak about the reverence that foreigners have for Yhwh, Israel’s God. According to these texts the foreigners worship Yhwh by acknowledging the human representative of his dominion (Ps. 2:10–11). An Israelite/Judaean king who is the ruler of the ‘world’ (Ps. 2:8; 45:17; 72:8–11; 110:6) represents a God who himself is the ruler over all nations. This concept has close connections with the Assyrian royal ideology, and it should most certainly be considered a pre-exilic response (whether an echo or retroversion depends on the situation) devised by Judah’s theologians based on Assyrian principles.327 According to Isa. 10:5–15, Assyria is the staff in the hands of Yhwh by which he punishes other nations in the same manner as Jeremiah considered Nebuchadnezzar the servant of Yhwh (Jer. 27:6) and Deutero-Isaiah recognised Cyrus as the messiah of Israel’s God (Isa. 45:1). In this view, Yhwh actually takes over the role of the principle deity of the foreign nation, Assur, Marduk, or Ahura Mazda, so claiming the right to be honoured as the God of the entire world.328 Through the occupation of a foreign country by his representative, Yhwh establishes his dominion in the occupied territory (cf. Jer. 49:38).

327 This is most obvious in Ps. 72:8, which describes the empire of the Israelite king as reaching from one sea to the other, a motif similar to the one appearing in texts impregnated by Assyrian royal ideology which present the empire’s boundaries as bordered by the Upper Sea and the Lower Sea (cf. §3.4). 328 Shalmaneser III writes: ‘when Assur, the great lord, chose me in his steadfast heart and with his holy eyes, and named me for the shepherdship of Assyria, he put in my grasp a strong weapon, which fells the insubordinate [. . .]’. (RIMA A.0.102.2 i 12). The same god he maintains ‘placed in my hands the sword, scepter, (and) staff appropriate for (rule over) the people’, and that Assur and Ninurta ‘placed firmly in my hands all lands (and) mountains’ (RIMA A.0.102.5 ii 1–2; cf. also A.0.102.9 15–17). Essentially the same is assumed by Esarhaddon according to his Zenjirli Stele (IAKA §65:30–37).

290

chapter five

While one could argue that, in Isa. 19:19, Egypt serves Yhwh directly by presenting him offerings (eschatological explanation), there is another more convincing historical reading of this text: Egypt serves Yhwh in an indirect way by subjecting itself to God’s appointed human king and by presenting offerings on the altars prepared by the Assyrians, for instance (vv. 19, 21). As the ultimate over lord of the Assyrian ruler, Yhwh regards these offerings as actually presented to him. Although serving Assyria does not appear explicitly in a positive sense elsewhere in Isaiah, this is certainly neither foreign to nor incompatible with the theology of this book. When Isaiah strongly and repeatedly rejects attempts to rebel against Assyria, he implicitly acknowledges the supremacy of this empire. Judah’s commitment to paying tribute as a faithful vassal coincides with Yhwh’s present purpose (‫ )עצה‬for the world: all nations should serve Assyria. Moreover, as I noted above, this idea is clearly present in other prophetic books as well. Jer. 25 and 27 consider the actual plan of God to entail the subordination of all nations to Nebuchadnezzar, while rebelling against Babylon is no lesser offence than rebellion against Israel’s God. This explanation has the advantage that it makes sense of Isa. 19:23 and of a world under Assyrian supremacy without forcefully assigning a meaning to v. 23 which is not supported philologically. To conclude, the Hebrew Bible version of Isa. 19:16–25 has some very particular—though not unique—views on the relationship between Yhwh and the foreign nations that must be carefully considered in order to avoid hasty conclusions unwarranted by the text of the prophecy. The manner in which vv. 16–25 describe the relationship between Egypt and Yhwh, as well as the fact that they allude to episodes in human history (vv. 20, 23) in which human agents act as Yhwh’s instruments suggest that Isa. 19:16–25 is most closely related to the universalism of the royal psalms and those sections of the Bible which present a foreign ruler as the means by which Yhwh exercises his dominion (2 Kgs 13:4–5; Isa. 45:1; Jer. 27; etc.). 5.3.3

The Historical Background of Isaiah 19

The reconstruction of the historical background of prophetic texts is generally problematic. One of the questions to be clarified is whether Isa. 19 is a prediction or a post-eventum prophecy? Since the two parts underwent a different literary history, they will be analysed separately.

the analysis of isaiah 19

291

Isaiah 19:1–15 and History There is much disagreement concerning the Isaianic authorship and consequently the 8th century origin of Isa. 19:1–15. Erlandsson claims that ‘vv. 1–15 are nowadays usually considered to be Isaianic’, while Becker argues that the authenticity of Isa. 19 is almost unanimously rejected.329 This diverging information about the communis opinio derives among others from a selective use of secondary literature, but it certainly illustrates two radically different opinions regarding the provenance of the prophecy (cf. §1.3.2). It may be observed that scholars favouring an 8th century date rely mostly on historical arguments, while those contesting this dating base their contentions on literary-theological considerations.330 Since the presented literary critical arguments are insufficient to question an 8th century derivation for the prophecy (cf. §5.3.1), we need to look at what date the historical information favours the most. The following details may contribute to a reconstruction: (1) Isa. 19:2 describes conflicts among kingdoms (‫ )ממלכה‬in Egypt. This inner-Egyptian conflict is often mentioned as an important reference for dating this text to the 8th century.331 (2) According to v. 4, Egyptians will be handed over to a harsh lord and a powerful king. (3) Vv. 11 and 13 mention that the leaders of Zoan (Tanis) and Noph (Memphis) act as the counsellors of the pharaoh in v. 11. Towards the end of the New Kingdom (1550–1070), Egypt’s glory came to be shaded by two significant political developments: the continuous wars with the sea peoples and the incursion of Libyan tribes into the Eastern Delta. This latter was particularly significant with regard to Egypt’ future, since the integration of subjugated Libyan warriors into the Egyptian army by the Ramessides ultimately became fatal for the Egyptian throne. The Libyans gradually took over the Delta through intermarriages and land grants gained in reward for their military accomplishments.332 These events mark the beginning of Egypt’s so-called Third Intermediate Period (1070–728).

329

Erlandsson, Burden, 271. E.g. parallel ideas with Isaianic passages (Kaiser, 83; Kilian, 120) or lack of an ‘Isaianic style’ (Dillmann, 170–71; Loretz, ‘Ugaritische Topos’, 103). 331 D.B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, Princeton, NJ 1992, 335; J.D. Currid, Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament, Grand Rapids, MI 1997, 239; Sweeney, 271; Blenkinsopp, 314. 332 A. Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East. c. 3000–330 bc, vol. 2, London 1995, 626–27; Kákosy, Egyiptom, 170; J. Taylor, ‘The Third Intermediate Period (1069–664 bc)’, in: 330

292

chapter five

In the north, Tanis and Memphis become the centres of the 21st Dynasty, but the gradual deterioration of the relations with Thebes contribute to the further fragmentation of Egypt, including the Delta region, between the pharaohs of 23rd and the 22nd Dynasties ruling in parallel.333 By the end of the 8th century, a further 24th Dynasty of Libyan origin was claiming royal titulature in Lower Egypt (Sais). By the time the Kushite Piye arrived in Memphis around 728, the country was divided among more than a dozen kings, princes and Mashwash chiefs (a Libyan tribe).334 It has been argued though that this political situation should not be characterised as chaotic or anarchic. The 22nd–24th Dynasties were of Libyan origin. To a certain extent, they had assimilated and adopted Egyptian culture, but the Libyans clearly retained a significant measure of authentic tradition. Their names were Libyan, even after several generations. Libyan statues and funerary objects preserved large lists of genealogies, atypical for Egyptian pharaohs and characteristic of non-literate societies of nomadic or semi-nomadic origin.335 The boasts by the pharaoh’s counsellors concerning their descent from historic royal families in Isa. 19:11 can also be understood against this background.336 This internal situation proves to be particularly fragile when—as a third important factor in shaping the history of Egypt—the Nubian kings of Napata, the city founded once by Egyptians as the seat of their administration in Kush, invade and take over the entire Egypt.337

I. Shaw (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford 2000, 339. Cf. also F. Gomaà, Die Libyschen Fürstentümer des Deltas, vom Tod Osorkons II. bis zur Wiedervereinigung Ägyptens durch Psametik I (BTAVO, B6), Wiesbaden 1974. 333 Manetho calls the 22nd Dynasty Bubastite because it originated with Bubastis, while the 23rd Dynasty is called Tanite, since it derived from Tanis, though seated in Leontopolis (Tell-Moqdam) (K.A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period, London 2 1986, 128–30). 334 Cf. Piye’s Victory Stele (FHN 1.9); see also R.G. Morkot, The Black Pharaohs: Egypt’s Nubian Rulers, London 2000, 191–95. 335 Taylor, ‘Third Intermediate Period’, 340–41. 336 Note, however, prism fragment Bu 91–5–9, 218 (col. a ln. 6’), which also mentions ‘the descendants of his [Taharka’s] father’s house, sons of former kings’ (zēr bīt abīšu mārē šarrē maḫrūte). H.-U. Onasch, Die assyrischen Eroberungen Ägyptens, Bd. 1 (ÄAT, 27), Wiesbaden 1994, 20. 337 See, e.g., K.-H. Priese, ‘Der Beginn der kuschitischen Herrschaft in Ägypten’, ZÄS 98 (1970), 16–32; D. O’Connor, Ancient Nubia: Egypt’s Rival in Africa, Pennsylvania, MA 1993; L. Török, The Kingdom of Kush: Handbook of the Napatan–Meroitic Civilisation (HdO, 1/31), Leiden 1997; Morkot, Black Pharaohs; K. Jansen-Winkeln,

the analysis of isaiah 19

293

The Great Triumphal Stele (or Victory Stele) of Piye (747–717), the first pharaoh of the 25th Dynasty, gives a detailed account of the political history of Egypt around 728 bc.338 According to this text, the rulers in the small kingdoms of Egypt acknowledged the supremacy of the Kushite Piye mostly voluntarily. Memphis, which was the seat of one of the most powerful kings of the Delta, Tefnakht of the 24th Saite Dynasty, refused to do so and was taken by force, although the rebellious prince managed to flee. While Piye returned to Napata after this incident, his brother and successor, Shabaka, chose Memphis, ‘the balance of the two lands’, as the seat of his large Egypto-Kushite Kingdom. Indeed, the sphere pictured in Isa. 19:2 complies well with the situation in Egypt in the late 8th century. However, the following elements need serious consideration before driving presuppositions further than v. 2 actually permits. First, it is far from certain that Isa. 19:1–15 is a post-eventum prophecy.339 If it is read as a predictive text (‘I shall stir up Egypt against Egypt . . .’), then the 8th century historical situation may have served in the best case as an inspiring terminus post quem. Second, as mentioned in the exegesis, the civil war setting is so common in ancient literature that it cannot be tied to one particular moment in Egypt’s history. What we can at most say is that Isaiah seems to have favoured this motif (cf. Isa. 3), and the fact that it is a literary topos does not exclude the possibility of it having some historical reality, as indeed the texts mentioned in this connection often go back to real historical situations. Third, the scenario in 19:2 was not just typical for the period before the campaign of Piye in 728, but it reappeared on different occasions. The conflicts between the princes of Lower Egypt with Taharka and Tanutamani, the last two Kushite pharaohs of the 7th century, are particularly important. Nevertheless, the use of expression ‫ ממלכה בממלכה‬in a domestic Egyptian context is striking. Unless it belongs to stereotypical phraseology, it may point to an era of relative independence for and conflict between the Egyptian nomes (‫)ממלכה‬, which was the case before 664 bc, when Psametik I, ‘Alara und Taharka: zur Geschichte des nubischen Königshauses’, Or. 72 (2003), 141–58. 338 Cf. N. Grimal, La stèle triomphale de Pi(’ânkh)y au Musée du Caire (JE 48862 et 47086– 47089): Études sur la propagande royale égyptienne (MIFAO, 105), Caire 1981; R.H. Pierce, ‘Great Triumphal Stela of Piye, Year 21’ (FHN 1.9); M. Lichtheim, ‘The Victory Stela of King Piye (Piankhy)’ (COS 2.7). 339 Contrast Hayes & Irvine, 260 (ex eventu); Procksch, 246 (pre-eventum).

294

chapter five

a descendant of the Saite Dynasty, was installed by the Assyrians as the new pharaoh of Egypt (26th Dynasty). In the prophecy of Isa. 19, the fall into chaos is followed by the installation of a harsh lord and a powerful king. In identifying this ‫מלך‬, scholars have often made use of the possibilities provided by history, recognising here Piye, Shabaka, Sargon II, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Cambyses, Xerxes, Artaxerxes II, III, or Antiochus III.340 Some exegetes do not search for one specific person behind the text but consider it a prediction.341 This latter view does not, of course, rule out that the author had one specific king of his era in mind, even if his name is not mentioned. Nevertheless, as noted in the exegesis, the installation of a ruler after a period of crisis appears as a widespread topic in Near Eastern texts. Again, this does not rule out that the prophet indeed envisages real events here. Second, a Judaean prophet and his audience had arguably a very limited knowledge about Kushite kings in a period before the Kushites invaded Egypt, so that it is unlikely that he would have spoken about a Kushite king as a harsh lord. Actually, the Kushite kings proved to be very Egypt-friendly. They appeared as true Egyptian pharaohs in every respect and, with a few exceptions, they remain admired even in much later times.342 Third, Isa. 19:11 mentions the leaders of Zoan as the wisest counsellors of the pharaoh. This means that there is one pharaoh in Egypt, advised especially by Zoan (Tanis). This again excludes the possibility that Isa. 19 describes the first Kushite invasion of Piye (728). As argued, the role of Tanis as a border town on the east is particularly significant. The emphasis on the eastern border probably means that the ruler mentioned in v. 4 comes from Asia. Fourth, the rather general profile of the king could apply to many foreign rulers. Assyrian and Babylonian kings were generally known as particularly harsh monarchs.343 The Medians also appear as cruel

340 For Piye, cf. Hayes & Irvine, 260; Niccacci, ‘Isaiah xviii–xx’, 218. For Shabaka, cf. Currid, Ancient Egypt, 240. For Sargon II, cf. Procksch, 246; A. Feuillet, ‘Études chronologique des oracles qu’on peut dater’, in: Idem, Études d’exégèse et de théologie biblique: Ancien Testament, Paris 1975, 51. For Nebuchadnezzar, cf. Vermeylen, 1.321. For Cambyses, cf. Dillmann, 170–71. For other Persian rulers, cf. Kilian, 121. 341 Kissane, 215; Penna, 184; Young, 2.16; Oswalt, 368. 342 Cf. C.J. Chimko, ‘Foreign Pharaohs: Self-Legitimization and Indigenous Reaction in Art and Literature’, JSSEA 30 (2003), 23–28. 343 The term ‫ אדנים‬is particularly suited to the Assyrian king, Esarhaddon, who is called ‘lord’ rather than ‘king’ on his ascension treaty tablet fragments from Nineveh.

the analysis of isaiah 19

295

enemies (Isa. 13:17–18), but this period may be irrelevant for us if Ezek. 30 is assumed to refer to Isa. 19:1–15, as argued above (§5.3.1). Ezek. 30 identifies the harsh master with Nebuchadnezzar (Ezek. 30:10; cf. 28:7; 30:11–12; 32:12), which may be considered a terminus ante quem for Isa. 19:1–15. Tiglath-pileser III, Sargon II and Sennacherib managed to extend the Assyrian Empire to the borderland of Egypt.344 Anyone of these could have been viewed as a potential source of threat for the future of Egypt. It was Esarhaddon who first succeeded in conquering Egypt. Following a futile attempt in 674, Esarhaddon finally took control over the Delta in 671 (IAKA §65).345 The invasion of the African continent was a shocking incident, legitimising Esarhaddon’s expansion of his tile by listing some new elements: ‘king of the world, king of Assyria, governor of Babylon, (. . .), king of the kings of Lower Egypt, Upper Egypt and Kush’ (IAKA §8:2–7; §24:2–3; §44:1–5). The city of Tanis, the source of wise council for Egypt concerning foreign affairs, flourished during the 22nd Dynasty. One of its kings, Osorkon IV, brought tribute to Sargon in 716, and Shoshenq V, Osorkon’s predecessor, may have been the ruler who honoured Tiglath-pileser III around 734–733 in a similar way. Tanis is the city to which the Israelites sent their messengers according to Isa. 30:4. There is little information concerning the role of Tanis after 716, but Cf. S. Parpola, ‘Neo-Assyrian Treaties from the Royal Archives of Nineveh’, JCS 39 (1987), 170–74. Though note ‫ אדנים‬in Isa. 26:13; Jer. 27:4. 344 Tiglath-pileser III established a bīt kāri, ‘custom office’, at the border of Egypt SI 4:14’ (ITP, 140–41); SI 9: rev. 16 (ITP, 188–89). On bīt kāri, see M. Elat, ‘The Economic Relations of the Neo-Assyrian Empire with Egypt’, JAOS 98 (1978), 26–27; J.N. Postgate, Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire, Rome 1974, 390–91. An Egyptian king (Shoshenq V?; so Kitchen, Period, 372–74) is probably mentioned as a tribute bearer of Tiglath-pileser in SI 8:20’-21’; SI 9: rev. 23–25; SI 13:1’-2’. Cf. ITP, 178; N. Na’aman, R. Zadok, ‘Sargon II’s Deportations to Israel and Philistia (716–708 B.C.)’, JCS 40 (1988), 43. It is unclear whether Nimrud letter ND 2765 mentioning Egyptian horse tribute to the Assyrians should be dated to Tiglath-pileser’s or Sargon’s reign. Sargon’s texts also clearly refer to threat to Egypt. His activities in relation to a kāru (identical with the bīt kāri above; cf. ISK, 88) at the border are well-known (Khorsabad Annals 17–18). He receives tribute from Osorkon IV, king of Egypt (Šilkanni šar māt Muṣri), in 716 (Assur prism 1–11), and from Pir’u (Pharaoh?), king of Egypt (Pirʾu šar māt Muṣri), in 715 (Khorsabad Annals 123–25, Great Display Inscription 25–27, etc.). For the texts, cf. A. Fuchs, Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad, Göttingen 1994; Idem, Die Annalen des Jahres 711 v. Chr. nach Prismenfragmenten aus Ninive und Assur (SAAS, 8), Helsinki 1998. Sennacherib’s battle with Egypt was already discussed in §4.3.3. 345 For the details, see A. Spalinger, ‘Esarhaddon and Egypt: An Analysis of the First Invasion of Egypt’, Or. 43 (1974), 295–326; Onasch, Eroberungen.

296

chapter five

sporadic references suggest that it preserved its significance at least until the emergence of Psametik I (664–610). The names of three kings, Gemenef-khonsu-bak, Pedubast II (Sehetepi-benre) and Neferkare are known from this period.346 Memphis, the other city mentioned in the prophecy, must have been the seat of the pharaoh referred to in Isa. 19:11. When a pharaoh ruled in Lower Egypt, Memphis was the centre of the monarchy. The ascension of Shabaka (the first among the Kushite pharaohs to rule from Memphis) can be considered a terminus post quem for Isa. 19:1–15. As I noted above, ‫ ממלכה‬has increasingly lost its significance after Psametik I ascended the throne of Egypt in Memphis in 664 bc. The apparent lack of interest in cities beyond Memphis in Isa. 19 provides further evidence for a date after the takeover of Upper Egypt by Shabaka (717/716?). Since the deliverance of Egypt into the hands of a harsh master is presented as an unprecedented experience for Egypt, this means that the latest date has to be before the invasion of Esarhaddon in 671 bc, provided that the prophecy is considered predictive, or otherwise not long after this event. Taken together, from the sporadic historical references in the prophecy we may safely conclude that Isa. 19:1–15 was composed in the period between 716–671 bc. Isaiah 19:16–25 and History Working with the hypothesis that 19:1–25 is a coherent text, Hayes and Irvine presuppose an 8th century background for the prophecy. They argue that the threat by Judah (v. 17) resonates with 1 Chron. 4:40–43, according to which the Simeonites in the days of Hezekiah drove away the sons of Ham (Meunites), who are identified with Egyptians. In a similar manner, the commercial centre (kāru) of Sargon II in the neighbourhood of Gaza, and his mingling of Egyptians and Assyrians to trade together was supposed to explain Isa. 19:23–25.347 However, this interpretation rests on certain textual assumptions and a translation, especially of v. 23, which is not followed here. Those who date vv. 16–25 to the Persian or Seleucid era care little for the historical information in the text, and concentrate mostly on theological ideas, mainly the above discussed universalistic perspective of these verses.

346 347

Kitchen, Period, 129, 137, 153, 396. Hayes & Irvine, 263–64. Cf. Nimrud Prism (D) iv 42–49.

the analysis of isaiah 19

297

The ‫ ביום ההוא‬in Isa. 19:16–25 introduce a series of pronouncements which appear to be related to concrete and imminent historical situations. This is especially obvious in v. 23, where the described subordinate relationship between Assyria and Egypt reflects the political realities of the author’s time, when the world was subjected to Assyrian supremacy. Unlike other proclamations which envisage the destruction of the Assyrian superpower, this verse is more neutral about this empire. Further, the conclusion that we are at least partially dealing here with already evident historical situations is unavoidable if vv. 16–22, 16–23 or 16–25 are regarded as one literary unit. Such a view of the composition would imply that the transition from judgment to salvation occurs at a moment when judgment has been passed and salvation is available. It should also be noted that, occasionally, the text pays great attention to specific details in a way suggestive of historical description.348 At the same time, there is a certain amount of the text that is not historically true. The Egyptians never trembled on hearing the name of Judah; there never were ‘five’ Canaanite-speaking towns in Egypt swearing an oath to Yhwh; there never was a Yhwh altar in Egypt, nor a stele dedicated to Yhwh on its border, at least not in a literal sense. Questions may also arise concerning the ordaining of the ‫מושׁיע‬, and the pledges and offerings of the Egyptians. Finally, vv. 24–25 are also far from any basis in historical reality. The question is whether Isa. 19:16–25 should be understood literally or should we rather assume that any underlying historical facts are veiled here in prophetic-poetic language? In discussing the theological background of vv. 16–25 (§5.3.2), I suggested that this text may be read as a Judaean view of Egypt’s history. Assyria, Babylon, Persia, or whoever enters Egypt, does so under the guidance of Yhwh, just as his cloud chariot in Isa. 19:1 was drawn by flesh and blood Assyrian horses. If we approach this passage with these considerations in mind, they could reveal some historical information to us. As mentioned in §§5.2.5–6 above, Isa. 19 coincides with other texts of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal at some striking points.349 The Babylonian Chronicle reports that after heavy fighting, Memphis was 348

Cf. Procksch, 254; Fohrer, 1.229 (for Isa. 19:18–22); Wildberger, 730. Isa. 19:16–25 is dated to the 7th century by Gottwald, Kingdoms, 224–28 (between 660–609); R. Nelson, ‘Realpolitik in Judah (687–609 bce)’, in: W.H. Hallo et al. (eds), Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the Comparative Method, Winona 349

298

chapter five

captured by the Assyrians on the 22nd of Duʾūzu (June/July) in 671 bc. Taharka (690–664), the Kushite king, fled southwards, but several members of his family were captured and deported to Nineveh, including Crown Prince Ushanhuru. The Zenjirli stele of Esarhaddon provides a detailed picture of this incident (IAKA §65:48–53; ANET, 293). The aftermath of the conquest is of particular importance: The root of Kush I tore out and I left nobody in it to praise me. In the whole land of Egypt I installed anew kings (šarrānu), administrators (pāḫātū), governors (šaknūtū), treasury officials (rab kārē), prefects (qēpānu) and instructors (šāpirū). I established regular offerings (sattukku) and cultic offerings (ginû) for Assur and the great gods, my lords, forever. I imposed upon them tribute and obligation of my lordship, every year continually. I let a stele be made with my name, and the praise of the heroism of my lord, Assur, my mighty deeds (that I accomplished when I was) walking in reliance upon Assur, my lord, and the victorious achievements of my hands I caused to be written on it. I let [it] be erected to the wonderment of all the enemies forever after.

Version BM 75977 (iv 3’) of the Babylonian Chronicle also mentions the deportation of the Egyptian gods to Assyria. Egypt became the property of Assur. In a prophetic view which regarded Assyria as the tool in Yhwh’s hand, the altar of Isa. 19:19 could refer to an Assyrian altar and the stele to an Assyrian stele. It only requires interchanging Yhwh with the god Assur, investor of the king according to Assyrian texts, which is exactly what happens in texts such as Isa. 10:5–15. In 671, Esarhaddon only succeeded in occupying Lower Egypt, along with Memphis, ‘the balance of the two lands’, the capital at the southern border of Lower Egypt. The Assyrian texts do not mention where the stele with the king’s name stood (nara‚ šiṭir šumīya; cf. ‫ מצבה ליהוה‬in Isa. 19:19). But as steles in general, this narû also signified that Egypt belonged ‘to the border of Assyria’ (ana miṣir mātīšu; Prism A i 60–62). Assyrian texts of Esarhaddon suggest and later texts of Assurbanipal mention explicitly that Esarhaddon changed the names of Egyptian cities into Assyrian names.350 Esarhaddon was eager to see the ‘root

Lake, IN 1983, 185 (era of Josiah, 627–622); Sweeney, 270, 272 (era of Manasseh [687–642]). 350 IAKA §64:25 (e.g., Sais became Kār-bēl-mātāti); Onasch, Eroberungen, 1.30–37, 94–95; BIWA, 211 (Assurbanipal’s Prims E iii 16–17).

the analysis of isaiah 19

299

of Kush’ removed from Egypt. He underlined the legitimacy of the Assyrian presence in Egypt by introducing himself as the liberator of Egypt.351 Esarhaddon did not drastically alter the local Egyptian political order. Later texts of Assurbanipal mention 20 kings over Egypt installed anew by his father, who committed themselves in a treaty ceremony to serve their new master.352 Necho (I), the king of Memphis and Sais, appears as the first among these kings. He seems to have been chosen by Esarhaddon as the most prominent Egyptian leader. It was left to Assurbanipal, Esarhaddon’s successor, to finish the work begun by his father and to definitively drive Kush out of Egypt. His army first set foot on the African continent in 667, the earliest record of which is preserved on Assurbanipal’s Prism E (BIWA, 177– 80). The Assyrians overcame the defence of Taharka at Pelusium and then marched to Memphis and recaptured it. Taharka fled to Thebes, which the Assyrians were unable to enclose during this campaign. The Assyrian’s military venture was supported by 22 vassal kings of the Mediterranean islands and the seacoast, including King Ba’al of Tyre and King Manasseh of Judah, both mentioned at the top of the list,353 as well as by the kings of Egypt (LET 31’–32’). This undertaking is presented as a military intervention in support of Assyria’s Egyptian vassals, who were obliged to flee after the return of Taharka to Egypt.354 Nevertheless the Assyrian presence in Egypt was still experienced as a burden. This we may infer from an account of the rebellion of the Egyptian kings found on Assurbanipal’s prisms.355

351 Cf. Spalinger, ‘First Invasion’, 325. Later texts of Assurbanipal concerning the anti-Assyrian uprising of Egyptian kings mention the ‘good deeds’ (ṭābtu) of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal towards the Egyptians (BIWA, 211). 352 For the list, cf. Prism A i 90–109 and Prism C ii 87–92. 353 The list of participating kings appears on Assurbanipal’s Prism C ii 37–67. Prisms E, A, and LET 29’–33’ only mention the involvement of 22 kings giving no further details. The list of Assurbanipal’s Prism C is similar to Prism B of Esarhaddon from Nineveh, which also mentions 12 kings of the sea-shore (šarrāni ša kišādi tâmtim), among others Manasseh, king of Judah, and 10 Cypriote kings in connection with the king’s building operations at Kar-Esarhaddon, on the Phoenician coast (IAKA §27:54–76). Jewish soldiers appear in the Egyptian army of Psametik I (?) in a war against Kush and in the army of Cambyses, when he invades Egypt (cf. Letter of Aristeas 13). 354 Prism C ii 85–100; Prism B i 87–95; Prism A i 90–116. 355 Fragment 82–5–22,10 (BIWA, 26–27); Prism E iv 29–80. Prism A i 118–ii 6; C ii 105–130; LET 37’-69’. Cf. SAA 4 88; Onasch, Eroberungen, 1.151.

300

chapter five Afterwards, Necho, Sarru-lu-dari, and Paqruru, kings whom my father has installed in Egypt, transgressed the treaty sworn by Assur and the great gods, my lords, and broke their oath. They forgot the good deeds of my father, their heart planned evil (ikpudū lemuttu), they talked false speech, and discussed profitless counsels (milik lā kušīri imlikū) among themselves as follows: ‘If they drive out Taharka from Egypt, how then can we stay?’ They sent their messengers to Taharka, the king of Kush, to make a treaty and peace (ana šakan adê u salīme) saying: ‘Let us make peace with each other, and let us agree with each other. We shall divide the land among ourselves, so that there is no other (šanûmma) lord among us.’ (Prism E iv 29–46).

The plan failed, however. The messengers despatched to Kush were captured by the Assyrians. Necho, Sarru-lu-dari and other kings as well356 were charged with breaking their treaty sworn before ‘Assur, king of the gods’, taken to Nineveh and punished. The inhabitants of Sais, Mendes, Pelusium and some other cities (possibly Pisaptu and Athribis)357 were cruelly massacred. Yet king Necho was pardoned. Assurbanipal re-established him in his vassal kingship, dressed him up in a royal garment, and sent him back to Egypt in a noble company alongside a permanent Assyrian representative. Necho’s son, Nabûšēzi-banni, the later Psametik I, was given the throne of Athribis.358 While Isa. 19:19 speaks about the oath sworn to Yhwh, this may be considered a theological variation on the oath of Egyptian kings sworn to the Assyrian kings and their god, who installed them in their office. That the foreign language of the overlord played a role in this ceremony is beyond question, even if it was not the ‘Canaanite’ language of Yhwh in strict sense, as Isa. 19:18 maintains. But if the five cities can be regarded as symbolic, why should ‘Canaanite’ be literal?

356 According to Prism A i 130 and ii 5–7, all 20 kings of Egypt were taken to Nineveh. Prism C iii 6–9 mentions only Necho and Sarru-lu-dari, while Prism B ii 3–6 refers solely to Sarru-lu-dari being taken to Nineveh. While Prism A is generally considered late and less reliable, we have some evidence that Assurbanipal’s actions were directed against several rebellious kings. Paqruru is mentioned several times as one of the rebels. Moreover, the Assyrian texts assign the throne of Athribis later to Necho’s son, Nabû-šēzi-banni. Earlier Bukunraniʾpi occupied the same position (Prism C ii 85–109; A i 90–95), so that he must have been removed from the throne. The rebellious cities punished by Assurbanipal also include Mendes, whose king, Puyama is likewise not named whith Necho, Sarru-lu-dari and Paqruru. 357 Prism C ii 130–iii 5; Prism A i 134–ii 4. Prism B i 95 refers to Tanis (Ṣāʾnu), which might be a scribal error for Pelusium (Ṣēʾnu) (cf. BIWA, 214). 358 In the Egyptian tradition the ruler of Athribis was the hereditary prince of Egypt (Spalinger, ‘First Invasion’, 320).

the analysis of isaiah 19

301

The son of Necho, the crown prince Psametik (I), bears an Assyrian name (Nabû-šēzi-banni) as an expression of his subordination to Assyria. The Egyptian kings appointed by Assyria are constantly referred to as servants (urdu) of Assyria. The cities occupied by Esarhaddon are given Assyrian names in expression of their status. As argued, this Assyrian practice may underlie the renaming of the five Egyptian cities as ‘cities of ruins’ in Isa. 19:18. Whether the five cities are symbolic or whether 19:18 refers to five historical cities will remain a riddle. Let it be noted, however, that the kings of five cities were implicated more than others in the rebellion against Assurbanipal, and they were severely punished thereafter: Isanti of Paqruru, Sais of Necho, Mendes of Puyama, Pelusium of Sarru-lu-dari, and possibly Athribis of Bukunranipi, who was replaced by Psametik I. Judaeans were well-informed about the political developments not only as neighbours but even as eyewitnesses.359 As seen above, Judaean contingents joined the Assyrian forces in their activities in Africa. However, if Isa. 19:16–25 refers to Egypt serving Assyria, how can we interpret the liberation of Egypt in Isa. 19:20b–21? Does it refer to an Egyptian prince, who will throw off the Assyrian yoke and drive away the Assyrians? According to Assurbanipal’s Prism A ii 114, sometime after Psametik I (Pišamilki) (664–610) consolidated his force in Egypt, he allied with King Gyges of Lydia and threw off the Assyrian yoke. Nevertheless it is difficult to combine this event with Isa. 19:23–25. Another alternative which fits v. 23 (24–25) much better is to assume that Isa. 19:20–21 deals with the liberation of Egypt from Kushite and not Assyrian supremacy. The ‫ מושׁיע‬could refer to Necho I or Psametik I who drove away Taharka and his successor, Tanutamani, with Assyrian (and Judaean) support. It is also possible that ‫מושׁיע‬ can also refer to the Assyrian king himself. It is true that Isa. 19:4 speaks negatively about the Assyrian occupation of Egypt. However, since vv. 16–25 were composed on a different occasion, it is possible that vv. 16–25 reinterpret vv. 1–15 in a new way. It is particularly striking that Isa. 19:16–25 is strongly related to the Assyrian ideology on the issue of the legitimacy of Assyrian domination of Egypt. Yet the same cuneiform texts also present the kings Esarhaddon and

359 Isa. 37:25, composed in the post-Sennacherib era, also refers to the capture of Egypt and alludes to the desiccation of Egypt’s rivers (‫)יארי מצור‬.

302

chapter five

Assurbanipal as great liberators to whom Egypt should be thankful in all ages. Assurbanipal repeatedly refers to ‘the good deeds’ (ṭabtu) that he or his father performed for the Egyptians. Assyrian military operations are presented as freeing Egypt from the Kushites. As I noted in the exegesis, 2 Kgs 13:4–5 also mentions another Assyrian king (probably to be identified with Adad-nirari III) as the ‫ מושׁיע‬of Israel against Aram. From a Judaean author whose country supported Assyria in establishing its universal rule in Africa, such a theological accommodation is hardly surprising. It is moreover embedded in a decades-long prophetic tradition which considered the world power Assyria as the royal sceptre of Yhwh. To conclude, Isa. 19:16–23 presupposes the invasion of Egypt in 671 by Esarhaddon and seems to fit particularly well the early years of Assurbanipal.360 The ‫ מושׁיע‬in v. 20b is probably a direct or indirect reference to the Assyrian king, who offered support to Necho I or Psametik I in their struggle against the Kushite kings, Taharka or Tanutamani. There is little historical information that would help us to date vv. 24–25, which may be seen as a prediction pronounced against the same historical background. Otherwise, if their unity with the previous verses is disregarded, the two closing verses might derive from the Persian period.

5.4

Isaiah 19 and the Stele of Yhwh (Isaiah 13–23)

Isa. 19 is particularly well-suited to be read in reference to a stele of Yhwh. As v. 19 makes clear, this prophecy refers explicitly to a stele (‫ )מצבה‬set up in Egypt’s borderland, which suggests that the author was acquainted with the use and function of such monuments. In the exegetical section, I mentioned many features that this text shares with Assyrian literature. Among the most important elements, I noted the approaching threat generated by Yhwh in the form of an Assyrian military venture (v. 1; cf. also v. 16). According to Assyrian The final ‫ ביום ההוא‬of Isa. 23, which parallels Isa. 19 in many respects, refers to the restoration of Tyre after ‘70 years’. This motif also appears in Esarhaddon’s texts in his description of the restoration of Babylon (IAKA §11 Episode 10). It should be noted in passing that Isa. 23:18 with its seemingly anti-Deuteronomian echo (cf. Deut. 23:19), is just as striking as Isa. 19:19’s apparent pro-‫ מצבה‬stance that some likewise consider anti-Deuteronomistic. 360

the analysis of isaiah 19

303

texts, the approach of the Assyrian king also causes hearts to palpitate and people to melt in fear. The portrayal of Egypt as a land losing its mind when confronted by Yhwh (vv. 3, 11, 13) reminds one of the effects of the appearance of the glory (namrīru) and awesomeness (melammû) of Assur which, according to Assurbanipal’s Prism B i 80–82, caused Taharka to become frenzied (illika maḫḫûttaš). The reference to the plan against Yhwh is reminiscent of the Assyrian descriptions of rebellion of subordinated kings. In this sense ‫‘( עצתו אבלע‬his plans I shall destroy’; v. 3) can be compared to the account concerning the ‘planned evil’ (ikpudū lemuttu) and ‘profitless counsel’ (milik lā kušīri) of Egypt’s leaders against Assurbanipal (Prism E. Stück 11 1–10). The related gesture of the raised hand over the nations (v. 17) was already noted as a recurring motif in Assyrian literature (cf. §3.4). Isa. 10:32 connects this act explicitly with the Assyrian king. The harsh lord and powerful king (v. 4) reminds one of the impression made by a ṣalmu-stele, most likely familiar to the audience, which represented the Assyrian king as an authoritative and powerful ruler. The desiccation of the Nile (vv. 5–7) reappears in Isa. 37:25 in a speech cited from the Assyrian monarch. The Judaean author is obviously a master of Assyrian rhetoric. It is not only the expression ‫יארי מצור‬, which is of particular interest here, but also the fact that this speech is specifically related to the post-Sennacherib era (Isa. 37: 37–38), i.e., the age of the Egyptian campaigns of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. A long list of motifs typical to Assyrian stele literature appears in vv. 18–22: the change of city names into Assyrian names; comparison of destroyed cities to ruined hills (cf. here ‫עיר ההרס‬, ‘city of ruins’); the swearing of allegiance to the overlord; the establishment of an altar to Yhwh on which offerings and ‘tributes’ are presented (‫זבח ומנחה‬, v. 21); the erection of the stele (‫ )מצבה‬in the border zone and its dedication to Yhwh; the offering of support against enemies by the benevolent overlord. These are clear indications that the author of these verses was familiar with the literary customs and royal ideology of Assyrian royal inscriptions. As for Isa. 19 in the context of the ‫יום יהוה‬-edition, the chaos caused by Yhwh among Egypt’s gods can be compared to Isa. 2:18 (‫והאלילים‬ ‫ ;כליל יחלף‬cf. 2:8, 20). The inability of the Egyptian leaders to endure the day of their visitation (19:11–14) is similar to Isa. 2:11–12, 17.

304

chapter five 5.5

Conclusion

From a literary critical perspective, Isa. 19 comprises two text blocks, 19:1–15 and 19:16–25. Despite widespread assumptions to the contrary, we have good reasons to believe that 19:5–10 is integral to the text. It was either composed simultaneously with 19:1–4, 11–15, or derives from an earlier source. The prose form of 19:12, 14–15 was noted as an eventual sign of subsequent addition to the rest of the prophecy, but these verses do not basically modify the meaning of the earlier text. It is clear that Isa. 19:16–25 derives from a different time. Its linear structure may suggest it was included in one or at most two stages (vv. 16–23 + 25–26). Although Isa. 19:1–15 does not mention it explicitly, predicting the fall of Egypt might have functioned as an implicit warning for a Judaean community. If the prophecy is dated to the 8th century, it is only by assuming this rhetorical intention that it can make any sense. Otherwise, it is also possible that vv. 1–15 derive from the beginning of the 7th century. In that case the allusion to Yhwh’s plan may suggest that the text is a Judaean theological reflection on the political realities created by endless Assyrian conquests. In Isa. 19:16–25, the salvation history of Egypt is modelled on that of Israel, with typical motifs drawn especially from Exodus and Israelite historical literature. I have argued that this parallelism fits the 7th century expansions of the book of Isaiah, which also predict that the future of Israel shall be like its past. Unlike most exegetes believe, the universalist view propagated by vv. 16–25 has no close parallels in post-exilic literature but is mostly reliant on the idea of indirectly realised divine rule, an idea also echoed in the royal psalms. In this case the Assyrian Empire is the form through which the universal rule of Yhwh manifests itself in the world. This perspective has made it possible to read Isa. 19 in the context of the prophecies of the stele of Yhwh. As far as the available evidence allows us to conclude, Isa. 19:1–15 can be dated to between 717 and 671 bc, and 19:16–25 to the early years of Assurbanipal’s reign, but no later than about 650 bc. Possibly though not necessarily, 19:24–25 may come from the early Persian period. Manasseh was the son of a father with strong ties to Egypt, but he lived in an era when this friendship with Egypt could only have been maintained under Assyrian supervision, for even Egypt was serving Assur (v. 23). This historical context may have inspired the author of Isa. 19:16–23(24–25) to put pen to papyrus.

CHAPTER SIX

NAKED TRUTH: THE ANALYSIS OF ISAIAH 20

The introductory phrase of Isa. 20:1–6 ties the events it narrates, a symbolic act of Isaiah concerning Egypt and Kush, to a concrete historical period, the capture of Ashdod by the commander of Sargon II in 711 bc. Although the focus on Egypt and Kush relates this text to Isa. 19, its location among the FNPs remains unusual in several respects. First, Isa. 20:1–6 is a narrative about Isaiah in the 3rd person. Second, Isa. 20 is separated from the preceding prophecy by a new heading, though not one of the ‫משׂא‬-type as in Isa. 19:1 or 21:1. Third, Isa. 19 ends with a pronouncement of salvation concerning Egypt. Consequently, the renewed proclamation of judgment against Egypt and Kush in Isa. 20 would seem to necessitate re-evaluation. Despite the short and relatively well-preserved text, several issues in this passage need clarification. First, one should note the cumbersome structure of the introductory sentence, which presents the following verse as the words of Yhwh spoken through Isaiah. However, the present form of vv. 2 and 3, which use the 3rd person to refer to Isaiah, raise questions concerning their logical connection to v. 1. Second, the original relationship between the symbolic act of Isaiah and the fall of Ashdod is subject to debate. Because v. 1 mentions the city Ashdod and v. 6 speaks about ‘the inhabitant of this coastland’, many scholars believe that the symbolic action of the prophet was originally intended as a warning to the Philistines and that its connection with Egyptians and Kushites is a secondary development. Third, it is unclear whether the ‘three years’ in v. 3 constitute the interval during which Isaiah has been walking naked and barefoot or are part of the symbolism itself. Fourth, the retrospective narrative form of the text dealing with Isaiah presupposes temporal distance from the narrated events. Consideration therefore needs to be given to the extent to which the literary form of Isa. 20 as a later-constructed narrative influenced the meaning of eventually postulated earlier Isaianic oral utterance and symbolic act.

306

chapter six

The answers to these questions have a direct bearing on discussions concerning the literary integrity of Isa. 20, which has often been questioned in exegetical literature. From a theological point of view, it remains to be seen how this text functioned rhetorically and what message it intended to convey. As for the historical background, the primary question concerns the manner in which historical information is retold in the narrative and the extent to which any historical context underlying the written text can be used to explain the text.

6.1

Translation with Text-Critical and Semantic Notes

1 In the year when the tartanb came to Ashdod (abeing sent by Sargon 2 the king of Assyriaa) and he attacked it and took it, at that time Yhwh spoke throughc dIsaiah, son of Amosd. He said: ‘Go, and loose the sackcloth from your loins and take off the shoes from 3 your feet.’ And he did so, walking naked and barefoot. And Yhwh said: ‘Just as my servant, Isaiah, has walked naked and barefoot efor three years (or: three years is)e as a sign and portent concerning 4 Egypt and Kush, so shall the king of Assyria lead off the captives of Egypt and the exiles of Kush, young and old, naked and barefoot, 5 fwith the buttocks and the genitalia of Egypt uncoveredf. And they will be dismayed and ashamed of Kush, gtheir expectationg, and of 6 Egypt, their pride. And the inhabitant of this coastland will say on that day: “Look, this has happened to our expectation where hwe had fledh for help to be delivered from the king of Assyria. How then shall we escape?” ’. 1 a-a ‫ ַאשּׁוּר‬. . . ‫ ִבּ ְשֹׁלח‬. Literally this would be ‘when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him’ (cf. D §91a; GKC §115k). For further discussion, see the exegesis. b ‫ ַתּ ְר ָתּן‬. The variant ‫ תורתן‬in 1QIsaa probably reflects a different orthography particular to this scroll.1 ‫ תרתן‬is a loanword from

1 For the ◌̠>‫ וֹ‬change before the ‫ר‬, see E.Y. Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1 Q Isaa), Leiden 1974, 122, 496–97.

the analysis of isaiah 20

307

Akkadian,2 where it refers to a high-ranking military official, a ‘field marshal’ or a ‘commander-in-chief ’. The Akkadian is spelled as tartān, tartannu, tartānu, turtān, turtannu, turtānu.3 2 c ‫ ְבּיַ ד‬. Modern readers observe inconsistencies in the logical structure of this verse. The preposition one would expect here is ‫ אל‬rather than ‫ביד‬, since the phrase following v. 2a is addressed to the prophet and not through the prophet. LXX solved this difficulty by rendering πρὸς. Some Hebrew manuscripts also contain ‫ אל‬instead of ‫ביד‬. Nevertheless, MT is supported by the majority of ancient witnesses, including 1QIsaa. Deviations from MT should most likely be viewed as exegetical attempts to make sense of a confusing syntax. Some modern commentators reject the emendation and explain the use of ‫ ביד‬as referring to the symbolic action of Isaiah through which God spoke to the prophet’s audience.4 However, if ‫ ביד‬was supposed to mean that God spoke through the act of Isaiah, the inclusion of ‫ לאמר‬is problematic. Moreover, we have other parallels to this syntax where the motif of speaking through a symbolic act is missing (see below). Even though the syntax of Isa. 20:2 is unusual, it is not entirely without parallels. Hag. 2:1–2 provides a strikingly similar case: On the 21st day of the seventh month, the word of Yhwh came through (‫ )היה דבר־יהוה ביד‬the prophet Haggai saying (‫)לאמר‬: Speak to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and to all the remnant of the people, saying (‫ )לאמר‬. . .

Here, too, one would expect either the preposition ‫אל‬, or v. 3 to directly follow v. 1. In Exod. 9:35, ‫ ביד‬seems to stand for ‫אל‬, referring to a revelation of Yhwh to Moses (cf. LXX and Exod. 7:3–4) and not through him to others. In Num. 27:23, ‫ ביד‬also replaces ‫אל‬: ‘He [Moses] laid his hands upon him [Joshua] and commissioned him, as Yhwh had spoken through (?‫ ;ביד‬LXX τῷ) Moses’. This verse refers to Num. 27:18(–21), which contains a revelation to (not through) Moses (cf. also Deut. 34:9). Such examples suggest that ‫דבר ביד‬, ‘to speak 2 The word is probably of Hurrian origin. See P.V. Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew (HSS, 47), Winona Lake, IN 2000, 151. 3 R. Mattila, The King’s Magnates: A Study of the Highest Officials of the NeoAssyrian Empire (SAAS, 11), Helsinki 1999, 110–11. 4 Ehrlich, 73; Procksch, 257; Watts, 264; Höffken, 161; Barthélemy, 151.

308

chapter six

through’ may actually function as ‫דבר אל‬, ‘to speak to’, or that ‫ביד‬ and ‫ אל‬can sometimes be interchanged.5 There is also a third possibility. In both 20:2 and Hag. 2:1, ‫ דבר ביד‬seems to have a broader context (related verses). It is not unlikely that these introductions were written to bind together previously existing literary units, and as such, they postdate them, which may explain the logical break and the double superscriptions appearing in certain texts.6 I shall return to this problem in the exegesis of vv. 2–3. Ancient authors were seemingly less bound by modern logic than one would presuppose. d-d ‫ן־אמוֹץ‬ ָ ‫יְ ַשׁ ְﬠיָ הוּ ֶב‬. The Syr. adds nbyʾ after ‫ישׁעיהו‬,7 LXX omits ‫( בן־אמוץ‬cf. 2 Chron. 26:22).8 It should be observed that, in superscriptions (Isa. 1:1; 2:1; 13:1), the book of Isaiah uses ‫ישׁעיהו בן־אמוץ‬ without ‫הנביא‬, while the title ‫ הנביא‬is regularly added in the narratives of Isa. 36–39 (2 Kgs 18–20; 2 Chron. 32). The phrase ‫ישׁעיהו בן־‬ ‫ אמוץ‬in Isa. 20:2 is therefore consistent with the headings of Isaiah. In superscriptions of prophetic books, the prophets are rarely called ‫נביא‬. Instead, ‫ נביא‬appears in 3rd person narratives about prophets.9

‫ ָשׁלשׁ ָשׁנִ ים‬. The atnahִ at the end ‫ וְ יָ ֵ ֑חף‬suggests that MT regards ‫ שׁלשׁ שׁנים‬as the beginning of a new clause. Consequently, Isaiah

3 e-e

walked naked and barefoot only once but for three years this symbolic act was a sign and a portent for Egypt and Kush.10 The more 5 Cf. further examples of the interchange of ‫ אל‬and ‫ ביד‬in Jer. 50:1: ‫ אל־בבל‬and ‫ביד ירמיהו‬, however Jer. 49:34 (cf. 47:1) has ‫ אל־ירמיהו‬and ‫אל־עילם‬. 6 See Jer. 25:1 and 2; Jer. 46:1 and 2; Hag. 1:1 and 3. This broader view is likely the explanation for Hag. 2:10–12, where ‫ אל־חגי‬is used in the same manner as the earlier ‫ביד־חגי‬. For ‫ אל‬instead of the expected ‫ביד‬, see other examples in Jer. 11:1; 21:1; Zech. 1:1. In some texts, the later addition of an introduction either resulted in a double heading or an introduction that had little to do with the immediately following passage to which it was attached (Jer. 27:1[2]; 32:1[6]; 34:8[12]; Obad. 1; Zech. 1:7; 7:1; cf. also Hos. 1:2). Note also Josh. 10:12 (‫ אז ידבר יהושׁע ליהוה‬followed by an imperative addressed to ‫ שׁמשׁ‬and ‫)ירח‬. 7 See also Kennicott nr. 150 as well as 2 Kgs 19:2; 20:1; 2 Chron. 26:22; 32:20, 32. 8 Note, however, Codex Vaticanus and the Lucianic recension, which also mention the ‘prophet’. 9 ‫ נביא‬is absent in Jer. 1:1. As part of a superscription ‫ נביא‬is attested in Jer. 25:2; 45:1; 46:1, 13; 47:1; 49:34; 50:1; 51:59, remarkably concentrated in the headings of the collection of FNPs, and Jer. 45:1, which is the only heading where a translation of ‫נביא‬ appears in LXX (= Jer. 51:31). This is striking in view of countless other superscriptions in Jer. where the name Jeremiah is used without the qualifier ‫נביא‬. Cf. Ezek. 1:3; Hos. 1:1; Joel 1:1; Amos 1:1; Obad. 1:1; Jon. 1:1; Mic. 1:1; Nah. 1:1; Zeph. 1:1; Mal. 1:1, missing ‫נביא‬. ‫ הנביא‬appears in Hab. 1:1; 3:1; Hag. 1:1, 3; Zech. 1:1, 7. 10 Cf. also Alexander, 368; Delitzsch, 242; Oswalt, 382.

the analysis of isaiah 20

309

widely held opinion is that Isaiah performed the symbolic act for three years, arguing that ‫ שׁלשׁ שׁנים‬logically belongs to what precedes the expression.11 For a comprehensive analysis, see the exegesis. 4 f-f ‫שׂוּפי ֵשׁת ֶﬠ ְרוַ ת ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם‬ ַ ‫וַ ֲח‬. Procksch considered ‫שׂוּפי‬ ַ ‫ ֲח‬an Aramaism,12 but I adopt the often proposed revocalisation to ‫שׂוּפי‬ ֵ ‫ֲח‬ (qal part. pass.).13 ‫ ערות מצרים‬is often regarded as a gloss.14 Wildberger considered the entire phrase a later addition, but his arguments are hardly convincing. Note that all other descriptions of the exiles in v. 4 appear in pairs: ‫זקנים | נערים‬, ‫יחף | ערום‬, ‫גלות כושׁ | שׁבי מצרים‬. The syntactic pair of ‫ חשׂופי שׁת‬is ‫ערות מצרים‬.15 Scholars who try to make sense of ‫ ערות מצרים‬in its present location arrive at the translation ‘(with buttocks uncovered) to the shame of Egypt’. This shows the influence of LXX: ἀνακεκαλυμμένους τὴν αἰσχύνην Αἰγύπτου, ‘having exposed the shame of Egypt’. αἰσχύνην generally stands for ‫בשׁת‬, but also for ‫ערות‬.16 However, the Greek is rather imprecise.17 The constr. state of ‫ ערוה‬appears in Gen. 9:22, 23; Lev. 18:7; 1 Sam. 20:30; Ezek. 23:29. While ‫ ערות מצרים‬may be rendered as ‘the nakedness of Egypt’, the phrase ‘to [an implicit ‫ ]ל‬the nakedness of Egypt’makes no sense. It seems more likely to me that ‫ חשׂופי‬is related to both ‫ שׁת‬and ‫ערוה‬ through an implicit ‫ו‬. ‫ שׁת‬refers to the buttocks of Egypt, while ‫ערוה‬ to the front, the genitalia from which the covering has been stripped off.18 ‫ שׁת‬and ‫ ערוה‬form the pair of words that is so characteristic for the other expressions in the list of Isa. 20:4. Accordingly, I render Isa. 20:4 as: ‘with the buttocks and genitalia of Egypt uncovered’. 5 g-g ‫מ ָבּ ָטם‬. ַ ‫ מבט‬appears once more in Zech. 9:5, in a sentence similar to Isa. 20:5. 1QIsaa reads ‫ מבטחם‬in Isa. 20:5, i.e. ‘their trust’ (not so, however, in v. 6, where 1QIsaa follows MT). It has been argued (cf. the 11

See, e.g., Duhm, 148; König, 208; Schoors, 124; Wildberger, 748; etc. Procksch, 258. Delitzsch also kept the vocalisation (Delitzsch, 243). 13 GKC §87g, §89d; Gray, 348; Wildberger, 748; Blenkinsopp, 321; etc. 14 Procksch, 255; Fohrer, 1.216; Kaiser, 92; Clements, 175; Schoors, 125. 15 Note also the grammatical parallelism of constr. state endings in ‫ שׁבי מצרים‬and ‫שׂוּפי שׁת‬ ֵ ‫ ֲח‬on the one hand, and ‫ גלות כושׁ‬and ‫ ערות מצרים‬on the other. 16 Isa. 47:3; Ezek. 16:36; 22:10; 23:10, 18, 29; αἰσχύνη stands for ‫ מער‬in Nah. 3:5. 17 LXX probably omitted ‫ שׁת‬as it also has either ‫ שׁבי‬or ‫( גלות‬cf. ἰσχίων in 2 Sam. 10:4, which is however close to αἰσχύνην at least in form). 18 For ‫ ערוה‬in reference to genitalia (and not ‘nakedness’ in general), see Gen. 9:22, 23; Exod. 28:42; Lev. 18:6; Isa. 47:2; Lam. 1:8; Ezek. 16:8; etc. 12

310

chapter six

notes of HUB) that πεποιθότες in LXX (which entirely reformulated v. 5) also presupposes ‫מבטחם‬. Be it as it may, the semantic fields of ‫מבט‬ and ‫ מבטח‬are closely related. 6 h-h ‫נַ ְסנוּ‬. 1QIsaa has ‫נסמך‬, i.e. niph‘al impf. 1st pers. pl. of ‫)נִ ָסּ ֵמְך( סמך‬ ‘we relied upon’ (Judg. 16:29; 2 Kgs 18:21; 2 Chron. 32:8; Ps. 71:6; Isa. 36:6; 48:2). Although this reading would provide an appropriate description of the political situation in Egypt at the time of Isaiah (cf. 2 Kgs 18:21; Isa. 36:6; see also Ezek. 30:6), the verb ‫ סמך‬would require the preposition ‫ על‬and it would make no sense with the adverb ‫שׁם‬. All versions support MT, as does a syntactical analysis of ‫ נסנו שׁם‬in the context of the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Gen. 19:20; Exod. 21:13). The variant in 1QIsaa may be a deliberate revision through which the author reflects on the events of his time, especially the flight of Judaeans to Egypt during Onias III (cf. §5.1 n. 20 e–e). Apparently, he did not intend to criticise those who had fled to Egypt (‫ )נוס‬with Onias, only those who relied (‫ )סמך‬on the Egyptians.

6.2

Exegetical Section

Isa. 20:1–2 provides the historical coordinates for a symbolic act and one of Isaiah’s prophecies. The formula ‫ בשׁנת‬followed by a detailed description is common in historical works and superscriptions, appearing twice more in the book of Isaiah as well (Isa. 6:1 and 14:28).19 The campaign of Sargon’s commander against Ashdod is welldocumented in extra-biblical sources (see §6.3.3). As the leader of the army the ‫( תרתן‬tartān) appears beside other high-ranking royal magnates (nāgir ēkalli, ‘palace herald’, masennu, ‘administrator’, sartinnu, ‘chief judge’, rab šāqê, ‘chief cupbearer’, rab ša rēši, ‘chief eunuch’, etc.). The tartān owned vast provinces in the Assyrian Empire,20 and

19 E.g., Gen. 7:11; 1 Kgs 15:28, 33; 16:8; 2 Kgs 12:2, 7; 17:6; Dan. 10:1; Hag. 1:1. The Assyrian system of dating that includes mention of an eponymous official was unknown in Judah. However, Judaean authors did, in fact, date according to important events of one particular year in a manner reminiscent of the Eponym Chronicles. See further Z.J. Kapera, ‘Biblical Reflections of the Struggle for Philistia at the End of the Eight Century B.C. Part II: Analysis of the Chapter xx of the Book of Isaiah’, FO 12 (1981–1984), 279–80. 20 For instance, Belu-lu-balat, the tartān of Samsi-adad V, is ‘the governor of Tabitu, Harran, Huzirina, Duru, Qipani, Zallu, and Balihu’. Samsi-ilu, the tartān of

the analysis of isaiah 20

311

led campaigns in the absence of the Assyrian king on various occasions (e.g., RIMA 3 A.0.104.20:10). One such case is reported in Isa. 20. The attack against Ashdod described in this chapter was apparently short and effective. The phrase ‫[ וילכדה‬. . .] ‫ וילחם‬in v. 1 is common in descriptions of military accounts with successful outcomes (Judg. 1:8; 9:45; 2 Sam. 12:26, 29; 2 Kgs 12:18). ‫( בעת ההיא‬20:2) is a common expression in biblical narratives. In its present position, it makes the connection between vv. 1 and 2 explicit. The role of v. 1 is to provide additional information on v. 2.21 The temporal distance between the events and their recording cannot be deduced from this adverb. ‫ בעת ההיא‬may denote events in the remote (Judg. 11:26; 21:14; 2 Kgs 8:22; 2 Chron. 13:18) or recent past (Neh. 4:16; 6:1; 13:21). Isa. 20:2b describes a personal encounter between the prophet and Yhwh during which God orders the prophet to take off his sackcloth and his shoes and walk naked and barefoot. A short note in v. 2 reports the fulfilment of this command. The reader is struck by the fact that Isaiah was wearing a sackcloth (‫)שׂק‬. Because sackcloth is often associated with mourning rituals, some commentators believe that Isaiah was mourning for the fate of his nation.22 Others assume that wearing the sackcloth may have itself been a symbolic act representing the future tragedy of Philistia or Judah.23 Most commentators maintain, however, that ‫ שׂק‬was the usual garment of a prophet.24 Sackcloth is worn in times of mourning (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31; Ps. 30:12; Isa. 3:24; Joel 1:8), tragedy (2 Kgs 6:30; 19:1–2; Est. 4:1–4) and fasting (1 Kgs 20:31, 32; 22:27; Isa. 58:5; Neh. 9:1; Dan. 9:3). In the prophetic literature, the word ‫ שׂק‬is frequently connected to descriptions of lamentation related to a calamity.25 Though the prophets may

Salmaneser IV, is ‘the ruler of Hatti, Guti and all Namri’ (cf. Isa. 10:8). See Mattila, Magnates, 114. 21 Cf. 2 Kgs 16:5–6; 1 Chron. 21:27–30. See further A. Niccacci, ‘Isaiah xviii–xx from an Egyptological Perspective’, VT 48 (1998), 224 n. 17. 22 Cf. Slotki, 93; Oswalt, 385; Blenkinsopp, 323. 23 Wildberger, 757; Hayes & Irvine, 271. Bronner suggested that Isa. 20 actually consisted of two different symbolic actions, one performed by a prophet walking in sackcloth, related to the replacement of Azuri in 713, and another one by removing the sackcloth, related to the events in 711 (L. Bronner, ‘Rethinking Isaiah 20’, OTWSA 22–23 [1979–1980], 36). 24 Duhm, 148; Gray, 345–46; Ehrlich, 73; Ridderbos, 147; Hayes & Irvine, 271; Kaiser, 93; Schoors, 124; Watts, 264; Höffken, 140. 25 Isa. 15:3; 22:12; 32:11; Jer. 4:8; 6:26; Ezek. 7:18; Joel 1:8, 13; Amos 8:10.

312

chapter six

have occasionally worn a hairy type of robe by means of which they were recognised (2 Kgs 1:8; Zech. 13:4; Mat 3:4), ‫ שׂק‬appears to be different from this prophetic garment.26 Consequently, the sackcloth worn by Isaiah before being taken off should probably be related to a previous or subsequent sorrowful event experienced by the prophet and his nation. Notably in Isa. 22:4, Isaiah bewails the future destruction of his nation in anticipation of which he may have been wearing mourning clothes, symbolising the fate of a nation now rejoicing irresponsibly, but soon to weep and wail, tear out hair and put on sackcloth (Isa. 22:12).27 The question is whether Isaiah indeed walked naked and barefoot, or this act was only a visionary experience? Did the prophet walk naked every time he appeared in public or did he do so on certain occasions only? Is it possible to perform such a symbolic act regularly under the climate conditions of Canaan? Does Isa. 20 refer to total nakedness? ‫ ערום‬may express total or partial nakedness.28 In either case, it symbolises shame (2 Sam. 6:20). According to Isa. 32:11, mourning implied stripping off all clothes (‫)ערר‬, including underwear, and girding oneself around the waists (‫ )חגורה על־חלצים‬with sacks (cf. Gen. 37:34; 1 Kgs 20:31; Jer. 48:37).29 If Isaiah was wearing a garment of mourning, he must have been totally naked when he took it off (cf. Mic. 1:8–9). The oral message supplementing the symbolic action, namely that Assyria will deport the African captives stripped of clothing in the manner of Isaiah, makes most sense if the prophet was indeed walking totally naked. The question concerning the real life setting of this symbolic action is very significant in relation to the present passage. Although scholars generally assume that the story goes back to a real event, König has

26 Elijah, the prophet, is called ‫ אישׁ בעל שׂער‬in 2 Kgs 1:8, which probably corresponds to ‫אישׁ בעל אדרת שׂער‬, ‘one with a hairy robe’ (cf. Gen. 25:25). His ‫אדרת‬, ‘robe’ (1 Kgs 19:13, 19; 2 Kgs 2:8, 13–14) may denote any type of robe, including those worn by prominent people. It is rather the ‫אדרת שׂער‬, ‘hairy robe’, which seems to have been typical for the prophets (Zech. 13:4). Extra-biblical texts make no distinction between a type of prophetic garment and the dressing of other persons (cf. PPANE 54, 55, 56, 58, 59). 27 For a short analysis of Isa. 22, see §3.2.8 above. 28 For the first, see Gen. 2:25; Job 1:21; Eccl. 5:15; Hos. 2:3, for the second, 1 Sam. 19:24 (?); Job 22:6; 24:7, 10; Isa. 58:7. 29 For ‫( מתנים‬Isa. 20:2) as a synonym of ‫( חלצים‬Isa. 32:11), see Isa. 11:5.

the analysis of isaiah 20

313

argued that it was only a vision.30 If König is right, many questions related to the symbolic act become irrelevant. The fact that Isa. 20 reports on the prophet obeying Yhwh’s command (‫ )ויעשׂ כן‬is not in itself proof that Isaiah’s act was performed in reality. A similar command to the prophet Jeremiah ordering him to take the cup of wrath from the hand of Yhwh and make all the nations drink from it is likewise followed by a short description of its symbolic execution (Jer. 25:15–17). Yet this could hardly have been a real performance. It is not the symbolic action itself that serves here as a message but the description of the symbolic act that is intended to catch the attention of the readers or audience of Jer. 25. This may actually be the case with many (though not all) symbolic actions in prophetic literature. Some of those are not real historical events, but functioned as symbols in textual form alone. As prophetic narratives, they did not address an audience from the time of any symbolic ‘enactment’ but a later generation not requiring any first-hand experience of the event.31 It is possible or even probable that Isa. 20 is another case similar to Jer. 25:15–17. The primary function of the story in Isa. 20 is not to inform the reader of what actually happened when Ashdod was captured but to convey a message to a later audience living under similar circumstances. This reading makes the most sense of the text, as it does not require verses to be abandoned in order to establish a historical counterpart to all the actions narrated in the chapter (cf. §6.3.1). The (imagined) enactment of the symbolic action is followed by its explanation. The prophet is called ‫עבדי ישׁעיהו‬, ‘my servant, Isaiah’, a term often applied to prophets in Deuteronomistic literature or writings assumed to have been influenced by this theology.32 However,

30

König, 210. E.g., Jer. 13:1–11 (note the temporal distance in 13:6); Ezek. 4:1–17 (Ezekiel has to prepare and eat his food while being bound and unable to move [4:8–9]). Jer. 18:1– 10 reveals the theological message of a symbolic act to the prophet which he would retell later to an audience. Jer. 19 contains the report of the prophet’s personal experience, yet 19:14 presents it as an accomplished mission. Jeremiah’s unmarried state is a message that becomes theologically significant to the prophet (Jer. 16:1–9) and to those reading the narrative in the future. The symbol is not physically performed but formulated in writing. Some accounts of symbolic action function similarly to the prophetic descriptions of visions (e.g., Amos 7). 32 E.g., 1 Kgs 14:18; 15:29; 2 Kgs 9:7; 10:10; 14:25; 17:13; Jer. 7:25; 25:4; 26:5; 35:15; Zech. 1:6; Amos 3:7. See also J. Blenkinsopp, ‘The Prophetic Biography of Isaiah’, in: E. Blum (ed.), Mincha. Festgabe für Rolf Rendtorff zum 75. Geburtstag, NeukirchenVluyn 2000, 19. 31

314

chapter six

‫ עבד‬is also used in connection with other significant personalities of the Old Testament (Abraham, Moses, David, Eliakim, etc.). This means that Isaiah is designated a servant of Yhwh on grounds of his close relationship with him rather than his prophetic vocation. Reference to Isaiah in the third person in 20:3 reminds one of a striking element in a similar performance by Ezekiel. Ezekiel tells us in a first person account that ‘Ezekiel will be a portent (‫ )מופת‬to you: you will do just as he has done.’ (Ezek. 24:24). Ezekiel’s text was directed at a later reading community, just as Isaiah’s is. Unlike Ezek. 24, however, Isa. 20:3 is composed by a person other than Isaiah. With regard to the mentioned three-year period, Isa. 20:3 is not clear whether and in what sense this duration plays a role in the story. The Massoretes and ancient Jewish commentators assume that the three years refer not to the length of the performance of the symbolic action, but rather to the length of the time that the once performed act would serve as a sign. Most commentators believe, however, that the ‘three years’ alludes to the duration of the prophetic act performed between 713–711.33 This explanation entails several difficulties. In a real life setting, walking around naked for three years is problematic. First, it is hard to imagine a prophet walking naked for three years and explaining the meaning of his act only at the end of the three years. Second, walking around naked for three years is difficult from a physical point of view. Of course, if the text is read as a literary composition from a later period or if it is a vision, these problems hardly cause any hermeneutical conundrum. However, the Massoretic interpretation of the verse must also be given serious consideration for the following reasons. First, the narrative simplicity of Isa. 20:2 gives the reader the impression that the command to Isaiah involves a single action. Yhwh commanded Isaiah to walk naked and barefoot, and he did so. Second, the book of Isaiah contains many similar temporal references in various other prophecies. This form of prophesying seems to have belonged to the basic message of the book of Isaiah (cf. Isa. 7:8, 16; 16:14; 21:16; 37:30; cf. 29:17). The striking point about these texts is that the idea of timing plays a role in the future fulfilment of the prophecy. This would mean

33 Duhm, 148; Gray, 342; Ridderbos, 147; Fohrer, 1.255; H. Donner, Israel unter den Völkern: Die Stellung der klassischen Propheten des 8. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. zur Aussenpolitik der Könige von Israel und Juda (VTS, 11), Leiden 1964, 114; Clements, 173.

the analysis of isaiah 20

315

that the ‘three years’ in Isa. 20:3 refers similarly to the fulfilment of the message related to the symbolic action. In this case, ‫ שׁלשׁ שׁנים‬may be considered a parenthetic reference or a gloss to v. 3b (cf. Isa. 7:8b).34 It may allude to a very near future and not necessarily to 36 months (cf. Jer. 28:3).35 Another feature that brings Isa. 20 close to the Isaianic tradition is the function of signs. Walking naked and barefoot is called a sign and portent (‫ )אות ומופת‬with regard to Egypt and Kush. Isaiah with his ‘sons’ bearing symbolic names functioned as ‫( אתות ומופתים‬8:18) for a generation unwilling to listen. During the reign of King Ahaz, signs (‫ )אות‬also played an important role in transmitting the divine message (Isa. 7:11, 14). In Isa. 37:30, the events of ‘three years’ similarly function as a sign (‫ )אות‬for Hezekiah. As a sign (‫ )אות‬referring to the redemption of the city from the Assyrian king, the shadow went back ten steps on the dial (?) of Ahaz (‫ ;מעלות אחז‬Isa. 38:8). Unlike his predecessor, Hezekiah asks for a sign (‫ )אות‬to rely on during his illness (38:22). Isa. 38:7 gives the theological background to ‫ אות‬in these narratives: ‘Yhwh shall carry out what he has promised’. Isa. 20:4 explains the sign act. Here it becomes obvious that the nakedness of the prophet symbolises the nakedness of the Egyptian and Kushite captives led away by the Assyrian king. The sentence ‫חשׂופי‬ ‫ שׁת ערות מצרים‬emphasises that the Assyrians will take away the exiles totally naked, a practice confirmed by iconographic evidence.36 ‫נערים‬ ‫ וזקנים‬implies that the prophet envisages not only the deportation of prisoners of war but the inhabitants of the land of Egypt and Kush.37 Hebrew ‫ ִאי‬appearing in v. 6 means ‘shore’, ‘coastland’ (Isa. 23:6; 66:19; Jer. 25:22), but also ‘isle’ (Jer. 47:4; Ezek. 27:6). Most exegetes understand v. 6 as announcing judgment against the Ashdodites, supposedly underlying the term ‫ישׁב האי הזה‬. This interpretation implies that an earlier and still unfulfilled prophecy of Isaiah regarding the

34 Wildberger, 283, and Clements, 85, argue that the sixty-five years in Isa. 7:8 may hint at the era of Esarhaddon or Assurbanipal in the 7th century. 35 Duhm, 148, suggests that Isa. 20 remained unfulfilled, which was for him a major reason to consider the prediction authentic. 36 Cf. AOB 128 (Tafel lvii) portrays captives taken away by Salmaneser V, totally naked apparently with their heads shaved, as also alluded at in Isa. 7:20. 37 Cf. Gen. 19:4; Exod. 10:9; Deut. 28:50; Josh. 6:21; Judg. 7:11.

316

chapter six

deportation of Ashdod was rewritten later as a prophecy referring to Egypt.38 This view is problematic, however. Theoretically, it is possible for a superscription of an oracle to give a secondary interpretation to a text (cf. Jer. 47:1–7). But in the case of Isa. 20, we have no evidence that v. 1 would have had a previous form that did not involve the fall of Ashdod. The term ‫ האי הזה‬in v. 6 hardly requires such a radical reinterpretation of Isa. 20. The fact that the capture of Ashdod is mentioned in the superscription does not necessarily mean that the deportees mentioned in the prophecy need to be Philistines. If the events presented in the heading of the prophecy constitute the background of the symbolic act and explanation of Isaiah, then he had actually nothing to say to the inhabitants of Ashdod any more.39 Isaiah is rather concerned with how the fate of Ashdod would alter the future of Egypt, the supporter of every anti-Assyrian revolt west of the Euphrates. On the day when Egypt is led away, as the inhabitants of Ashdod had been exiled just days earlier, the inhabitant of this coastland will say: ‘this has happened to them, we are the next on the list of Assyria’. Three different references are made to the audience of the prophet: ‘they’ (v. 5), ‘the inhabitants of this coastland’, and ‘we’ (v. 6). There is no doubt that ‫ ישׁב האי הזה‬refers to Canaan, but focuses on the primary audience of the author, Judah itself.40 The fate of the Philistines was closely linked to that of the neighbouring nations. As we shall see below, Judah was at least tempted to participate in the revolt of Ashdod in 711, being invited personally by the Ashdodite king. The

38 Procksch, 258; Donner, Israel, 115; Kaiser, 95; Clements, 173–74; Schoors, 125; Sweeney, 266. 39 Likewise, Isa. 20 cannot be interpreted as a prophecy about capturing Egypt before Ashdod (contra Gray, 342; Kaiser, 95). 40 Burney argues that ‫ ישׁב האי הזה‬referred specifically to the Philistine ruler Yamani, whose name is mentioned in relation to the revolt of Ashdod in Assyrian inscriptions. He understood Yamani as a gentilicum, alluding to the isle of Cyprus (C.F. Burney, ‘The Interpretation of Isa, xx 6’, JTS 13 [1912], 423). The Cypriot origin of Yamani is, however, uncertain (cf. §6.3.3). The plural ‫אנחנו‬, which is logically identified with ‫ישׁב האי‬, throws further doubts on his proposal. Seitz, 144, believed that ‫ אי‬refers here to the peoples of the coastland, as in Isa. 41:5; 42:4, ‘representing the nations at the limits of the known world’. The difficulty with Seitz’s suggestion is that ‫ האי הזה‬appears in sg. and not in the pl. that one would expect if the term denoted nations far off. Of all recorded occurrences, ‫ אי‬appears in sg. only in Isa. 23:2, 6 (Phoenician coast); Jer. 25:22 (isle of Cyprus or eventually Crete); 47:4 (isle of Crete). Further evidence against Seitz’s proposal is provided by the definite article ‫ה‬ and the demonstrative pronoun ‫הזה‬.

the analysis of isaiah 20

317

singular form of ‫ ישׁב‬makes most sense if it is linked with one specific audience, though that does not exclude that ‫ האי‬implies more than one nation. Strikingly, it is exactly that part of the Nineveh Inscription of Sargon II which narrates the revolt of Philistia in 711, which refers to Philistia, Judah, Edom, and Moab as āšibūt tâmtim, ‘those living by the sea’ (cf. §6.3.3). The fact that āšibūt tâmtim includes Judah as well is clearly seen from similar descriptions of this region by Salmaneser III and Esarhaddon.41 Judah is always the addressee of the prophet in other narratives closely related to Isa. 20. It was noted in the discussion of v. 3 that ‫ אות ומופת‬reminds the reader of other texts in which the sign functions as a means of communication between Isaiah and his people. As the sign of Isa. 7:11, 14 delivered a message to the Judaeans under the threat of Damascus and Samaria, or as Isa. 37:30 and 38:8 comforted Judah threatened by Assyrians, so they are warned here by the sign concerning (‫ )על‬Egypt and Kush. The relationship between these ‘sign-narratives’ and Isa. 20 is further strengthened by the vocabulary. ‫ חתת‬in 20:5 is a synonym of ‫ירא‬, which refers to the fear that the prophet intends to chase away in Isa. 7:4 (cf. ‫ חתת‬in 7:8) in order to provide comfort and instil reliance on Yhwh (‫)אמן‬. Those who refuse to rely on Yhwh in Isa. 20, whose pride (‫ )תפארת‬and expectation (‫ )מבט‬lead them to trust in Egypt and Kush, will be dismayed and ashamed. The expression ‫ חתו ובשׁו‬appears also in Isa. 37:27 (| 2 Kgs 19:26).42 The words of others are cited in 20:6, a practice that re-appears in the narrative of 7:5–6, where Isaiah cites the words of Peqah and Rezin concerning the destruction of Judah and the Davidic house. This literary device also recurs repeatedly in Isa. 36–37 (cf. 36:4, 7, 10, 15, 18; 37:10).43

41 Salmaneser III refers to the ‘12 kings on the shore of the sea’ (12 šarrānu ša šiddi tâmti) (RIMA 3 A.0.102.6 iii 28; A.0.102.8:17’, 33’, 38’; A.0.102.10 ii 19’, iii 2–3, 19), which also included King Jehu of Israel. In A.0.102.14:60–61, the kings of Hatti are mentioned separately as šarrānu ša māt Ḫatti u aḫāt tâmti, ‘the kings of the land of Hatti (Syro-Palestine) and the seashore’. Other texts, such as A.0.102.14:88 (cf. A.0.102.16:78’–79’, 152’–153’), imply that māt Ḫ atti and aḫ āt tâmti refer to the same territory. Esarhaddon’s Nineveh Prism includes Manasseh, king of Judah, among the ‘12 kings on the bank of the sea’, 12 šarrānu ša kisādi tâmti (IAKA §27 Episode 21:63). This gives sufficient evidence to assume that Judah is the addressee of Isa. 20:6. 42 For ‫ חתת‬and ‫בושׁ‬, cf. also Jer. 8:9; 17:18; 48:1, 20. For ‫ בושׁ‬in Isaianic context, cf. Isa. 1:29; 30:5, and for ‫חתת‬, see Isa. 7:8; 8:9: 30:31; 31:4, 9. 43 A striking parallel to this rhetorical question is found in the annals of Assurbanipal dealing with the rebellion of Egyptian kings, Necho, Sharru-lu-dari, and Paqruru.

318

chapter six 6.3 Isaiah 20 in Context

6.3.1

Literary Issues in Isaiah 20

Some authors have found various parts of Isa. 20:1–2 difficult to reconcile with 20:3–4, preferring to treat vv. 1–2 as secondary. As noted in the exegesis, such critical conclusions have been guided not only by textual difficulties resulting from the syntax of 20:1–2 but also by premises concerning the prophetic message. Huber, for instance, thought that the symbolic act of the prophet Isaiah was a warning against forming alliances with the Philistines in order to face the Assyrians, arguing that the people must have been aware of the meaning of Isaiah’s symbolic action even before Ashdod actually fell. Accordingly, Huber reconstructed the original text by dropping vv. 1b-2: ‘In dem Jahr, als der Tartan nach Asdod kam, sprach Jahwe: Wie mein Knecht . . .’.44 Other scholars consider v.1 or v. 2 a secondary interpolation.45 Nevertheless, as argued above, the form of the introductory sentence is not unique to Isa. 20. Clearly, the explanation of the symbolic action in v. 3 would appear out of place if v. 2 was removed. It is characteristic of such reports of symbolic action that they also include Yhwh’s commandment to the prophet concerning the symbolic act. The main problem with eliminating v. 1 is that the text would be stripped of its relation to the capture of Ashdod. Wildberger’s assumption that the Ashdod-events referred to in v. 1 could have still constituted the background of the prophecy with some other more original heading demonstrated the fragile nature of this presupposition. As suggested above, the apparent logical difficulties raised by the complex structure of vv. 1–2 derive from the fact that Isa. 20 is not contemporary with the events it narrates but originated at a later time. Isa. 20 is not (or at least not just) a historical documentary concerning the symbolic act of Isaiah in 711, but it (also) addresses a different community, living after 711. In such a case, our attempts to recover a presumably more original form of the text are futile indeed. For

They are quoted as saying: ‘If Taharka has been driven out of Egypt, how then can we stay?’ (BIWA, 213; ANET, 215). 44 F. Huber, Jahwe, Juda und die anderen Völker beim Propheten Jesaja (BZAW, 137), Berlin 1976, 107 n. 92. 45 For v. 1, cf. Wildberger, 750. For v. 2, see Duhm, 148–49; Marti, 160; Schmidt, 85; Fohrer, 1.234; Kaiser, 93–94; Vermeylen, 1.325.

the analysis of isaiah 20

319

while the theological viewpoint and vocabulary of the prophecy may comply with other prophecies in the book of Isaiah, this narrative has only ever existed in the final form that it now has. The pursuit for an original, logically more consistent ‘Isaianic core’ behind these verses is therefore off track. The form of 20:1–2 closely resembles other narratives in the book of Isaiah.

Isa. 7:1–246

Isa. 20:1–2

Isa. 36:1–2

description of the situation [. . .] ‫ויהי בימי אחז‬ ‫[ ופקח‬. . .] ‫עלה רצין‬

‫ירושׁלם למלחמה‬ ‫עליה ולא‬ ‫יכל להלחם‬ ‫עליה‬

‫בשׁנת‬ ‫בא תרתן‬ [. . .] ‫אשׁדודה‬ ‫וילחם באשׁדוד‬ ‫וילכדה‬

‫בארבע עשׂרה שׁנה‬ ‫עלה סנחריב מלך־‬ ‫אשׁור‬ [. . .] ‫על כל־ערי יהודה‬ ‫ויתפשׂם‬

consequences [. . .] ‫ויגד לבית דוד‬

‫דבר יהוה ביד ישׁעיהו‬ [. . .]

‫וישׁלח מלך־אשׁור‬ ‫את־רב־שׁקה‬

In all cases the introductory sentences mention the date, the events, the persons and the places involved, including the success or failure of the action taken. These similarities make it highly unlikely that Isa. 20:1–2 would be an edited secondary version of an earlier text.47 Exegetes occasionally treat either v. 5 or v. 6 as superfluous. They argue that the message of one verse duplicates the other, so that v. 5 is regarded as commentary on v. 6, or vice versa.48 This duplication is, however, artificial, as the emphasis of the two verses is clearly different. According to 20.5, after Kush and Egypt have been taken away naked and barefoot, those relying upon them will feel shame due to the vanquishing of their hope. Isa. 20:6 develops this idea further by 46 Barthel also argues for the secondary origin of Isa. 7:1b in relation to the rest of the story, but the motivation supporting his view is quite meagre (‘historisch erläuternde Bearbeitung’). Cf. J. Barthel, Prophetenwort und Geschichte: Die Jesajaüberlieferung in Jes 6–8 und 28–31 (FAT, 19), Tübingen 1997, 132–34, 155. 47 For the relationship with Isa. 7 and 36–39, see also Blenkinsopp, ‘Biography’, 16–24. Blenkinsopp argues for the Deuteronomistic origin of the historical formula as well as the narratives. See further discussion below. 48 For Isa. 20:5 as secondary, cf. Marti, 160; Fohrer, 1.234; Kaiser, 96; Huber, Jahwe, 107; Clements, 174–75; on Isa. 20:6, see Wildberger, 750.

320

chapter six

describing the consequences of the judgment on Egypt. The spiritual disillusionment (‫ )בושׁ‬of the inhabitants of the coastland will have further implications. The deportation of Egypt becomes the threatening omen for all adherents to this power, whose glory is fading into history. Kaiser and Wildberger’s argument for the secondary origin of v. 6 is closely related to their interpretation of vv. 1–2, namely that Isa. 20 was likely pronounced before the fall of Ashdod as a warning to Philistia.49 Above, I advanced the view that this symbolic act addresses the relationship of Judah (not Philistia) with Egypt after (not before) Ashdod was captured. Unlike Kaiser presupposes, there is nothing unusual in deporting first Egypt and Kush (the source of defiance), before actually turning against their vassals. The unity of Isa. 20:1–6 is in my view rather certain. The second problem to be addressed in this section is the relation of Isa. 20 to its present context. Studies examining the collection of FNPs in the book of Isaiah note that the superscription of Isa. 20 is different from the ‫משׂא‬-headings. Those who assume that the ‫משׂא‬superscriptions are secondary, consider Isa. 20 to be part of an early collection of Isaianic FNPs.50 According to Duhm, Isa. 20 was the closing section of a first collection of prophecies, Isa. 14:28–20:6, which was later added to 21–22+30:6–7 by a redactor who probably included the ‫משׂא‬-headings.51 Berges regards Isa. 20 as the middle of the FNPs (in his view, those now constituting Isa. 13–27), dividing the collection into two blocks with five ‫משׂא‬-headings each.52 We have seen in Chapter 3 that introductory lines of individual prophecies in Isa. 13–23 are subordinated to the ‫משׂא‬-titles. Presumably, Isa. 20 is also adapted to this scheme. From the point of view of redaction criticism, Isa. 20 is considered to be part of the ‫משׂא מצרים‬.53 If that is the case, the question is how a prophecy closed by a prediction about the prosperous future of Egypt (Isa. 19:20–25) can be

49

Kaiser, 95–96; Wildberger, 751. S. Mowinckel, ‘Die Komposition des Jesajabuches. Kap. 1–39’, AcOr 11 (1933), 278; Fohrer, 1.177; Clements, 4–7; B.M. Zapff, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie—Jes 13 und die Komposition des Jesajabuches: Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Redaktionsgeschichte des Jesajabuches (FzB, 74), Würzburg 1995, 286–99. 51 Duhm, 12–13. 52 Berges, 141–45. Cf. also P. Höffken, Jesaja: Der Stand der theologischen Diskussion, Darmstadt 2004, 123; Beuken, 19, 23–24, 40–41. 53 Cf. also Sweeney, 267, 272. 50

the analysis of isaiah 20

321

followed by a text with an essentially negative view of the fate coming to Egypt and Kush? With regard to the connection between Isa. 20 and 19:20–25, there are three options. (1) It is possible that the pattern of judgment / salvation / judgment is due to the later interpolation of 19:16–25 between Isa. 20 and 19:15.54 (2) Another option would be to argue that 19:16– 25 was added to 19:1–15 before Isa. 19 as a whole was included in an already existing collection of FNPs containing Isa. 20. (3) A third possibility is that Isa. 20 was inserted into Isa. 13–23 later than 19:1–25, following a different concept than the earlier collection of FNPs. The question that naturally emerges in reaction to solution (1) is why the salvation oracle(s) were not added after 20:6, if the salvation of Egypt was the ultimate goal of the final editors. If solution (2) is right, one could similarly ask why 19:1–25 with its salvation prophecy at the end was chosen to be included before and not after Isa. 20:1–6. Solution (3) appears to give the most coherent answer to the structure of the present ‫משׂא מצרים‬. This alteration of judgment / salvation / judgment observable in the final form of Isa. 19–20 is not specific to these chapters. A similar structure appears in Isa. 15–16, with a positive prophecy about Moab (16:1–5) supplemented by another negative prediction concerning its future (16:6–14). Strikingly, in this case scholars generally accept that ‫ משׂא מואב‬introduces the entire pericope Isa. 15–16 and not just 15:1– 16:5. Another possible case appears in Isa. 17, where the prophecy of judgment is followed by a prophecy of hope (17:7–8), and then again by judgment (17:9–11). It was suggested in §3.3 that this sequence in the redaction of Isa. 13–23 may perhaps be related to a specific editorial concept. The sequence of salvation followed by judgment may reflect the historical experience at the turn of the 7th–6th centuries bc. While 16:1–5 most likely dates to the 7th century, 16:6 seems to allude to the relationship with the Moabites after 587. In §5.3.2, I maintained that the expansion of the salvation prophecy on Egypt in 19:16–23(24– 25) probably derives from the 7th century. Like 15:1–16:5, Isa. 19 was also part of an earlier collection of FNPs from the pre-exilic period, which did not yet include Isa. 16:6–12(13–14); 17:9–11(12–18:7) and Isa. 20. While it might have been composed earlier (see discussion below), Isa. 20 was probably attached to the ‫ משׂא מצרים‬in the exilic

54

Cf. Kilian, 127.

322

chapter six

period, while still containing considerations that differ from those in the earlier collection of FNPs.55 In terms of intertextuality, Isa. 20:5–6 is closely connected to Isa. 10:3. In terms of form, they both are formulated as rhetorical questions, with a common theological content and vocabulary: ‫ על־מי‬and ‫( אנה‬10:3) | [‫( איך ]נמלט‬20:6), ‫( תנוסו על־מי לעזרה‬10:3) | ‫אשׁר־נסנו‬ ‫( שׁם לעזרה‬20:6), ‫( כבודכם‬10:3) | ‫( תפארתם‬20:5). The dispersion of parallel ideas in 10:3 and 20:5–6 strengthens the coherence of 20:5–6. Note that Isa. 10:4a describes the desperation of those ordered ‘to bow down as prisoners (‫ )כרע תחת אסיר‬or fall as those slain (‫ותחת הרוגים‬ ‫ ’)יפלו‬in a way similar to the ultimatum expressed in Isa. 20:4–6.56 In the exegetical section, a common provenance of Isa. 20 and two other narrative complexes (Isa. 7–8 and 36–39) was posited in order to explain significant similarities among them. First, the structure of the introductory verses in 7:1–2; 20:1–2 and 36:1–2 is similar. Second, the motifs or vocabulary used parallel each other in several important cases. Note, for example, ‫( בשׁנת‬20:1 | 6:1), ‫( ישׁעיהו בן־אמוץ‬20:2 | 37:2, 21; 38:1), the motif of ‘three years’, i.e. a limited period before judgment is accomplished (20:3 | Isa. 7:8, 16 [16:14; 21:16]; 37:30), ‫( אות ומופת‬20:3 | 7:11, 14; 8:18; 37:30; 38:7, 22), ‫( חתו ובשׁו‬20:5 | 37:27), the motif of trusting someone else instead of Yhwh (20:5 | 7–8; 36–37), quoting the words of the audience (20:6 | 7:5–6; 36:4, 7, 10, 15, 18; 37:10). 6.3.2

Theological Perspectives in Isaiah 20

Isa. 20 is related to and it is consistent with the view of Isaiah concerning the role of Egypt in the politics of Judah (cf. §4.3.2). The sign act of Isaiah was performed when one of its key partners, Ashdod, fell and was intended as a warning against entanglement in the political 55 Cf. §6.3.2. This does not imply, however, that 16:1–5; 17:7–8; 19:16–25 should be traced back to exactly the same period. The role Assyria plays in 16:4 is clearly different from its role in 19:16–25. Common to this 7th century edition is mainly the form of the compositions (judgment followed by salvation) and the positive attitude towards foreign nations, Egyptians and Moabites. 56 Bosshard-Nepustil argues that Isa. 20 was not only relocated to but actually composed for its present context. He points to various lexical connections between Isa. 20 and Isa. 1–39 (E. Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen von Jesaia 1–39 im Zwölfprophetenbuch [OBO, 154], Freiburg 1997, 120–25). However, Bosshard-Nepustil’s list of vocabulary consists of randomly selected and often irrelevant words, which fail to provide convincing support for his thesis.

the analysis of isaiah 20

323

dispute between Assyria and Egypt. Egypt is ‫עם לא יועילו‬, ‘a nation that cannot profit them’ (Isa. 30:5, 6), whose help is worthless, a sea monster that has been stilled (30:7). It is therefore unwise to exchange the glory (‫ )תפארת‬given by Yhwh (Isa. 4:2) with the glory offered by Egypt (20:5), which is about to turn into shame and disgrace (‫לבשׁת‬ ‫ ;וגם־לחרפה‬30:5). There is, nevertheless, a difference between the function of the Isaianic sign act in 711 and the function of the narrative.57 It was suggested above that Isa. 20 only ever existed as a narrative in its present form. This means that projecting this pericope back to 711 has little relevance. It is not so much the message of the prophet Isaiah that should concern us here as the meaning that the recorded text intended to communicate to a post-711 community. The question is what could have been the function of Isa. 20 as a written record? In his study focusing on the provenance of the Isaianic narratives, Isa. 7:1–17; 20 and 36–39, Blenkinsopp argues that these chapters derive from circles closely related to the Deuteronomists. The image of Isaiah as a supportive prophet in these narratives is radically different from the harshly critical man of God appearing in Isaiah’s prophetic pronouncements. From the close textual resemblances between Isa. 7:1 and 2 Kgs 16:5 he comes to the conclusion that ‘an adherent of the Deuteronomistic school may have been responsible for inserting Isa 7:1–17 into the book’.58 Similarly, the historical introduction of Isa. 20:1–2 and the presentation of the prophet as a servant of Yhwh lead him to conclude that ‘this brief narrative originated in the [Deuteronomistic] History’.59 With regard to the parallels in Isa. 36–39 and 2 Kgs 18–20 Blenkinsopp reckons with a complex relationship between the two books, although he apparently accepts the idea that Isa. 36–39 is based on 2 Kgs 18–20. He concludes, nevertheless, that these Isaianic narratives represent a selection of prophetic legends circulating at the time when 2 Kgs was composed. These legends were inserted into the Deuteronomistic history and, ‘at a later time’, into the book

57 Wildberger, who aims to restore an Isaianic core in Isa. 20, is only interested in the original function of Isaiah’s symbolic act (760), as are most other exegetes of this text. 58 Blenkinsopp, ‘Biography’, 18. 59 Blenkinsopp, ‘Biography’, 19.

324

chapter six

of Isaiah.60 Blenkinsopp also maintains that the author of these legends was familiar with the Isaianic sayings. By including Isa. 7:1–17; 20 and 36–39 into the book the author deliberately created a ‘prophetic profile . . . quite different from the figure behind the sayings’.61 The reason for this appears to be that the Deuteronomists contested the imagery of a prophet proclaiming unconditional prophecies of doom. By the additions of these narratives, they ‘neutralised’ the biased Isaianic judgment speeches.62 One cannot but agree with Blenkinsopp in assuming a certain connection between the Isaianic narratives and the Deuteronomistic history. Nevertheless, the complicated links between these texts challenge the rather simplistic hypothesis of Blenkinsopp on several points. First, as recent Isaiah-research has once again underlined, the Isaianic prophecies can hardly be characterised as exclusively judgment speeches and certainly not as unconditional judgment oracles (cf. §1.1.3). If that is true, the function of neutralisation that Blenkinsopp assigned to these Isaianic narratives remains problematic. Second, even accepting that the Isaianic speeches would be judgment pronouncements, it remains difficult to see how a narrative like Isa. 20 would balance that view, insofar as this text clearly pictures a prophet of doom, one lamenting for the future of his people. Third, while it seems correct to hold that there are significant parallels between the wording of the Isaiahnarratives and 2 Kgs, it would need more clarification what exactly ‘Deuternomistic’ or ‘Deuteronomic circle’ means (Blenkinsopp’s ‘History’)63 with respect to these prophetic stories. This problem is the more urgent as—as Blenkinsopp correctly maintains—these narratives originated independently, i.e. not within the literary context of 2 Kgs. Consequently, the prophetic narratives that appear in the book of Isaiah (including Isa. 36–39) do not derive specifically from 2 Kgs but from those sources which 2 Kgs itself also used independently.64 This

60 Blenkinsopp, ‘Biography’, 21. It seems that by assuming a temporal distance between the inclusion of these narratives into 2 Kgs and Isa. Blenkinsopp wishes to uphold his view that Isa. 36–39 derive from 2 Kgs 18–20, and not directly from the prophetic legends, although his view on this point is not clearly stated. 61 Blenkinsopp, ‘Biography’, 21. 62 Blenkinsopp, ‘Biography’, 25. 63 Blenkinsopp appears to interchange these terms without assigning them any difference in meaning (see, e.g., ‘Biography’, 24). 64 The absence of ‘writing prophets’ elsewhere in 2 Kgs (the problem which is discussed to some extent by Blenkinsopp) also strengthens the opinion that 2 Kgs is not the original context for which the Isaiah narratives were written.

the analysis of isaiah 20

325

is most clear in the case of Isa. 20, which is not mentioned at all in the Deuteronomistic history (2 Kgs). Given the focus and interest of these prophetic stories, as well as the positive presentation of the prophets as ‘servants of Yhwh’, one would probably not miss the point in regarding these authors as prophets or circles closely related to them.65 Finally, one would also readily agree with Blenkinsopp that these narratives were written by someone who was indeed familiar with the prophecies of Isaiah. Yet that would again plead for the book of Isaiah (rather than 2 Kgs) as the original context of these prophetic stories. In this respect, the comparison of the Isaiah-stories with similar prophetic accounts in the book of Jeremiah (rather than 2 Kgs) would provide a more adequate context to evaluate their function.66 To conclude, terming Isa. 20 as a Deuteronomistic-prophetic account would mean that this text was written in the theological milieu characteristic to the intellectual history of Judah from the second half of the 7th century (and onwards), the period to which the emergence of the Deuteronomistic ‘movement’ is usually dated. Nevertheless, since Blenkinsopp’s hypothesis, which assigns a function of neutralisation of previous judgment speeches to these prophetic narratives, proves to be problematic in the context of the book of Isaiah, it still remains to be seen what role Isa. 20 could have played around this period. However, in defining the message and function of this text the clarification of some historical questions plays a significant role. Therefore, before taking position with regard to the possible function of this narrative, the following section will look at Isa. 20 from a historical viewpoint first.

65 Of course, one could still term this group and their language as ‘Deuteronomistic’. However, the usefulness of this is to me a question insofar as the only form of history-writing from Judah from around this period is ‘Deuteronomistic’, i.e. we have no other material which could be used as reference when analysing a text like the superscription in Isa. 20:1–2. One could also argue that the appearance of dating formulas akin to Isa. 20:1–2 in 1–2 Kgs (cf. 1 Kgs 14:25; 15:17; 20:1; 22:29; 2 Kgs 6:24; 12:18; 17:3, 5; 18:9, 13; 24:10) testifies to its widespread use in historical accounts rather than to its Deuteronomistic character in particular. The fact that Isa. 20:1–2 has preserved a unique reference to a concrete historical event suggests that the author of this narrative had access to various sources, perhaps even royal annals. 66 While Blenkinsopp considers the Isaianic picture of Ahaz in Isa. 7:1–17 deliberately contrasting 2 Kgs 16 (‘Biography’, 18), it is still more convincing to regard Isa. 7 as the negative counterpart to Isa. 36–37, and evaluate their relationship in an inner-Isaianic setting (see P.R. Ackroyd, ‘Isaiah 36–39: Structure and Function’, in: Ibid, Studies in the Religious Tradition of the Old Testament, London 1987, 105–20). The practice of enhancing royal chronicles from prophetic sources (rather than the reverse) is referred to in 2 Chr 20:34.

326 6.3.3

chapter six The Historical Background of Isaiah 20

Although Sargon II’s army appeared several times in Canaan, it is striking that his name is never mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.67 It appears, however, that the events described in Isa. 36–37 (2 Kgs 18–19) need to be partially dated to Sargon’s period. Isa. 36:1 maintains that ‘Sennacherib, king of Assyria’ captured the fortified cities of Judah in Hezekiah’s 14th year. Hezekiah began to rule most certainly between 728–725,68 which would date this campaign to 715–712. It is possible that 2 Kgs 18–20 and Isa. 36–39 telescope the events of two Assyrian kings into one episode, as there are similarly condensed accounts of the subsequent sieges of Samaria by Salmaneser V and Sargon II in 2 Kgs 17–18. During the Assyrian campaign in Hezekiah’s 14th year, prince Sennacherib may have been one of Sargon’s officials entrusted with the army.69 Portraying Sennacherib as king during 715–712 may be an anachronism, just as the same narrative also called Taharka ‘the king of Kush’ in 701 (2 Kgs 19:9 | Isa. 37:9), while he actually ascended the throne only in 690 bc. Literary critical studies also recognise two distinctive story-lines behind the present form of Isa. 36–37,70 which may suggest that two

67 The Nimrud Inscription labels him ‘the subduer of Judah’ between 720 and early 716. Sargon met the Egyptian Shilkanni in 716 and Pir’u in 715. Two more appearances are known in 713–711, during the Ashdod-campaign. 68 The precise beginning of Hezekiah’s reign is still subject to dispute. The view that his rule should be counted from 715/714 (cf. J. Bright, A History of Israel, London 1972, 261; E.R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, Grand Rapids, MI 2000, 173–76) has proven to be unconvincing. Cf. A.K. Jenkins, ‘Hezekiah’s Fourteenth Year: A New Interpretation of 2 Kings xviii 13–xix 37’, VT 26 (1976), 284–98; G. Galil, The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah (SHCANE, 9), Leiden 1996, 99–101; N. Na’aman, ‘The Historical Background to the Conquest of Samaria (720 bc)’, Bib. 71 (1990), 206–25; B. Becking, The Fall of Samaria: An Historical and Archaeological Study (SHANE, 2), Leiden 1992; J. Goldberg, ‘Two Assyrian Campaigns against Hezekiah and Later Eighth Century Biblical Chronology’, Bib. 80 (1999), 377. We have no convincing evidence for a co-regency of Ahaz and Hezekiah. 69 Cf. Becking, Fall, 54. Sennacherib, a prominent Assyrian functionary, appears as the expeditor of a letter describing the receipt of tribute from Azuri of Ashdod, the king who rebelled a few years before the deportation of Ashdod in 711. Cf. H. Tadmor, ‘The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chronological-Historical Study’, JCS 12 (1958), 79 n. 211. As crown prince, Nebuchadnezzar was also the leading his father’s army. 70 See, e.g., B. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (SBT, 3), London 1967; F. Gonçalves, L’expédition de Sennachérib en Palestine dans la littérature hébraïque ancienne (PIOL, 34), Louvain-la-Neuve 1986; C. Seitz, Zion’s Final Destiny: The Development of the Book of Isaiah, Minneapolis, MN 1991; W.R. Gallagher, Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: New Studies (SHCANE, 18), Leiden 1999.

the analysis of isaiah 20

327

different events constitute the background of the present narrative. Furthermore, according to Isa. 38, God grants Hezekiah 15 more years of rule after the year of conflict and Judah’s deliverance from the unnamed Assyrian (!) king (Isa. 38:5–6). Since he died around 699–698, the Assyrian threat mentioned in Isa. 38 should be dated to ca. 713 bc. Likewise, the visit to Jerusalem by the embassy of Mardukapla-iddin recounted in Isa. 39 most likely took place between 722– 710, when Marduk-apla-iddin was ruling Babylon. He returned to the throne for a short period of 9 months in 703, but never thereafter. 2 Chron. 32:31 connects the visit of the Babylonian embassy to the sign given to the sick Hezekiah, placing the story of his healing in the pre703 period. Therefore, the liberation from the Assyrian king described in Isa. 38:6 (2 Kgs 20:6) has little to do with the events of 701. According to Assyrian inscriptions, the city Ashdod, led by its king, Azuri, rebelled against Assyria.71 Azuri sent messengers to the neighbouring states to gather support for his uprising. The Assyrians retaliated, replacing Azuri with his brother, Ahimiti. The revolt of Azuri and the installation of Ahimiti should be dated to after 715. Since the final battle against Ashdod in 711 took place early that year and since, according to the Assyrian Eponym Chronicles, 712 was a peaceful year for the Assyrian army (see below), we may safely date the rebellion of Azuri and the short-lived rule of Ahimiti to 713. That date coincides with Hezekiah’s 14th year. Although the Assyrian inscriptions mention the quelling of a rebellion in Ashdod in 713, we find no Assyrian reference to campaigns against Judah during that year. This silence is, however, unsurprising. The Nimrud Inscription is also very brief when it calls the Assyrian king ‘the subduer of Judah’ (ca. 720–716) without revealing further details. The Assyrian chronicles of 713 were concerned primarily with Ashdod and Azuri, not with Judah. This specific focus, as well as the deliverance of Hezekiah from the Assyrians (Isa. 38:5–6) are probably the reasons why the sole account of a limited Assyrian campaign in 713 was only preserved in this rewritten version of Isa. 36–37.72

71 Cf. A. Fuchs, Die Annalen des Jahres 711 v. Chr. nach Prismenfragmenten aus Ninive und Assur (SAAS, 8), Helsinki 1998, 44–46, 73–74; ISK, 132–35, 326, 219–22, 308, 348–49; COS 2.118A; COS 2.118E; COS 2.118F. 72 Note that other Gath or Gittaim (Gimtu) and Ashdod-Yam (possibly Ekron) also fell during this Assyrian campaign, but we are only informed of their falls by the stone slabs of Sargon. Similarly, the capture of Lachish in 701 was not mentioned on

328

chapter six

The Nineveh Prism mentions that, after replacing Azuri with Ahimiti, Sargon imposed a tribute on the Ashdodites. But after the Assyrians retreated, the Ashdodites deposed Ahimiti and elevated the ‘illegitimate’ Yamani to the throne.73 To the kings of the lands Philistia, Judah, Edom, and Moab, those living by the sea, bearers of tribute (biltu) and gifts (tāmarti) to Assur, my lord, (they sent) words of falsehood and treacherous speech to incite enmity with me. To Pir’u, king of Egypt (Pirʾu šar māt Muṣri), a prince, who could not save them, they brought their presents (šulmānu), and they implored his help (kitru).74

Sargon sent his troops against the city and, in 711, Ashdod was captured and its inhabitants deported.75 Pirʾu šar māt Muṣri mentioned in the Nineveh Prism76 is probably identifiable as the Kushite Pharaoh Shabaka, who was expected to help the rebels. For one reason or another, these expectations remained unfulfilled, and Ashdod was captured, although its king, Yamani managed to flee. He was handed over to the Assyrians sometime around 706 by Shabataka, the prince of Kush.77 Sargon claims to have defeated Ashdod personally. Since the description of this event in Isa 20:1 only mentions that the turtannu of Sargon laid siege to Ashdod, the king’s contention may be, as usual, ideologically motivated. It is also possible that during the campaign in

Sennacherib’s prism describing his defeat of Judah. Yet, the conquest of Lachish is a prominent episode on the wall-decorations of the king. 73 In the Khorsabad Annals 246, he is called Yadna instead of Yamani, the name used in all other inscriptions. There is some dispute whether this would refer to Yamani’s ethnic origin (i.e. ‘the Greek’ or ‘the Cypriot’; cf. Tadmor, ‘Campaigns’, 80 n. 217). Cf. ʾkyš (= Ἀχαιος; 1 Sam 21:11), son of Padi (COS 2.42), the ruler of Ekron in the 7th century. Note biblical ‫פינחס‬, ‫כושׁי‬, etc. 74 Nineveh Prism fragments Sm 2022, II’ and K 1668+ IV’ (Fuchs, Annalen, 44–46, 72–74). The citation corresponds to lns 25–33 of K 1668+ IV’. 75 For dating this event in agreement with the Annals of Sargon to 711 instead of above-argued 712, see Fuchs, ISK, 381. In the Assyrian Eponym Chronicles, the entry for the year 712 is ina māti, ‘in the land’. This does not refer to the position of King Sargon alone but, according to the conventions of the Chronicles, to the position of the army. Cf. A. Millard, The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire: 910–612 b.c. (SAAS, 2), Helsinki 1994, 5. 76 Cf. also the Annals of Sargon for the year 715 (§5.3.3). 77 On this episode and Shabataka’s title, šar māt Meluḫḫa, ‘king of Meluhha’ (cf. Pirʾu šar māt Muṣri, ‘Pir’u, king of Egypt’, as the title of Shabaka), see the Tang-i Var inscription mentioned in §4.3.3.

the analysis of isaiah 20

329

711, Sargon was indeed present on the battlefield, even if he was also engaged in the siege of other cities in the area (cf. Isa 37:8). Isa. 20 provides accurate detail about the capture of Ashdod. The author was not only aware of the name of the king (this is the only place where Sargon’s name is stated), but he also knew that the campaign was coordinated by a commander. Similarly, Isa. 7 or 36–39 also include details about the political situation in the 8th century. Like these texts, Isa. 20 may be based on a prophetic narrative or biographic material written not long after the events, or else other reliable sources (such as royal archives material) must have been available to the author. In spite of the reliable historical account in Isa. 20 and given the fact that some temporal distance separates this text from the narrated events (cf. ‫)בעת ההיא‬, the primary concern of the narrative should be considered theological. Together with Isa. 7 and 36–39, Isa. 20 was also written as a 3rd person account. Unlike 1st person narratives (Isa. 6; 8; 18:4; 21:6; 22:14, 15; 30:8; 31:4), these texts are not directly derived from the prophet but from those responsible for the preservation of the Isaianic prophetic material. By means of a narrative, Isa. 20 instructs a later audience on how to interpret the prophet’s words and deeds, or how to adapt his earlier messages to new historical circumstances. The indicated literary and logical irregularities in this passage can be reasonably explained by the temporal gap between the composition of the existing text and the events of 711. For later reading communities, these irregularities were subordinated to the overall message of the text regarding Isaiah and his actions. For these readers, it was less important how walking naked or the three-year period was to be understood. Everything belonged to the (remote) past. It is not the details of the symbolic action itself that should be the exegete’s focus, but the symbol and the message it was intended to communicate. Years ago, the prophet Isaiah foretold how all those relying on Egypt would be put to shame. This message was still valid during the lifetime of the author of Isa. 20 and remained valid as long as successive generations failed to revise their misconceptions and repair blunders in foreign politics. Given that Isa. 20 addresses the attitude of Judah towards Egypt, there are three periods in the Judaean history in which the message of this prophecy would be especially pertinent. The first involves the preparations for war with Assyria at the instigation of Egypt in the

330

chapter six

years preceding 701. In this pre-701 context, Isa. 20 may have warned against relying on a power that has recently proved to be so unfaithful to its allies.78 However, the close connections of Isa. 20 with Isa. 7 and 36–39, written in the post-Isaianic era (cf. Isa. 7:8; 37:38), mean that 701 is probably a date too close to 711. The second option is to place Isa. 20 in the 7th century, in the context of the anti-Egyptian wars of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal (§5.3.3). During this period, Isa. 20 may have testified to the authenticity of Isaianic tradition and the fulfilment of earlier Egypt-related prophecies (Isa. 30; 31).79 However, this dating has at least two crucial problems. First, it presupposes a date similar to the one proposed above for Isa. 19:16–23(24–25), which is much more positive about Egypt. Second, the ultimate concern of the prophecy for the salvation of ‘the seacoast’, i.e. Judah, (Isa. 20:6) is difficult to explain in relation to this era. A third and most likely option is to place the composition of Isa. 20 in the final years of the kingdom of Judah. After Assyria retreated from Egypt around 650, it took a relatively short time for Egypt to consolidate its power in Canaan (2 Kgs 24:7).80 King Josiah was killed by Necho II (2 Kgs 23) probably because he became anti-Egyptian in his later years. The heir of his ideology, his son, Jehoahaz, was set on the throne by the ‫( עם־הארץ‬2 Kgs 23:30) and also removed by Necho. The Egyptian pharaoh made Jehoiakim, another son of Josiah, his vassal on the throne of Judah. Except for the three years (604–601) of nominal servitude under the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar, Jehoiakim always remained loyal to his Egyptian overlord, and always counted on his support against Babylon. The same was essentially the case with

78

Cf. Clements, 174. Sweeney dated the editorial inclusion of Isa. 20 after 19:25 to the Josianic era, and argued that the judgment on Egypt was motivated by the fact that Egypt, as a faithful Assyrian ally during these years, ‘presented the most formidable obstacle to Josiah’s plans for reestablishing the Davidic empire’ (273). However, it would be strange, under such circumstances, for a contemporary of Josiah to claim that Assyria would deport Egypt, on whom Judah relied, in the absence of political backing. Sweeney’s other suggestion, ascribing the text to ‘opponents to Manasseh’s policy of cooperation with Assyria and Egypt’ (275), fails to explain the antagonism between Assyria and Egypt in Isa. 20. 80 D.B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, Princeton, NJ 1992; G. Ahlström, The History of Ancient Palestine, Minneapolis, MN 1994, 763; B.U. Schipper, Israel und Ägypten in der Königszeit: Die kulturellen Kontakte von Salomo bis zum Fall Jerusalems (OBO, 170), Freiburg 1999, 230. 79

the analysis of isaiah 20

331

Jehoiachin (598), his son, and especially Zedekiah (598–587), the last king of Judah, installed by Nebuchadnezzar.81 According to Lachish ostracon 3:14–16, dated to Zedekiah’s time, Konyahu, son of Elnatan, the commander of the army (‫)שר הצבא‬ was sent to Egypt.82 Though the context does not clarify his mission, it certainly reflects on the political commitments of Judah, as illustrated by the prophetic criticism of Jeremiah (2:18, 36–37; 27; 37:5–10) and Ezekiel (16:26; 17; 23:19–21, 27). However, Pharaoh Psametik II (595–589) died before having any chance to fulfil his promises to his allies. In 587–586, Jerusalem was burned down, and Zedekiah sent into exile. Isa. 20 can be dated to the era of these three final kings, as a challenge to the pro-Egyptian and anti-Babylonian policy of Judaean leaders. The history of the late pre-exilic period closely parallels the era of Isaiah. Indirect evidence suggests that the critical message of the prophets of the 8th century played an important role in forming the visions of prominent political and religious figures belonging to the last pre-exilic generation. According to Jer. 26:18–19, the prophecies of Micah of Moresheth addressed to King Hezekiah were supposed to urge Jehoiakim to repent after hearing the harsh words of the prophet, as his forefather had done. It cannot be excluded that the parallels between the stories of Ahaz and Hezekiah in Isa. 7 and 36–39 were to provide a royal model for one of Judah’s last kings.83 In the same manner, Isa. 20 was supposed to serve as a warning to those kings.84 To conclude, while Isa. 20 may go back to real historical events and records important details of the Assyrian campaign against Ashdod in 711, the ultimate concern of the narrative is the people of Judah in the years between 605–587, the era of anti-Babylonian alliances.

81 Several ostraca from the fortress of Arad (notably 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17) refer to Cypriots (soldiers) posted there under the command of the Judaean Eliashib. These were probably mercenaries hired by Egypt and sent to guard the southern borders of Judah, its vassal, against the Edomites. These texts come from either Jehoiakim’s or Zedekiah’s period. 82 According to Jer. 26:22, an individual called Elnathan, son of Achbor, is said to have gone to Egypt at the command of Jehoiakim. 83 For the intertextual relationship between Isa. 7 and 36–39, cf. Ackroyd, ‘Isaiah 36–39’, 105–20. 84 If the relationship between Isa. 20 and the Deuteronomistic circles discussed above at §6.3.2 is taken into further account, one may also mention here the antiEgyptian stance of this group (Deut. 17:16; Jer 43–44), which coincides with the focus of Isa. 20.

332

chapter six 6.4

Isaiah 20 and the Stele of Yhwh (Isaiah 13–23)

The biblical description of the fall of Ashdod is like the segment of an Assyrian stele. The reference to the name of Sargon II, as well as the Assyrian officer, the turtānu, evokes the sphere created by Mesopotamian texts. The wording in the account of the downfall of the Philistine city, ‫וילחם באשׁדוד וילכדה‬, follows the well-known phraseology of Assyrian conquest account summaries.85 The reference to mass deportation of naked captives, young and old (20:4), hardly needs any further comment. This is a ubiquitous motif in Assyrian historiography. The denunciation of Egypt as an instigator and unreliable ally is also reminiscent of Assyrian texts. Note the motif of misplaced trust in the following extract from a description of the campaign of Assurbanipal against Tyre: In the course of my campaign, I threw up earthwork (for a siege) against Ba’alu, king of Tyre who had put his trust upon his friend Taharka, king of Kush . . . (ANET, 292).

In its current position, Isa. 20 has important connections with other FNPs, especially concerning the fleetingness of earthly ‘glory’ and the futility of human assistance, both noted as basic concepts underlying Isa. 13–23, especially with regard to the ‘day of Yhwh’ edition. The motif of glory (‫ )כבוד‬appears as ‫ תפארת‬in Isa. 20:5. Its disappearance upon fulfilment of prophecy (20:3) relates this text to Isa. 16:14 and 21:16. Isa. 16:14 states that ‘the glory of Moab with all its wealth/ multitude’ (‫)כבוד מואב בכל ההמון הרב‬86 will perish in three years, like the years of a hired worker. Even sooner, ‫כל־כבוד קדר‬, ‘all the glory of Kedar’, will disappear (21:16). Like all the glories of Chaldea (‫ ;תפארת גאון כשׂדים‬Isa. 13:19), Moab, Aram, Israel, Kedar (‫;כבוד‬ 16:14; 17:3, 4; 21:16) and Tyre (‫ ;גאון כל־צבי‬23:9), the glory of Egypt will also vanish. In indicating the inefficacy of Egypt as the ‫ תפארת‬of Judah, Isa. 20 becomes part of a series of prophecies which emphasise the downfall and humiliation of the mighty worldly powers in order to exalt Yhwh of hosts ‘on that day’ (Isa. 2:11, 17; cf. §3.3). Since 13:19;

85 Cf. K.L. Younger, Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing (JSOT.S, 98), Sheffield 1990. 86 For ‫ המון‬in connection with Egypt, see Ezek. 29:19; 30:4; 32:12; etc.

the analysis of isaiah 20

333

16:14; 21:16 apparently reflect an exilic setting, the inclusion of Isa. 20 into the ‫ משׂא מצרים‬may be connected with this ‘day of Yhwh’ edition of the book of Isaiah.

6.5 Conclusion Isa. 20 refers to a symbolic act of the prophet connected with the fall of Ashdod in 711. This symbolic act was supposed to reveal how after the fall of Ashdod, Egypt and Kush will also be deported. Implicitly this was threatening news for those inhabitants of Judah who expected their salvation from Egypt. Ultimately, it is Judah with whom the prophecy is concerned and which is tacitly addressed in 20:6 as ‫ישׁב האי הזה‬. The integrity of Isa. 20 need not be questioned, neither is there any support to assume that this text is a rewritten (updated) version of a previous one. The fact that the text includes retrospective accounts of some temporally distant events explains some irregularities that were formerly regarded as signs of literary unevenness. From a contextual point of view, Isa. 20 is part of the ‫ משׂא‬on Egypt. Although it was originally an independent text, it was placed in its current position by the editors of Isa. 13–23 for a specific reason. The sequence of salvation on Egypt in Isa. 19 followed by judgment in Isa. 20 is not unique in Isa. 13–23, as this editorial technique and conception are also present in Isa. 15–16 and 17. The concern of the editors is the ‘day of Yhwh’, mentioned in the introduction to the revised collection of Isa. 13–23. Two significant motifs that Isa. 20 exposes, the fruitlessness of Judah’s reliance on human agents and the downfall of Judah’s earthly glory, are prominent themes in the ‘day of Yhwh’ texts (cf. Isa. 2:6–21; 13). The views concerning Egypt ascribed to Isaiah in the narrative is consistent with other Isaianic texts. The historical information provided by Isa. 20:1 can be confirmed by non-biblical traditions related to 711 bc. However, the events of 711 are not the most important context in explaining the function of this narrative. Since Isa. 20 acts as a warning against alliances with Egypt, it can be related to the antiBabylonian movements of the late pre-exilic period. Jer. 26:18–19 suggest that prophecies from the 8th century often gained a new life and a new sense during this era.

CHAPTER SEVEN

CONCLUSION

This concluding chapter will summarise the principal results of the present study following the structural guidelines provided in §1.4. The discussions of literary, theological and historical issues indicate how Isa. 18–20 can be related to the process of formation of Isa. 13–23. This chapter will conclude by providing further notes on Isa. 13–23 as a stele of Yhwh.

7.1

Isaiah 18–20 from a Literary Perspective

Like most prophecies of Isa. 13–23, the Egypt and Kush-related pericopes were composed in several stages, exhibiting the effects of a complex redactional history. The history of composition of the individual pericopes can only be understood in the greater context of the formation of the book of Isaiah, in particular chapters 1–39. 7.1.1

The Literary Integrity of Isaiah 18–20

Despite uncertainties caused by the textual difficulties of Isa. 18, the contours of this prophecy are reasonably clear. Isa. 18 addresses the land stretching to ‘beyond the rivers of Kush’ (cf. §4.2.1). This land is typified by a famous Egyptian symbol, the two-winged scarab (‫צלצל‬ ‫)כנפים‬, as well as by further physical and geographical characteristics (18:1–2). Isa. 18:2 presupposes more than one nation as addressee; it most likely includes the Egyptians and Kushites in the Empire of the 25th Dynasty (§4.1 n. 2 f-f and §4.2.2). The prophecy is neither positive nor neutral regarding the future fate of the Kushite-Egyptian Empire. ‫ הוי‬introduces a prophecy of woe, an ominous prediction on the fall of the people inhabiting the Nile valley. Except for v. 7, Isa. 18 should be considered as an integral text (§4.3.1). The universalist view stated in v. 3 is consistent with the message of the FNPs in general. V. 3 should probably be read in relation to the theology of Isa. 10:5, which presents Assyria as a tool used by Yhwh

336

chapter seven

in ruling over the earth. It therefore replicates the ideology propagated in Assyrian literature in which Assyrian kings are viewed as rulers of the world (šar kiššāte). Moreover, when the prophecy was delivered, the audience of the prophet may have comprised representatives of foreign nations, including Kushites from the southern most region of the Judaean world map. The mention of such a remote people may provide further evidence of the prophecy’s universalist inclinations. The tribute scene in Isa. 18:7 is a further expression of the worldwide expansion of Yhwh’s rule, in this case realised through the defeat of African nations. This means that Isa. 18:7 is not a salvation oracle concerning Kush and Egypt, as the text is usually interpreted. Just as Assyrian kings frequently expressed their universal kingship by mentioning the tributes brought to them by nations located far away, the tribute from Kush and Egypt in v. 7 underlines that Yhwh is the king of the world, including the remotest parts of the earth. Nevertheless, two arguments are assumed to support the conclusion that v. 7 is of a different origin than the rest of this prophecy. First, v. 6 presupposes that the dead corpses of Kush and Egypt will be exposed permanently on the mountains, in contrast to the scene drawn in v. 7. Second, Isaiah’s view expressed in other Egypt-related texts suggests that the judgment against Egypt and Kush will also fall on their allies, including Judah and Jerusalem (Isa. 20; 31). This is incompatible with the portrait of Zion in v. 7. Yet by the time Zeph. 3:10 was composed, Isa. 18 was already known in its present form, including v. 7 (§4.3.1). The literary critical investigation of Isa. 19 has confirmed the view that vv. 16–25 are later than vv. 1–15. At any rate, vv. 5–10 are strongly integrated into vv. 1–15 (§5.3.1). The presentation of Yhwh in Isa. 19:1 as riding on a cloud alludes to a divinity of nature, whose appearance (theophany) is often related to catastrophe and unusual natural phenomena (v. 5–7). These changes in the physical world may also express the superiority of Yhwh above Egypt’s gods (v. 1), responsible in the Egyptian worldview for maintaining order and prosperity. The installation of a king unfriendly to Egypt and contrary to the will of Egypt’s gods is, as often observed in contemporary literature, another possible source of disorder in society and nature. This coherence does not exclude the possibility that Isa. 19:5–10 derives from a different source, as indeed some arguments might point in this direction (cf. §5.3.1). But that source would have to be one predating vv. 1–4, 11–15, whose author could have adapted vv. 5–10 for his own purposes. If the distinction between prose and poetry is allowed to play a role in

conclusion

337

discussing literary unity, the prosaic vv. 12, 14–15 might be considered secondary interpolations. With regard to the unity of vv. 16–25, the repeated use of the formula ‫ ביום ההוא‬is not a sufficient argument for distinguishing various stages in the literary development of this pericope (§5.3.1). Vv. 16–25 contain linearly developed ideas and hardly any contradictions. It appears that the prophecy was written by someone living at the historical moment described in v. 23, from which he looked back to the past for a basis on which to foresee both doom and salvation (vv. 16–22) and to make corresponding predictions (vv. 24–25). Eventually, vv. 24–25 may be regarded as later expansions of the earlier text, vv. 16–23. There can be little doubt concerning the literary integrity of Isa. 20. The awkward structure of 20:1–2 need not hint to a more original version of Isa. 20, which would have only contained part of these introductory verses. Scholars who consider part of vv. 1–2 as secondary pay insufficient attention to the fact that the irregular structure of vv. 1–2 has significant parallels in the Bible and apparently reflects literary conventions different from those of modern readers (§6.1 n. 2 c; §6.3.1). Furthermore, the assumption that vv. 1–2 must be partially secondary is based on unwarranted premises concerning the meaning and function of the symbolic act of the prophet Isaiah (namely that this was supposed to serve as a warning against Philistia or Judah before the campaign of Sargon II in 711 and not after it, as stated in v. 1) and the unsustainable conviction that ‫ ישׁב האי הזה‬would refer to the Philistines. Both views have been contested in this study. There is even less support for excluding either v. 5 or v. 6 from any pre-existing Isaianic text. Some problems regarding the interpretation of Isa. 20 can be ascribed to the fact that this text is not contemporary with the events it narrates but derives from a later period (cf. §6.3.3). To put it bluntly, Isa. 20 is a unified pericope dealing with the relationship between Judah (not Philistia) and Egypt in the aftermath of (not before) the actual fall of Ashdod in 711. 7.1.2

The Prophecies of Isaiah 18–20 in their Literary Context

It is important to place Isa. 18–20 against the background of the FNPs in general and Isa. 13–23 in particular. The literary analysis of biblical FNPs has shown that these collections represent well-organised literary compilations within the biblical books in which they now occur. The

338

chapter seven

editorial principles can be discerned not only for the present arrangement of the various collections of FNPs in the prophetic books but also with regard to the organisation of utterances addressed to specific nations. Multiple prophecies addressed to one specific nation tend to be collected into thematic text blocks (cf., e.g., Jer. 48; 50–51; Ezek. 26–28; 29–32; cf. Chapter 2). Given the several concepts according to which the FNPs were collected and arranged, it can be concluded that they were composed over a longer period and subsequently revised, enlarged and redefined according to new criteria imposed by later editors. This is particularly well illustrated by the two versions of Jeremiah in LXX and MT. Evidence derived from biblical collections substantiates the view that the FNPs were not compiled at a late stage in the redactional history of the prophetic books, but early collections were expanded and reorganised on different occasions. The formation of book-level collections of FNPs cannot be dissociated from the development of the books themselves. The general principles governing the composition of the FNPs can also be found in the prophecies related to Israel, while the FNPs also have numerous connections with the prophecies addressed to Judah. This means that the nations are important only insofar as they appear in relation to Israel. The language, themes, motifs and expressions appearing in the FNPs are strikingly book specific. Yet, at the same time, certain themes and concepts reach beyond the borders imposed by individual books, presupposing that, at some stage, the editors in the background were working simultaneously on the legacy of several prophets. The analysis of the larger literary context of Isa. 18–20, the FNPs in 13–23, has led to the conclusion that the ‫משׂא‬-superscription is the most important editorial guideline structuring the collection. In general, ‫ משׂא‬introduces texts dealing with one specific nation. All other individual prophecies must be subordinated to this heading (14:24–27; 17:12–14; 18:1–7). That does not mean, however, that the ‫משׂא‬-superscriptions all derive from the same period. Three distinctive types of ‫משׂא‬-headings can be discerned (cf. §3.1): (a) a geographical name is attached to ‫( משׂא‬13:1; 15:1; 17:1; 19:1; 23:1); (b) some superscriptions refer cryptically to the addressee (21:1, 11, 13; 22:1); (c) a distinctive type of superscription is attested in 14:28. These three types of superscriptions suggest that there are at least three different concepts at work in the composition of Isa. 13–23. The text of Isa. 21–22, with its specifically formed ‫משׂא‬-headings, was inserted in its present position as an already existing independent collection. This

conclusion

339

also explains how Isa. 23 came to be separated from Isa. 19, to which it was originally more closely related. Moreover, the previous coherence of Isa. 21–22 clarifies why there are now two Babylon-related prophecies in Isa. 13–23, why we find a prophecy against Jerusalem among the FNPs, and, quite strangely, why some oracles are addressed to specific individuals from Jerusalem.1 The ‫ משׂא‬is usually associated with a composition of several originally independent prophecies and not just a single prophecy.2 This observation is most important for Isa. 18 and 20. Isa. 18 has often been considered a unity in itself. With the exception of a few scholars, most have analysed it as a distinctive passage inside the FNPs of Isaiah, whether or not connected to the ‫ הוי‬word in 17:12–14 (cf. §§1.2; 4.3.1). However, the originally independent oracles in Isa. 13–23 are generally related to a ‫משׂא‬-collection. Therefore, Isa. 18 must be considered another example of this phenomenon. In general, ‫ משׂא‬collections contain important thematic links between subordinated passages, as well as connections based on catchwords.3 Isa. 17:1 is introduced as ‫משׂא דמשׂק‬. However, Damascus is mentioned in the book of Isaiah only in relation to Israel (the AramIsrael alliance) and the planned attack against Judah during the reign of Ahaz (Isa. 7–8; cf. §4.3.1). In this sense, the role of Damascus in Isa. 17 is marginal or partial, and the prophecy is rather concerned with the Kingdom of Israel. Whatever was the original concern of 17:12–14, this text should now be read in its present position as part of ‫ משׂא דמשׂק‬and therefore related to the Aram-Israel alliance (cf. Isa. 8:9–10). The prophecy in 18:1–7 underwent a similar reinterpretation when connected to Isa. 17. When taken independently of its context, Isa. 18 is a prophecy addressing the Kushite Empire of the 8th century. In its present literary setting, however, it functions as a prophecy against Israel, i.e. Samaria.4

1 If Isa. 21–22 is removed from the FNPs, we are left with six ‫משׂא‬-collections. It is striking that Isa. 28–33 also contains six ‫ הוי‬collections (Isa. 28,1; 29,1, 15; 30:1; 31:1; 33:1). These two collections of prophecies are reminiscent of the posited earlier form of Amos, containing five prophecies against the nations and five parallel visions at the end of the book (cf. §2.4.1). 2 Exceptions are Isa. 14:28; 21:1, 11. 3 Cf. ‫ יום יהוה‬in Isa. 13 (§3.2.1) or ‫ אדני יהוה צבאות‬in Isa. 22 (§3.2.8). 4 Compare this with the function of Isa. 20, which was originally a text addressing Judah. Nevertheless, this purpose is modified in its present context where Isa. 20 can be read as a text concerned primarily with the future of Egypt.

340

chapter seven

There are significant connections between 17:12–14, 18:1–7, and the previous 17:1–11, mainly in terms of the agricultural imagery adopted by these texts. While 17:12–14 exploits the ‘grain harvest’ theme of 17:5, 18:1–7 does the same with the motif of fruit harvesting that appears in 17:6. Although neither of the two texts was written for the present context, these similar motifs could have served as a guideline for the redactor in relocating the two prophecies. Making an alliance with Rezin of Damascus during the reign of Peqah (Isa. 7–8), and sending messengers to Egypt by King Hoshea (2 Kgs 17:4) were the two most important events leading to the destruction of the Northern Kingdom. Therefore, while the inclusion of 17:12–14 and 18:1–7 into its present place is late,5 the two texts were moved here with much editorial care, and are in their final form subordinated to ‫משׂא דמשׂק‬ in 17:1. That is, from the point of view of the final editors of the book of Isaiah, Isa. 18 is essentially an anti-Israel prophecy and not one related to Isa. 19–20. The ‫( משׂא מצרים‬19:1) includes the prophecy against Egypt in 19:1– 15 with its elaborations in 19:16–25, as well as the once an independent prophecy in Isa. 20. As mentioned, most ‫משׂא‬-headings delimit segment collections of several prophecies and do not designate one literary unit. The view put forward by Weis, Sweeney and Floyd that ‫ משׂא‬can be considered a composition with clearly traceable characteristics, is questionable (§5.3.1). Although written on different occasions, Isa. 19:1–15 and 19:16–25 must be regarded as related. Vv. 16–25 obviously elaborate vv. 1–15, and they were never supposed to function independently from the latter. The structure of judgment followed by salvation, also appears in Isa. 15:1–16:5; 23:1–18 and possibly 17:1–8. As far as its content is concerned, the position of Isa. 20 in a ‫משׂא‬ ‫ מצרים‬is legitimated by the fact that it explicitly refers to the deportation of Egypt and Kush. However, the reader is left to guess why Isa. 20 returns to a negative message for Egypt after the positive forecast in Isa. 19:21–25. The assumption that Isa. 19:16–25 would have been added later than Isa. 20 cannot adequately explain this incongruence, nor does the positing that Isa. 19 was relocated to the present position (§6.3.1). Nevertheless, two other examples in Isa. 13–23 also manifest the sequence of prophecies of salvation followed by prophecies

5

Duhm and Kaiser, in opposition to Mowinckel, Fohrer and Vermeylen.

conclusion

341

of judgment (cf. 15:1–16:5 and 16:6–12[13–14]; 17:1–8 and 17:9–11). This suggests that, from the point of view of the final editors, salvation is not Yhwh’s ultimate word on Egypt. Both Isa. 19:1–15 and Isa. 20 present significant book level intertextual connections to other passages beyond Isa. 13–23. Especially striking is the relationship between Isa. 2:22–3:7, 12 and 19:1–15, 9:7–20 and 19:1–15 (§5.3.1), 10:3–4 and 20:4–6 (§6.3.1). These close literary ties can only be recognised if Isa. 19 and 20 is read in the larger context of the book of Isaiah. This implies that the FNPs of Isaiah need to be correlated to prophecies addressing Israel and Judah. Such a relationship between prophecies concerned with the nations and those concerned with the people of Yhwh is central to understanding the purport and intention of the FNPs. Yhwh’s dealings with foreign nations should not be disconnected from his plans concerning his own people. Based on the above analysis, it may be concluded that Isa. 13–23 and especially Isa. 18–20 do not presuppose the existence of the book of Isaiah in its final form, i.e. including Isa. 40–66. The lack of significant connections with the second half of the book has important bearing on the research of the formation of the book of Isaiah.

7.2

Theological Concerns in Isaiah 18–20

The theological problems exposed by Isa. 18–20 can be discussed from various perspectives. In line with the concern of this study, I shall look at the theological content of these prophecies from two viewpoints: the theological role of Isa. 18–20 in the context of the book of Isaiah and the way Isa. 18–20 functions as a collection of FNPs. 7.2.1 Theological Considerations from an Isaianic Perspective Taking the book of Isaiah as context, the image of the empire of Kush in Isa. 18 is consistent with how the African nations appear in texts ascribed to Isaiah of the 8th century (Isa. 30–31) and the later tradition referring to the standpoint of the prophet concerning Egypt and Kush (Isa. 20; 36:6; 37:9). In these compositions, Egypt and Kush are presented as opposed to Yhwh and therefore nations in which the trust of Israel or Judah is misplaced. Israel and Judah relying on Egypt will fall together with it (20:5–6; 30:3, 5; 31:3). Isa. 18 alludes to Kushite emissaries at the Judaean court, so that addressing the Africans

342

chapter seven

in a prophecy of doom also implies judgment for Judah. As it was noted, the description of Yhwh as remaining calm in v. 4, questions the implication of Judah in the war against Assyria and reminds the reader of the political view of Isaiah promulgated in 7:14 or 30:15 (cf. §4.3.2). Unfortunately, the purpose of Isa. 19:1–15 is less clear. There are no allusions to conflicts between Judah and Egypt in this text, so that it is difficult to regard this as an implicit salvation prophecy. Egypt is never criticised by the prophets because of its expansionary policy in Palestinian territories. The assumption that Isa. 19:1–15 would again criticise here an eventual alliance against Assyria can also be neither confirmed nor denied on the basis of this text. However, this option is the most likely if 19:1–15 is dated to the Isaianic era and if the relationship between 19:1–15 and Isa. 2:22–3:7, 12 is taken seriously. If this text is dated to the early 7th century, it may have functioned as an illustration for Yhwh’s plan concerning other nations, reflecting on the ever growing tensions between Egypt and Assyria around this period (cf. §5.3.2). The expansion of vv. 16–25 most likely only occurred in a written form. It should be considered a prophetic treatise on Egypt’s recent history in which 19:1–15 is taken as a starting point and provided with the necessary updates for new readers. At any rate, the connection between the history of Israel and that of Egypt in vv. 19–22 is evident. Egypt is going to be saved, just as Israel was delivered. The tradition referred to by this passage comes mainly from Israel’s earlier history. Isa. 19:16–25 makes no reference to a new exodus (contrast this with 11:11–12:6), but it presents Egypt’s future in analogy to Israel’s past, a theological point that has close parallels in Isa. 9–10 (cf. §5.3.2). As for Isa. 20, there is no evidence that this text would have ever existed in any other than its present form (§6.3.1). Being a narrative about Isaiah, the theological concern of this text can be compared to other Isaiah narratives in Isa. 7–8 and 36–39. Such a comparison means that the message of Isa. 20 should not be related to 711 bc in the first place, but it must be associated with a later audience (§6.3.2). The most likely option is to consider this narrative as a model intended to convince one of Judah’s late pro-Egyptian kings, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, or Zedekiah, instructing them through an earlier prophecy (cf. Jer. 26:18–19). Isa. 20 gives the theological bases for the standpoint of those groups in Jerusalem, who condemned Judah for seeking salvation from the Babylonians through the support of Egypt.

conclusion

343

As part of a ‫משׂא‬-collection, the theological focus of Isa. 18 addressing the Kingdom of Kush and Isa. 20 addressing Judah shifted partially because of the relocation of these passages in the context of the Damascus, Israel and Egypt collections respectively. When summarising the theological role of Isa. 18–20 in the context of Isa. 13–23, one has to refer to the motifs of Yhwh’s plan and his raised hand, which figure prominently in Isa. 13–23 but also in the broader context of the book of Isaiah. The two motifs are connected in 14:26–27; 19:16–17 and 23:11, but most striking resemblances appear in 14:27; 19:12 and 23:8–9 (cf. §5.3.2). The motif of Yhwh’s raised hand originally connected two parts of an earlier version of the book of Isaiah (one focusing on Israel / Judah and the other on foreign nations). The hand raised over Israel / Judah plays an important role in 5:25; 9:11, 16, 20, over Assyria in 10:4, and over other nations in 14:26–27. The judgment on Israel and Judah in the first part of the book is brought to a culmination by the destruction of Assur (cf. §3.2.1). As soon as Yhwh has finished his work in Jerusalem (Isa. 10:12), he will punish Assyria, who formerly eliminated the boundaries of many nations (10:13–14). Yhwh will redraw the boundaries, which means that the fall of Assyria will have implications not only for Jerusalem but for all other nations formerly bearing the Assyrian yoke. In this manner, the hand raised above Assyria will ultimately bear a positive message for Jerusalem and all nations. It is probably this editorial point of view that explains the judgment to salvation transition in the prophecies in Isa. 13–23.6 This edition of the book is more directly related to Isa. 10, and contained the prophecies 14:4b–21, 24–27, 28–32; 15:1–16:5; 17:1–8; 19; 23. The structure of these FNPs corresponds to the basic shape of a royal inscription (see §7.4 below). The editorial concern for Yhwh’s plan and his raised hand first by means of and then against Assur is the motivation for an initial collection of FNPs, which subsequently shifted to the theme of the ‘the day of Yhwh’. This theme appears at key locations in the book of Isaiah, namely in 2:6–21 (the introduction of the first part of the book) and 13:1–22 (the first chapter of the present collection of FNPs). 6

Although this does not presuppose that the salvation enhancements have all been written by these editors. As I noted, the role of Assyria in Isa. 19:23 is obviously different from the imagery of the vanished oppressor in 16:1–5. Consequently, the two texts definitely derive from different periods.

344

chapter seven

Allusions to the day of Yhwh also appear in 17:11 (‫)יום נחלה‬, i.e. in the judgment after salvation section of 17:9–11, as well as in 22:5 (‫)יום מהומה ומבוכה ומבוסה‬, i.e. the collection Isa. 21–22. This may mean that the redactors working with the theme of the ‫ יום יהוה‬are responsible for the judgment-after-salvation-edition of the book of Isaiah (cf. also Isa. 16:6–12 and Isa. 20),7 and the inclusion of Isa. 21–22 in the earlier Isaianic collection of FNPs. The humiliation of the proud ones, the destruction of human support and the exaltation of Yhwh in judgment is the key concern of this edition (cf. 2:6–21; 20:6) (cf. §6.3.2). The inclusion of Isa. 17:12–14 and 18:1–7 in ‫משׂא דמשׂק‬ may have also been part of these editors’ work. The message of these two pericopes essentially fits the focus of the ‘day of Yhwh’ edition, which deals with the destruction of ‘the many nations’ (17:12–13) and the humiliation of the famous ones (18:2, 7). This ‫יהוה יום‬-edition of the book of Isaiah has close ties with the book of Zephaniah, which appears to follow a similar structural concept (cf. §§2.4.4; 3.3). 7.2.2

Theological Considerations from the Perspective of FNPs

Previous research on the function of FNPs has shown that prophecies concerning the nations are often related to states of war, where these texts often bring comfort to a group threatened by external enemies (§§2.2; 2.3). However, Isa. 18 is not an implicit salvation oracle for Judah but rather the contrary. It conveys a negative message to a nation preparing for war (cf. §4.3.1). There is no explicit hint that Isa. 18 would be a prophetic response to an inquiry (cf. Isa. 14:32), but that is a serious possibility. The message given to the mysterious messengers in v. 2 can be interpreted as a response to an inquiry addressed to Isaiah by his public. The close connections with a similar oracle in 1 Kgs 22 (cf. §4.3.2) give additional support for this assumption. The case is probably different, however, with Isa. 19–20. The manner in which Judah is implied in the pronouncement of judgment in 19:1–15 remains questionable, but we find here no evidence for

7 I am uncertain about 16:13–14, which seems to have been composed still later (cf. §3.2.3). Note the relationship with 21:16–17 (§3.2.7). For a contrasting opinion, see P.R. Raabe, ‘Why Prophetic Oracles Against the Nations’, in: A.B. Beck et al. (eds), Fortunate the Eyes that See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday, Grand Rapids, MI 1995, 245; I doubt that Isa. 16:13–14 or 21:16–17 could be considered prophecies of (limited) salvation.

conclusion

345

considering this text an oracle of war. In fact, the second part of this prophecy, vv. 16–25, cannot be a war oracle. This is also true for Isa. 20 in its present narrative form. Nevertheless, as I suggested above, the political significance of Isa. 20 should not be underestimated. The text of Isa. 18–20 provides no evidence that it could in any way be related to an eventual identity crisis in the Judaism of the post-exilic era.8 The presumed positive stance of Isa. 18:7 and 19:16–25 towards foreign nations is another often-discussed feature. Yet, unfortunately, scholars are reluctant to make the necessary distinctions between the different types of attitudes concerning foreign nations that these texts convey. Although many scholars relate Isa. 18:7 to Deutero-Isaiah, especially 45:14 (occasionally even assuming that 18:7 would rely on Deutero-Isaiah), closer analysis suggests that making Jerusalem instead of Yhwh the main beneficiary of the tributes of foreign nations, essentially distinguishes Isa. 18:7 from 45:14, and indeed from DeuteroIsaiah’s view on the relationship between Israel and other nations. Isa. 18:7 is closer to religious poetry (cf. Ps. 68:30) and royal oracles. On the other hand, the human or divine king as the central figure of the pre-exilic Zion-theology is reinterpreted in Isa. 45:14 as a reference to Zion, in full accordance with the theology of Deutero-Isaiah (cf. §4.3.1). As for the universalism of 19:16–25, this text is often connected with passages assumed to derive from the late Persian or Hellenistic periods, such as Isa. 66:18–21; Jon. 1:16; 3–4; Zech. 14:20; Mal. 1:11. The validity of this view must be questioned, for 19:16–25 differs from these passages in major ways. Isa. 19 exposes a different type of universalism. The revelation of the name of Yhwh to the Egyptians distinguishes Isa. 19 from Jon. 1 and other related texts, in which the foreigners’ experience of Yhwh is restricted to the fearful appearance of Israel’s God. The Jerusalem-centred worldview of Isa. 66:18–21 or Zech. 14:20 is an essential difference between these texts and Isa. 19:16–25. The inclusive monotheism behind Jon. 3–4 and Mal. 1:11 is also absent from Isa. 19:16–25 (§5.3.2). Isa. 19:16–25 does not presuppose an eschatological scene in which foreign nations stand in front of the throne of Yhwh (contrast Zeph. 3:8–9). Instead, the text is thoroughly rooted

8 Contra Ch. Fischer, Die Fremdvölkersprüchebei Amos und Jesaja (BBB, 136), Berlin 2002, who wished to treat FNPs in Amos 1–2 and Isa. 13–16 as products of postexilic authors searching for identity.

346

chapter seven

in a historical context, with Egypt and Assyria as the historical powers in a world order created by Yhwh (cf. §5.2.7). The human figure of the saviour in Isa. 19:20 indicates that this text is a historical example of the indirect theocracy of Yhwh on earth, and is therefore difficult to reconcile with post-exilic expectations of the future. Presenting the future of Egypt as subordinate to Assyria (19:23) is even more strongly rooted in historical reality. The type of universalism emanating from Isa. 19:16–25 is rather similar to the universalism of royal psalms and Assyrian royal ideology.

7.3 Isaiah 18–20 from a Historical Perspective The order of prophecies in Isa. 13–23 does not correspond to their actual date of composition. This means that the date of authorship cannot be derived from the location of a prophecy in the sequence of Isa. 13–23.9 The historical background must be analysed separately in each case. It seems that Isa. 18 with its focus on the messengers sent by Kush is related to a specific moment in the history of the Near East. Although the revolt of Israel in 728–724 or of Ashdod in 713–711 was often suggested as the historical background of the prophecy, there is more support to date this text shortly before 701. The messengers who arrive in Judah from Kush imply that the instigator and fomenter of the rebellion was the Kingdom of Kush. This information does not fit the historical circumstances in 728–724, when Israel sent its own messengers to Egypt to ask for help (cf. §4.3.3), nor in 713–711, when the rebellion was initiated by Ashdod, in which the Kushites and Egyptians appear as merely marginal players (cf. §§4.3.3; 6.3.3). However, Kush and Egypt are at the centre in the preparations for war against Assyria in 701, committing a massive military force. In 701 Kush and Egypt were also supported by the ancient ally, Phoenicia, who had remained neutral in all previous anti-Assyrian conflicts. Furthermore, the metaphor by which the land extending beyond the rivers of Kush is addressed, the two winged beetle (‫)צלצל כנפים‬, is a symbol with double significance. It does not only identify the country of the pharaohs, but it indirectly

9 In opposition to Hayes & Irvine with regard to Isa. 13–23, or Gallagher with regard to Isa. 21–22.

conclusion

347

addresses Hezekiah, who adopted the scarab beetle as his royal symbol, a symbol well-known to archaeologists from the seal impressions of this Judaean king. The (four) winged beetle also appears on the lmlk-jar handles from the period of 705–701 bc (§4.3.3). A closer look at 19:1–15 suggests that this text derives from between 716 and 671 bc. When scholars date these verses to the Isaianic era, they mostly rely on the conflict scene in v. 2, which describes the antagonism among the nomes of Egypt. However, the language adopted here in the prophecy is stereotypical (cf. §§5.2.1; 5.3.3). Neither is the imagery of the harsh lord specific enough to be identified with a concrete historical figure, even if the possibility that the author did have a historical figure in his mind cannot be excluded. Attention was called to the fact that Isa. 19:1–15 may be a predictive description of Egypt’s near future. This would question the identification of the statements of the prophecy with the actual historical facts. At the same time, the use of the term ‫ ממלכה‬in connection with the nomes of Egypt, presupposing kings as leaders, points to the Assyrian era, when the nomes were indeed subjected to the supervision of kings with a more or less limited power. As for the harsh ruler (‫ )אדנים קשׁה‬and the powerful king (‫)מלך עז‬, it is unlikely that a Judaean prophet would have referred to the Kushites who would probably not be known to him as a significant military power before they conquered Egypt. In later times, however, the Kushite pharaohs proved to be Egypt-friendly rulers. Consequently, the imagery in Isa. 19:4 alludes rather to Assyrian kings.10 The principle role of the advisors from the eastern region of the Delta (19:11, 13; cf. §5.2.3) would suggest that the enemy is expected from the east rather than from the south. Isa. 19:13 mentions one pharaoh probably ruling from Memphis, with counsellors from Zoan. This information fits well the era of Shabaka, the Kushite king who moved his throne to Memphis in 716. Since the deliverance of Egypt into the hands of a harsh lord is predicted as a new experience for the Egyptians, it is likely that the prophecy predates 671, when Esarhaddon, king of Assyria invaded Egypt. Isa. 19:16–23 is not a prediction, but it describes actual historical events, which the author interpreted in a theological way. Isa. 19:23 is

10 Although this image of the king would also suit with Babylonian or Perso-Median rulers, other considerations have led to the conclusion that Isa. 19:1–15 must be earlier than the Babylonian era (cf. §§5.3.1; 5.3.3).

348

chapter seven

a key verse in this respect. Contrary to the most often followed interpretation of this verse, which considers v. 23 to be an expression of the common worship of Yhwh by Assur and Egypt, I argued that it alludes to a world in which Egypt is subservient to Assur. The translation ‘to serve Yhwh’ is not supported by the present form of the Hebrew text (cf. §§5.1 n. 23 h–h; 5.2.7). Egypt’s experience with Assyria is viewed in this passage through the looking glass of an author who regards Assyria as the tool in the hand of Yhwh. As such, whatever Assyria brings about in Egypt is actually triggered by Yhwh. In this way, the oath by Egypt sworn to serve Assyria can be understood as Egypt’s commitment to Yhwh. Egyptian offerings to Assyrian gods in expression of their vassal status can be regarded as offerings to Assyria’s chief overlord, Yhwh (§5.3.3). If we look at the historical circumstances from this point of view, the theological message of the Judaean author seems to assume a date during the early years of Assurbanipal for 19:16–23. According to v. 20 (cf. §§5.2.6; 5.3.3), this Assyrian king was regarded as a liberator sent by Yhwh, a view that complies with historical texts reporting on the Assyrian invasion of Egypt. In this way, it becomes clear how a Judaean author could have had such detailed insight into the history of Egypt. During the days of Manasseh, Judah assisted the Assyrians by providing a Judaean contingent to help ‘free’ the Egyptians from Kushite rule. It is not surprising that this Egyptexperience of Judah has left its marks on the pages of the Bible. Isa. 20 complies with the known facts concerning the fall of Ashdod in 711 bc, and presents historical information that is unique in the Bible. This may suggest that the author of Isa. 20 based his narrative on a reliable source. Nevertheless, the narrative in its present form derives from a later period, written under circumstances similar to 711. It addresses a different audience, most probably one of the last kings of Judah, who was pursuing a dangerous pro-Egyptian policy under the imminent threat of a Babylonian invasion (§6.3.3).

7.4

Isaiah 18–20 and the Royal Stele of Yhwh (Isaiah 13–23)

Mesopotamian royal inscriptions, which often have the form of a stone stele, present the Assyrian king and his god as the ruler of the world (šar kiššati). They do this by making the Upper Sea on the West (tâmti elēnīti ša šalam Šamši, Mediterranean Sea) and the Lower Sea in the East (tâmti šaplīti ša ṣīt Šamši, Persian Gulf ) the limits of the

conclusion

349

territory of the king of the earth. The West-East coordinates, as well as the seas washing the remotest shores of the ancient world, are closely paralleled by the present structure of Isa. 13–23, containing prophecies on the kingdoms between the Lower Sea (Mesopotamia, in particular Babylon and Assyria) and the Upper Sea (Tyre and its islands, Cyprus and the shores of the Mediterranean). Moreover, the Mesopotamian royal inscriptions, often enumerate the campaigns of one particular king against different nations and the tributes brought by these nations as a sign of submission to the world ruler (cf., e.g., Salmaneser III’s famous Black Obelisk). Isa. 13–23 with its list of different nations subdued by Yhwh in different ‘campaigns’ corresponds to the structure of these inscriptions. In this sense, Isa. 13–23 is supposed to function as a kind of royal inscription, as a stele of Yhwh presenting his rule over the world. Isa. 18–20, the prophecies analysed more closely in this study, are sections on this stele of Yhwh which proclaim his rule even beyond the remotest corners of the earth, ‘beyond the rivers of Kush’ (Isa. 18:2; cf. Zech. 9:10). There is an explicit reference to a stele of Yhwh (‫[ ליהוה‬. . .] ‫ )מצבה‬erected in Egypt (Isa. 19:19), which highlights the awareness of Judaeans concerning the function and meaning of these monuments. Of course, when I refer to Isa. 13–23 as a stele-like or royal-inscriptionlike monument I do not assume that the individual prophecies were conceived from the very beginning as the segments of a royal stele. The very divergent history of composition of the texts analysed in Chapters 3–6 clearly excludes the possibility that such could have been the case. I merely suggested that, from an editorial point of view, the prophecies related to various historical contexts were collected and organised in such a way as to imitate the structure of Assyrian royal inscriptions and thus give the impression that Yhwh is the ruler of the earth. There are various allusions in Isa. 18–20 which make these prophecies suitable constituents of such a stele. In Isa. 18, the sending of tribute by a nation far away (v. 7) reminds us of Assyrian references to remote nations whose place is far away (ša ašaršu rūqu), who bring tributes to the king in Assyria, and make the extent of his Empire seem more impressive. The presentation of Jerusalem as the place of the name of Yhwh (‫ )מקום שׁם־יהוה‬parallels Assyrian customs of naming cities after the name of the ruling king (cf. Dur-Sharruken). The Hebrew term for foreign messengers (‫ ;ציר‬vs. 2) corresponds to the related Akkadian term (ṣīru) used in an Assyrian context mainly as

350

chapter seven

a designation for foreign high-ranking emissaries. The destruction of the vine (Isa. 18:5) alludes to a scene frequently described and iconographically represented in the context of Assyrian conquest narratives (cf. §4.4). As mentioned, Isa. 19:19 explicitly refers to a stele of Yhwh set up in the region of Egypt’s borderland. This reference resonates particularly well with Esarhaddon’s account of his conquest of Egypt, in which he claims: ‘I let a stele be made with my name and the praise of the heroism of my lord, Assur, my mighty deeds (that I accomplished when I was) walking in reliance upon Assur, my lord, and the victorious achievements of my hands I let be written on it’ (IAKA §65). The prophecy in Isa. 19 is loaded with motifs appearing often on Assyrian royal inscriptions. Yhwh’s arrival in Egypt causes fear and disorientation among the Egyptians (v. 1) similarly to the impression of the glory (namrīru) and awesomeness (melammû/pulḫi melammē) of the god Assur that spreads among the enemies of the Assyrian king. The reference to the plans against Yhwh (vv. 3, 11, 13) has its parallels in the evil plans and counsels that cannot stand (milik lā kušīri) against Assur. The renaming of the occupied foreign cities as it appears in Isa. 19:18 is also a frequent motif in Assyrian accounts. The term ‫ ִﬠיר ַה ֶה ֶרס‬, ‘city of ruins’ (v. 18; §5.1 n. c–c), is comparable to the Assyrian til abūbe, ‘ruin hill’, the terminology used in connection with destroyed cities. The oath of Egypt and the foreign language that is imposed upon it is reminiscent of the obligations of a vassal who swears allegiance to his overlord. The establishment of an altar and the erection of the stele (v. 19) appears often in the context of Assyrian conquest of foreign lands. The altar plays a role in the treaty ceremony in which the rights and obligations of the subjugated vassal are presented in a ritual framework, and it serves as a religious expression of subordination to Assyria. The deliverance of Egypt from the hand of foreigners by its overlord also recalls the treaty obligations of the Assyrian king regarding his subordinates (§5.4). Isa. 20 can also be read as if it were a segment on a conquest stele. It makes use of Assyrian terminology (turtānu), and its description of the fall of Ashdod (v. 1) parallels Assyrian conquest narratives. Furthermore, the deportation of inhabitants (v. 4) is also an event frequently mentioned in royal inscriptions. Readers familiar with the Assyrian steles also recognise the condemnation of alliances against Assyria (vv. 5–6).

conclusion

351

The Assyrian term for ‘stele’ is narû or ṣalmu. The latter refers specifically to a stone monument containing an iconographic representation of the Assyrian king. This image of the king is often referred to as ṣalam šarrūtīya, ‘my royal image’, or ṣalam bēlūtīya, ‘my lordly image’ (§5.2.6). Such steles were usually set up in important cities or border regions and were used to mark the extent of the Assyrian Empire.11 Beyond this, however, a stele is far more than a border stone or an instrument of political propaganda. In her study on Mesopotamian steles, Zainab Bahrani argues that the ṣalmu is not a portrait of the king in the modern sense, not his natural replica. The ṣalmu (which may contain both image and text) is a representation of the person of the king. She compares the function of the ṣalmu to that of the šar pûḫi, ‘the substitute of the king’, who was supposed to take the place of the king on days in which omens predicted a dangerous fate for the Assyrian monarch. By means of a certain ritual, this person, the substitute king, who during the ritual ceremony is referred to as ṣalmu, is transformed into the real king.12 The stele representing the king also functions as a substitute of the Assyrian ruler, taking his place in his absence.13 The stele which the Assyrian king erected in Egypt commemorating the ‘heroic deeds and victorious actions’ of the god Assur and his servant is presented in Isa. 13–23 as a stele of Yhwh, because he and not Assur is the ultimate divine overlord for the Assyrian ruler. The king of Assyria is like a tool in his hand (Isa. 10:5). The basalt steles 11 A stele could have been used for different purposes and could have, accordingly, contained texts of various lengths. CAD n, 364–66 gives the following definitions for narû: stone monument inscribed with laws and regulations (e.g. Hammurapi’s stele); boundary stone; memorial monument set up by a king, which is mostly (though not always) accompanied by reliefs (cf. the Mesha stele or Salmaneser III’s Black Obelisk). It is frequently noted that after the conquest of a country, a stele is constructed, and the achievements of the Assyrian king are written on it. 12 Z. Bahrani, The Graven Image: Representation in Babylon and Assyria, Philadelphia, PA 2003, 129–30. 13 Bahrani argues that ‘an integral part of all substitution rituals was the act of naming. The image was first fashioned and then given a specific person’s name in order to function as a valid substitute for the person in question. (. . .) The name was so consequential because Babylonian theological thought held the basic doctrine that the naming of a thing was tantamount to its existence and that a thing did not exist unless it was named. (. . .) The removal of the name from the image could also invalidate that image as an immortalization of the represented.’ (Graven Image, 179). Compare this with the stele of Esarhaddon, referred to as narâ šiṭir šumīya, ‘a stele with my name written on it’ (IAKA §65:50) and the biblical ‫[ ליהוה‬. . .] ‫ מצבה‬in Isa. 19:19.

352

chapter seven

of Esarhaddon or Assurbanipal could have been smashed into pieces (and indeed they were) by dissatisfied and rebellious Egyptian dependants, obsessed by a life free of foreign control. The glory of the god Assur, which ‘covers the earth’ (ša melammūšu māta katmu) (RIMA 3 A.0.102.11 Left Edge ii 3) was shaded later by Babylon, the new servant of Yhwh (Jer. 27:6), and Babylon’s awesomeness is surpassed by the glory of Cyrus, the anointed king of the Lord of Israel, Ruler of the world (Isa. 45:1). The human instruments are constantly changing. Yhwh installs and removes kings (Dan. 2:21); stone steles emerge and are destroyed. However, for the reader of Isa. 13–23, the inhabitant of a small satrapy amongst the coming and going of world empires, this stele of Yhwh proclaims the unmatched awesomeness and irrevocable power that transcends all human generations:

‫קדושׁ קדושׁ קדושׁ יהוה צבאות‬ ‫מלא כל־הארץ כבודו‬ (Isa. 6:3)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Commentaries and Specific Studies on the Book of Isaiah (cited by the authors’ name only) Alexander, J.A., Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah, Grand Rapids, MI 1992 Auvray, P., Isaïe 1–39, Paris 1972 Barthélemy, D., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament: Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations (OBO, 50/2), Göttingen 1986 Berges, U., Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt (HBS, 16), Freiburg 1998 Beuken, W.A.M., Jesaja 13–27 (HThKAT), Freiburg 2007 Blenkinsopp, J., Isaiah 1–39 (AncB, 19), New York 2000 Cheyne, T.K., The Prophecies of Isaiah, London 1843 Childs, B., Isaiah (OTL), London 2000 Clements, R.E., Isaiah 1–39 (NCBC), Grand Rapids, MI 1980 Delitzsch, F., The Prophecies of Isaiah, Grand Rapids, MI 1950 Dillmann, A., Der Prophet Jesaja (KEHAT, 5), Leipzig 61898 Duhm, B., Das Buch Jesaja, Göttingen 51968 Ehrlich, A.B., Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel: Textkritisches, sprachliches und sachliches: Jesaia, Jeremia, Leipzig 1912 Fischer, J., Das Buch Isaias (HSAT,8/1/1), Bonn 1937 Fohrer, G., Der Prophet Jesaja (ZBK), Zürich 21966 Gesenius, W., Philologisch-kritischer und historischer Commentar über den Jesaia, Bd. 2, Leipzig 1826 Goldingay, J., Isaiah (NIBC, 13), Peabody, MA 2001 Gray, G.B., The Book of Isaiah (ICC), Edinburgh 1912 Hayes, J.H., Irvine, S.A., Isaiah, the Eighth-century Prophet: His Times and His Preaching, Nashville, TN 1987 Höffken, P., Das Buch Jesaja: Kapitel 1–39 (NSKAT, 18/1), Stuttgart 1993 Hoonacker, A. van, Het Boek Isaias, Brugge 1932 Ibn Ezra, The Commentary of Ibn Ezra on Isaiah (tr. by M. Friedländer), New York 1975 Kaiser, O., Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja: Kapitel 13–39 (ATD, 18), Göttingen 1981 Kissane, E.J., The Book of Isaiah, vol. 1, Doublin 1941 Kilian, R., Jesaja II: 13–39 (NEB), Würtzburg 1994 Knobel, A., Der Prophet Jesaia (KEHAT, 5), Leipzig, 1843 König, E., Das Buch Jesaja, Gütersloh 1927 Marti, K., Das Buch Jesaja (KHC,10), Tübingen 1900 Miscall, P.D., Isaiah, Sheffield 1993 Motyer, A., The Prophecies of Isaiah, Leicester 1993 Ohmann, H.M., Een woord gesproken op zijn tijd: Hoe lezen wij Jesaja 1–39, Franeker 1987 Oswalt, J.N., The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39 (NICOT), Grand Rapids, MI 1986 Orelli, D.C. von, Der Prophet Jesaja, München 31904 Parchon, S., ‘Commentar des Salomon Parchon zu Jesaia’, MGWJ 11 (1862), 344–50, 391–96, 430–35, 471–78; 12 (1863), 61–71, 108–10, 149–53, 269–73 Penna, A., Isaia, Turin 1964 Procksch, O., Jesaja I (KAT,9), Leipzig 1930 Ridderbos, J., De profeet Jesaja (KV), Kampen 1952

354

bibliography

Schoors, A., Jesaja (BOT,9), Roermond 1972 Seitz, C.R., Isaiah 1–39 (Interpretation), Louisville, KY 1993 Slotki, I.W., Isaiah, London 1983 Schmidt, H., Die großen Propheten (SAT, 2/2), Göttingen 21923 Sweeney, M.A., Isaiah 1–39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL, 14), Grand Rapids, MI 1996 Tucker, G.M., ‘The Book of Isaiah 1–39’, in: The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 6, Nashville, TN 2001, 25–305 Vermeylen, J., Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique: Isaïe, I–XXXV, miroir d’un demimillénaire d’expérience religieuse en Israël, t. 1 (ÉB), Paris 1977–78 Vitringa, C., Uitlegging over het boek der profeetsyen van Jezaias, bd. 2, Leiden 1739 Waard, J. de, A Handbook on Isaiah (TCT, 1), Winona Lake, IN 1997 Watts, J.D.W., Isaiah 1–33 (WBC, 24), Waco, TX 1985 Wade, G.W., The Book of the Prophet Isaiah, London 21929 Wildberger, H., Jesaja: 13–27(BKAT,10/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1978 Young, E.Y., The Book of Isaiah, vols 1–3, Grand Rapids, MI 1965 2. Other Works Ackroyd, P.R., ‘Isaiah i–xii: Presentation of a Prophet’, in: J.A. Emerton et al. (eds), Congress Volume (VT.S, 29), Leiden 1978, 16–48 ——, ‘Isaiah 36–39: Structure and Function’, in: Ibid., Studies in the Religious Tradition of the Old Testament, London 1987, 105–20 Ahituv, S., Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents, Jerusalem 1987 ——, ‘Egypt that Isaiah Knew’, in: I. Shirun-Grumach (ed.), Jerusalem Studies in Egyptology (ÄAT, 40), Wiesbaden 1998, 3–7 Ahlström, G.W., The History of Ancient Palestine, Minneapolis, MN 1994 Alonso Corral, M., Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre: Historical Reality and Motivations (BiOr, 46), Rome 2002 Auld, A.G., ‘Poetry, Prophecy, Hermeneutic: Recent Studies in Isaiah’, SJTh 33 (1980), 567–81 Backersten, O., Isaiah’s Political Message: An Appraisal of His Alleged Social Critique (FAT, 2.29), Tübingen 2008 Bahrani, Z., The Graven Image: Representation in Babylon and Assyria, Philadelphia, PA 2003 Balkely, J.A., Hardin, J.W., ‘Southwestern Judah in the Late Eighth Century b.c.e.’, BASOR 326 (2002), 11–64 Balogh, Cs., ‘Oude en nieuwe profetie: De rol van de profetische traditie in de volkenprofetieën’, in: G. Kwakkel (ed.), Wonderlijk gewoon: Profeten en profetie in het Oude Testament, Barneveld 2003, 11–37 ——, ‘ “He Filled Zion with Justice and Righteousness”: The Composition of Isaiah 33’, Bib. 89 (2008), 477–504 ——, ‘Blind People, Blind God: The Composition of Isaiah 29,15–24’, ZAW 121 (2009), 48–69 ——, ‘Mit ígért Isten Ábrahámnak? Megjegyzések 1Móz 12,3b értelmezéséhez’, Református Szemle 102 (2009), 265–285 ——, ‘Kús földje és kúsiták az Ószövetségben’, Református Szemle 103 (2010), 577– 604 Barr, J., Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament, Oxford 1968 Barth, H., Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung (WMANT, 48), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1977 Barth, J., Etymologische Studien, Leipzig 1893

bibliography

355

Barthel, J., Prophetenwort und Geschichte: Die Jesajaüberlieferung in Jes 6–8 und 28–31 (FAT, 19), Tübingen 1997 Barton, J., Amos’s Oracles against the Nations: A Study of Amos 1.3–2.5 (SOTS.MS, 6), Cambridge 1980 ——, ‘What Is a Book? Modern Exegesis and the Literary Conventions of Ancient Israel’, in: J.C. De Moor (ed.), Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel (OTS, 40), Leiden 1998, 1–14 Baruq, A., ‘Léontopolis’, in: L. Pirot (ed.), Dictionnaire de la Bible: Suppléments, Paris 1965, 359–72 Baumann, E., ‘Zwei Bemerkungen’, ZAW 21 (1901), 266–70 Becker, J., Isaias—der Prophet und sein Buch (SBS, 30), Stuttgart 1968 Becker, U., Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch (FRLANT, 178), Göttingen 1997 ——, ‘Jesajaforschung (Jes 1–39)’, ThR 64 (1999), 1–37, 117–52 Becking, B., The Fall of Samaria: An Historical and Archaeological Study (SHANE, 2), Leiden 1992 Beentjes, P.C., ‘Oracles against the Nations: A Central Issue in the “Latter Prophets” ’, Bijdr. 50 (1989), 203–9 Begg, C.T., ‘Babylon in the Book of Isaiah’, in: J. Vermeylen (ed.), The Book of Isaiah— Le livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures, unité et complexité de l’ouvrage (BETL, 81), Leuven 1989, 121–125 Bell, R., A Commentary on the Qur’an (JSSt.M, 14), vols 1–2, Manchester 1991 Ben Zvi, E., ‘History and Prophetic Texts’, in: M.P. Graham et al. (eds), History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes (JSOT.S, 173), Sheffield 1993, 106–20 Bentzen, A., ‘The Ritual Background of Amos i 2–ii 16’, in: P.A.H. de Boer (ed.), Oudtestamentische Studiën, vol. 8, Leiden 1950, 85–99 Berge, K., Die Zeit des Jahwisten: Ein Beitrag zur Datierung jahwistischer Vätertexte (BZAW, 186), Berlin 1990 Berges, U., ‘Die Armen im Buch Jesaja: Ein Beitrag zur Literaturgeschichte des AT’, Bib. 80 (1999), 153–77 Bergmeier, R., ‘Zum Ausdruck ‫ עצת רשׁים‬in Ps 1:1, Hi 10:3, 21:6 und 22:18’, ZAW 79 (1967), 229–32 Berlin, A., ‘Zephaniah’s Oracles against the Nations and an Israelite Cultural Myth’, in: A.B. Beck et al. (eds), Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday, Grand Rapids, MI 1995, 175–84 Beuken, W.A.M., ‘Jesaja 33 als Spiegeltext im Jesajabuch’, EThL 67 (1991), 5–35 ——, ‘A Song of Gratitude and a Song of Malicious Delight: Is Their Consonance Unseemly’, in: F.-L. Hossfeld et al. (eds), Das Manna fällt auch heute noch: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten, Ersten Testaments: Festschrift für Erich Zenger (HBS, 44), Freiburg 2004, 115–29 Bierbrier, M.L., Genealogy and Chronology of the Late New Kingdom (c. 1300–664 B.C.), London 1975 Blasius, A., Schipper, B.U., Apokalyptik und Ägypten: Eine kritische Analyse der relevanten Texte aus dem griechisch-römischen Ägypten (OLA, 107), Leuven 2002 Blenkinsopp, J., Ezekiel (Interpretation), Louisville, KY 1990 ——, A History of Prophecy in Israel, Louisville, KY 21992 ——, ‘The Prophetic Biography of Isaiah’, in: E. Blum (ed.), Mincha: Festgabe für Rolf Rendtorff zum 75. Geburtstag, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2000, 13–26 Block, D.I., The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology, Grand Rapids, MI 2000 Boadt, L., Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt: A Literary and Philological Study of Ezekiel 29–32 (BibOr, 37), Rome 1980

356

bibliography

——, ‘Re-Examining a Preexilic Redaction of Isaiah 1–39’, in: L. Boadt, M.S. Smith (eds), Imagery and Imagination in Biblical Literature: Essays in Honor of Aloysius Fitzgerald, F.S.C. (CBQ.MS, 32), Washington, D.C. 2001, 169–90 Boda, M., ‘Freeing the Burden of Prophecy: Maśśāʾ and the Legitimacy of Prophecy in Zech 9–14’, Bib. 87 (2006), 338–57 Boer, P.A.H. de, ‘Etude sur le sens de la racine QWH’, OTS 10 (1954), 225–46 Bogaert, P.-M., ‘L’organisation des grands recueils prophétiques’, in: J. Vermeylen (ed.), The Book of Isaiah—Le livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures, unité et complexité de l’ouvrage (BETL, 81), Leuven 1989, 147–53 Bonneau, D., ‘Nilgott’, LÄ 4.486–87 Boorn, G.P.F. van den, The Duties of the Vizier: Civil Administration in the Early New Kingdom, London 1988 Borger, R., ‘Gott Marduk und Gott-König Šulgi als Propheten’, BiOr 28 (1971), 3–24 Borghouts, J.F., ‘Witchcraft, Magic, and Divination in Ancient Egypt’, CANE 3.1775–85 Borowski, O., Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, Winona Lake, IN 1987 Bosshard-Nepustil, E., Rezeptionen von Jesaia 1–39 im Zwölfprophetenbuch (OBO, 154), Freiburg 1997 Bright, J., Jeremiah (AncB, 21), New York 1965 ——, A History of Israel, London 31972 Bronner, L., ‘Rethinking Isaiah 20’, OTWSA 22–23 (1979–80), 32–52 Bunnens, G., ‘L’histoire événementielle partim Orient’, in: V. Krings (ed.), La civilisation phénicienne et punique (HdO, 1/20), Leiden: Brill, 1995, 222–36 Burkitt, F.C., ‘On Isaiah xix 18.’, JThS 1 (1900), 568–69 Burney, C.F., ‘The Interpretation of Isa. xx 6.’, JThS 13 (1912), 420–23 Butzer, K.W., ‘Nilquellen’, LdÄ 4.506–7 Cagni, L., L’epopea di Erra (SS, 34), Roma 1969 Cahill, J.M., ‘Royal Rosettes: Fit for a King’, BArR 23.5 (1997), 48–57, 68 Calderone, P.J., ‘The Rivers of “Masor” ’, Bib. 42 (1961), 423–32 Carr, D., ‘Reaching for Unity in Isaiah’, JSOT 57 (1993), 61–80 Carroll, R.P., Jeremiah (OTL), London 1986 Casson, L., Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Princeton, NJ 1971 Cheyne, T.K., ‘Heres, the city of ’, EB 2.2018 ——, ‘The Critical Analysis of the First Part of Isaiah’, JQR 4 (1892), 562–70 ——, ‘The Nineteenth Chapter of Isaiah’, ZAW 13 (1893), 125–28 Childs, B., Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (SBT, 3), London 1967 Chilton, B.D., The Isaiah Targum, Edinburgh 1987 Chimko, C.J., ‘Foreign Pharaohs: Self-Legitimization and Indigenous Reaction in Art and Literature’, JSSEA 30 (2003), 15–57 Christensen, D.L., Prophecy and War in Ancient Israel: Studies in the Oracles Against the Nations in Old Testament Prophecy, Berkeley, CA 1989 Clements, R.E., ‘The Prophecies of Isaiah and the Fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.’, VT 30 (1980), 421–36 Clifford, R.J., ‘The Use of HÔY in the Prophets’, CBQ 28 (1966), 458–64 Cole, S.W., ‘The Destruction of Orchards in Assyrian Warfare’, in: S. Parpola, R.M. Whiting (eds), Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project Helsinki, September 7–11, 1995, Helsinki 1997, 29–48 Conrad, E.W., Reading Isaiah, Minneapolis, MN 1991 ——, ‘Reading Isaiah and the Twelve as Prophetic Books’, in: C.C. Broyles, C.A. Evans (eds), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition (VT.S, 70), Leiden 1997, 3–17 Cross, F.M., ‘King Hezekiah’s Seal Bears Phoenician Imagery’, BArR 25.2 (1999), 42–45, 60

bibliography

357

——, ‘A Bulla of Hezekiah, King of Judah’, in: P.H. Williams, T. Hiebert (eds), Realia Dei: Essays in Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation in Honor of Edward F. Campbell, Jr. at His Retirement, Atlanta, GA 1999, 61–66 Currid, J.D., Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament, Grand Rapids, MI 1997 Dalley, S., Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others, Oxford 1989 ——, ‘Recent Evidence from Assyrian Sources for Judaean History from Uzziah to Manasseh’, JSOT 28 (2004), 387–401 Dalley, S., Postgate, J.N., The Tablets from Fort-Shalmaneser (CTN, 3), London 1984 Dalman, G., Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, Bd. 8, Gütersloh 1928–2001 Dandamayev, M., ‘Assyrian Traditions during Achaemenid Times’, in: S. Parpola, R.M. Whiting (eds), Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project Helsinki, September 7–11, 1995, Helsinki 1997, 41–48 Davies, G.I., ‘The Destiny of the Nations in the Book of Isaiah’, in: J. Vermeylen (ed.), The Book of Isaiah—Le livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures, unité et complexité de l’ouvrage (BEThL, 81), Leuven 1989, 93–120 Day, J., ‘The Problem of “So, king of Egypt” in 2 Kings xvii 4’, VT 42 (1992), 289–301 Deissler, A., ‘Der Volk und Land überschreitende Gottesbund der Endzeit nach Jes 19,16–25’, in: F. Hahn et al. (eds), Zion—Ort der Begegnung: Festschrift für Laurentius Klein zur Vollendung des 65. Lebensjahres (BBB, 90), Bodenheim 1993, 7–18 Dekker, J., Zion’s Rock-Solid Foundations: AnExegeticalStudyof the Zion Text in Isaiah 28:16 (OTS, 54), Leiden 2007 Delcor, M., ‘Le temple d’Onias en Égypte: Réexamen d’un vieux problème’, RB 75 (1968), 188–203 Delitzsch, F., Die Lese- und Schreibfehler im Alten Testament, Berlin 1920 Deutsch, R., ‘Lasting Impressions: New Bullae Reveal Egyptian-Style Emblems on Judah’s Royal Seals’, BArR 28.4 (2002), 42–51, 60, 62 De Vries, S.J., From Old Revelation to New: A Tradition-Historical Approach and Redaction-Critical Study of Temporal Transitions in Prophetic Prediction, Grand Rapids, MI 1995 Dhorme, É., ‘Le désert de la mer (Isaïe, xxi)’, in: Idem, Recueil Édouard Dhorme: Études bibliques et orientales, Paris 1951, 301–4 Dietrich, W., Jesaja und die Politik, München 1976 Dion, P.E., Dieu universel et peuple élu: l’universalisme religieux en Israël depuis les origines jusqu’a la veille des luttes maccabéennes (LD, 83), Paris 1975 Dijk, H. van, Ezekiel’s Prophecy on Tyre (Ez. 26, 1–28,19): A New Approach (BiOr, 20), Rome 1968 Dijkstra, M., Ezechiël I (T&T), Kampen 1986 ——, Ezechiël II (T&T), Kampen 1989 Donner, H., Israel unter den Völkern: Die Stellung der klassischen Propheten des 8. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. zur Aussenpolitik der Könige von Israel und Juda (VTS, 11), Leiden 1964 Dorsey, D.A., The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel, Baltimore 1989 Driver, G.R., ‘Linguistic and Textual Problems: Isaiah I–XXXIX’, JThS 38 (1937), 36–50 ——, ‘Difficult Words in the Hebrew Prophets’, in: H.H. Rowley (ed.), Studies in Old Testament Prophecy Presented to Professor Theodore H. Robinson by the Society for Old Testament Study on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Edinburgh 1950, 52–72 ——, ‘Isaiah I–XXXIX: Textual and Linguistic Problems’, JSS 13 (1968), 36–57 ——, ‘Ugaritic and Hebrew Words’, Ugaritica 6 (1969), 181–84 Driver, S.R., ‘Ir-Ha-Heres’, DB 2.479–81 Ebach, J., Rüterswörden, U., ‘Unterweltsbeschwörung im Alten Testament’, UF 9 (1977), 57–70; 12 (1980), 205–20

358

bibliography

Eissfeldt, O., Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Tübingen 31964 Eitan, I., ‘La répétition de la racine en hébreu’, JPOS 1 (1920), 171–86 ——, ‘An Egyptian Loanword in Is 19’, JQR 15 (1924–1925), 419–22 ——, ‘Contribution to Isaiah Exegesis’, HUCA 12–13 (1937–38), 55–88 Elat, M., ‘The Economic Relations of the Neo-Assyrian Empire with Egypt’, JAOS 98 (1978), 20–34 Elmaleh, A., Nouveau dictionnaire complet hébreux-français, t. 1, Tel-Aviv 1950 Emerton, J.A., ‘Some Difficult Words in Isaiah 28.10 and 13’, in: A. Rapoport-Albert, G. Greenberg (eds), Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman (JSOT.S, 333), Sheffield 2001, 39–56 Eph’al, I., The Ancient Arabs: Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent 9th–5th Centuries B.C., Jerusalem 1982 ——, ‘Esarhaddon, Egypt, and Shubria: Politics and Propaganda’, JCS 57 (2005), 99–112 Erlandsson, S., The Burden of Babylon: A Study of Isaiah 13:2–14:23 (CBOT, 4), Lund 1970 Faulkner, R.O., The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts, vols 1–3, Warminster 1973–78 Fechter, F., Bewältigung der Katastrophe: Untersuchungen zu ausgewählten Fremdvölkersprüchen im Ezechielbuch (BZAW, 208), Berlin 1992 Feuillet, A., ‘Un sommet religieux de l’Ancien Testament: L’oracle d’Isaïe xix (vss. 16–25), sur la conversion de l’Egypte’, in: Études d’exégèse et de théologie biblique: Ancien Testament, Paris 1975, 261–79 ——, ‘Études chronologique des oracles qu’on peut dater’, in: Études d’exégèse et de théologie biblique: Ancien Testament, Paris 1975, 39–56 Fichtner, J., ‘Jahwes Plan in der Botschaft des Jesaja’, in: Gottes Weisheit: Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (Arbeiten zur Theologie 2/3), Stuttgart 1965, 27–43 Field, F., Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt sive veterum interpretum Graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta, vol. 1–2, Leipzig, 1875 Fischer, A.A., ‘Der Edom-Spruch in Jesaja 21: Sein literaturgeschichtlicher und sein zeitgeschichtlicher Kontext’, in: M. Witte (ed.), Gott und Mensch im Dialog: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburtstag, Bd. 1 (BZAW, 345), Berlin 2004, 471–90 Fischer, Ch., Die Fremdvölkersprüche bei Amos und Jesaja (BBB, 136), Berlin 2002 Fischer, G., ‘Jer. 25 und die Fremdvölkersprüche: Unterschiede zwischen hebräischem und griechischem Text’, Bib.72 (1991), 474–99 Floyd, M.H., ‘The ‫( ַמ ָשּׁא‬Maśśaʾ) as a Type of Prophetic Book’, JBL 121 (2002), 401– 22 Fohrer, G., ‘Wandlungen Jesajas’, in: Ibid., Studien zur alttestamentlichen Texten und Themen (BZAW, 155), Berlin 1981, 11–23 Fraenkel, S., Die aramäischen Fremdwörter im arabischen, Leiden 1886 Frame, G., ‘The Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-i Var’, Or. 68 (1999), 31–57 Franklin, N., ‘The Room V Reliefs at Dur-Sharrukin and Sargon II’s Western Campaigns’, TA 21 (1994), 255–75 Fuchs, A., Die Annalen des Jahres 711 v. Chr. nach Prismenfragmenten aus Ninive und Assur (SAAS, 8), Helsinki 1998 Fuhs, H.F., ‫עבר‬, ThWAT 5.1015–33 Gadd, C.J., ‘Inscribed Prisms of Sargon II from Nimrud’, Iraq 16 (1954), 173–201 Galil, G., ‘A New Look at the Azekah Inscription’, RB 1995 (102), 321–29 ——, The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah (SHCANE, 9), Leiden 1996 Gallagher, W.R., Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: New Studies (SHCANE, 18), Leiden 1999 Galling, K., ‘Jesaja 21 im Lichte der neuen Nabonidtexte’, in: E. Würthwein, O. Kaiser (eds), Tradition und Situation: Studien zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie. Arthur Weiser zum 70. Geburtstag, Göttingen 1963, 49–62

bibliography

359

García Martínez, F., Tigchelaar, E.J.C., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition, vols 1–2, Leiden 1997 Gardiner, A.H., Ancient Egyptian Onomastica, vols 1–2, London 1947 Gehman, H.S., ‘The ‘Burden’ of the Prophets’, JQR 31 (1940–41), 107–21 Gelston, A., ‘The Universalism of Second Isaiah’, JTS 43 (1992), 377–98 Gemser, B., ‘Beʿēber hajjardēn: in Jordan’s Borderland’, VT 2 (1952), 349–55 Gerstenbeger, E., ‘The Woe-Oracles of the Prophets’, JBL 81 (1962), 249–63 Geyer, J.B., Mythology and Lament: Studies in the Oracles about the Nations, Hants 2004 ——, ‘Another Look at the Oracles about the Nations in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to A. C. Hagedorn’, VT 59 (2009) 80–87 Goldberg, J., ‘Two Assyrian Campaigns against Hezekiah and Later Eighth Century Biblical Chronology’, Bib. 80 (1999), 360–90 Goldenberg, D.M., The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Princeton, NJ 2003 Goldstein, J.A., ‘The Metamorphosis of Isaiah 13:2–14:27’, in: R.A. Argall (ed.), For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism and Early Christianity, Harrisburg, PA 2000, 78–88 Gomaà, F., Die lybischen Fürstentümer des Deltas, vom Tod Osorkons II. bis zur Wiedervereinigung Ägyptens durch Psametik I (BTAVO, B6), Wiesbaden 1974 Gonçalves, F., L’expédition de Sennachérib en Palestine dans la littérature hébraïque ancienne (PIOL, 34), Louvain-la-Neuve 1986 Gordon, C.H. et al. (eds), Eblaitica: Essays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite Language, vol. 1, Winona Lake, IN 1987 Görg, M., ‘Zur Identität des Pischon (Gen. 2,11)’, in: Idem, Aegyptiaca—Biblica: Notizen und Beiträge zu den Beziehungen zwischen Ägypten und Israel (ÄAT, 11), Wiesbaden 1991, 13–15 ——, Die Beziehungen zwischen dem alten Israel und Ägypten: Von den Anfängen bis zum Exil (EdF, 290), Darmstadt 1997 Gosse, B., Isaïe 13,1–14,23 dans la tradition littéraire du livre d’Isaïe et dans la tradition des oracles contre les nations (OBO, 78), Freiburg 1988 ——, ‘Le recueil d’oracles contra les nations du livre d’Amos et l’histoire deutéronomique’, VT 38 (1988), 22–40 ——, ‘La place primitive de recueil d’Oracles contre les Nations dans le livre de Jérémie’, BN 74 (1994), 28–30 Gössmann Oesa, P.F., Das Era-Epos, Würtzburg 1955 Gottwald, N.K., ‘All the Kingdoms of the Earth’: Israelite Prophecy and International Relations in the Ancient Near East, New York 1964 Graeve, M.-C. de, The Ships of the Ancient Near East (c. 2000–500 B.C.), Leuven 1981 Grayson, A.K., Lambert, W.G., ‘Akkadian Prophecies’, JCS 18 (1964), 7–30 Green, A.R.W., The Storm-God in the Ancient Near East (BJS, 8), Winona Lake, IN 2003 Greenberg, M., Ezekiel 21–37 (AncB, 22A), New York, NY 1997 Greenfield, J.C., ‘Scripture and Inscription: The Literary Rhetorical Element in Some Early Phoenician Inscriptions’, in: S.M. Paul (ed.), ‘Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology, Leiden 2001, 704–19 Gressmann, H., Der Messias, Göttingen 1929 Grimal, N., La stèle triomphale de Pi(’ânkh)y au Musée du Caire (JE 48862 et 47086– 47089): Études sur la propagande royale égyptienne (MIFAO, 105), Caire 1981 ——, A History of Ancient Egypt (tr. byI. Shaw), Oxford 1992 Grimme, H., ‘Ein übersehenes Orakel gegen Assur (Isaias 13)’, ThQ 85 (1903), 1–11 Groß, W., ‘Israel und die Völker: Die Krise der YHWH-Volk-Konzepts im Jesajabuch’, in: E. Zenger (ed.), Der Neue Bund im Alten: Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente (QD, 146), Freiburg 1993, 147–67 Grüneberg, K.N., Abraham, Blessing and the Nations: A Philological and Exegetical Study of Genesis 12:3 in its Narrative Context (BZAW, 332), Berlin 2003

360

bibliography

Guillaume, A., ‘A Note on Isaiah xix. 7’, JThS 14 (1963), 382–83 Gunkel, H., Genesis, Göttingen 1966 Hackett, J.A., The Balaam Text of Deir ‘Alla (HSM, 31), Chico 1980 Hagedorn, A.C., ‘Looking at Foreigners in Biblical and Greek Prophecy’, VT 57 (2007), 432–48 Hallo, W.H., ‘From Qarqar to Carchemish: Assyria and Israel in the Light of New Discoveries’, BA 23 (1960), 33–61 ——, ‘Akkadian Apocalypses’, IEJ 16 (1966), 231–42 Hamborg, G.R., ‘Reasons for Judgment in the Oracles against the Nations of the Prophet Isaiah’, VT 31 (1981), 145–59 Haran, M., ‘The Place of the Prophecies against the Nations in the Book of Jeremiah’, in: S.M. Paul, E. Ben-David (eds), Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of E. Tov, Leiden 2003, 699–706 Hardmeier, Chr., ‘Jesajaforschung im Umbruch’, VF 31 (1986), 3–30 Hayes, J.H., The Oracles against the Nations in the Old Testament: Their Usage and Theological Importance (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University), Princeton, NJ 1964 ——, ‘The Usage of Oracles against Foreign Nations in Ancient Israel’, JBL 87 (1968), 89–102 Hays, J.D., ‘The Cushites: A Black Nation in Ancient History’, BS 153 (1996), 270–80, 396–409 Hayward, R., ‘The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis: A Reconsideration’, JJS 33 (1982), 429–43 Heimpel, W., ‘Das Untere Meer’, ZA 77 (1987), 22–91 Helck, W., Otto, E., Kleines Wörterbuch der Ägyptologie, Wiesbaden 1956 ——, Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., Wiesbaden 1962 ——, Geschichte des alten Ägypten, HdO 1/1/3, Leiden 1968 ——, ‘Fremdvölkerdarstellungen’, LÄ 2.315–21 Hermisson, H.-J., Deuterojesaja: 45,8–49,13 (BKAT, 11/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2003 ——, ‘Zukunftserwartung und Gegenwartskritik in der Verkündigung Jesajas’, EvTh 33 (1973), 54–77 Herz, N., ‘Isaiah 19, 7’, OLZ 15 (1912), 496–97 Hillers, D.R., ‘Hôy and Hôy-Oracles: A Neglected Syntactic Aspect’, in: C.L. Meyers, M. O’Connor, The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, Winona Lake, IN 1983, 185–88 Hjelt, A., ‘Die Chronik Nabopolassars und der syrische Feldzug Nechos’, in: K. Budde (ed.), Vom Alten Testament: Karl Marti zum siebzigsten Geburtstage gewidmet (BZAW, 41), Giessen 1925, 42–47 Hoch, J.E., Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, Princeton, NJ 1994 Holladay, W.L., Jeremiah (Hermeneia), vol. 2, Philadelphia, PA 1989 Höffken, P., Untersuchungen zu den Begründungselementen der Völkerorakel des Alten Testaments (Ph.D. diss., Evangelisch-theologische Fakultät der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität), Bonn, 1977 ——, Jesaja: Der Stand der theologischen Diskussion, Darmstadt 2004 Hoffmann, W., Die Intention der Verkündigung Jesajas (BZAW, 136), Berlin 1974 Hoffmann, Y., The Prophecies against Foreign Nations, Tel-Aviv 1977 (Hebrew) ——, ‘From Oracle to Prophecy: The Growth, Crystallization and Disintegration of a Biblical Gattung’, JNSL 10 (1982), 75–81 ——, ‘Aetiology, Redaction and Historicity in Jeremiah xxxvi’, VT 46 (1996), 179–89 Hoffmeier, J.K., ‘Egypt As an Arm of Flesh: A Prophetic Response’, in: A. Gileadi (ed.), Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Ronald K. Harrison, Grand Rapids, MI 1988, 79–97 ——, Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition, Oxford 1996

bibliography

361

——, ‘Egypt’s Role in the Events of 701 bc in Jerusalem’, in: A.G. Vaughn, A.E. Killebrew (eds), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period (SBL.SS, 18), Atlanta, GA 2002, 219–34 Hoffner, H.A., ‘Second Millennium Antecedents to the Hebrew ʾôb̠’, JBL 86 (1967), 385–401 Hommel, F., Ethnologie und Geographie des Alten Orients, Münich 1926 Honigmann, E., ‘Nil’, Pauly-Wissowa 17/1.556–66 Hoonacker, A. van, ‘Deux passages obscurs dans le chap. 19 d’Isaïe (vv. 11.18)’, RBén 36 (1924), 297–306 Høgenhaven, J., Gott und Volk bei Jesaja: Eine Untersuchung zur biblischen Theologie, Leiden: Brill, 1988 ——, ‘The Oracles against the Nations in the Book of Isaiah: Their Possible Value for the Study of the History of Jordan’, in: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan VII: Jordan by the Millenia, Amman 2001, 353–57 Høyland Lavik, M., A People Tall and Smooth-Skinned: The Rhetoric of Isaiah 18 (VT.S, 112), Leiden 2007 Huber, F., Jahwe, Juda und die anderen Völker beim Propheten Jesaja (BZAW, 137), Berlin 1976 Hunger, H., Kaufman, S.A., ‘A New Akkadian Prophecy Text’, JAOS 95 (1975), 371–75 Huwyler, B., Jeremia und die Völker: Untersuchungen zu den Völkersprüchen in Jeremia 46–49 (FAT, 20), Tübingen 1997 Irvine, S.A., Isaiah, Ahaz, and the Syro-Ephraimitic Crisis (SBL.DS, 123), Atlanta, GA 1990 Israelit-Groll, S., ‘The Egyptian Background to Isaiah 19.18’, in: M. Lubetski et al. (eds), Boundaries of the Ancient Near Eastern World: A Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon (JSOT.S, 273), Sheffield 1998, 300–3 Jansen-Winkeln, K., ‘Alara und Taharka: zur Geschichte des nubischen Königshauses’, Or. 72 (2003), 141–58 Janzen, W., Mourning Cry and Woe Oracle (BZAW, 125), Berlin 1972 Jenkins, A.K., ‘Hezekiah’s Fourteenth Year: A New Interpretation of 2 Kings xviii 13–xix 37’, VT 26 (1976), 284–98 ——, ‘The Hand Stretched Out over All the Nations’: A Study of the Presentation of the Isaiah Tradition in Is. 13–23’ (Ph.D. diss., Claremont Graduate School), London 1985 ——, ‘The Development of the Isaiah Tradition in Isaiah 13–23’, in: J. Vermeylen (ed.), The Book of Isaiah—Le livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures, unité et complexité de l’ouvrage (BEThL, 81), Leuven 1989, 237–51 Jeppesen, K., ‘The maśśāʾ bābel in Isaiah 13–14’, PIBA 9 (1985), 63–80 Jeremias, J., ‘Völkersprüche und Visionsberichte im Amosbuch’, in: V. Fritz (ed.), Prophet un Prophetenbuch: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 65. Geburtstag (BZAW, 185), Berlin 1989, 82–97 ——, Der Prophet Amos (ATD, 24/2), Göttingen 1995 Jirku, A., ‘Die fünf Städte bei Jes. 19, 18 und die fünf Tore des Jahu-Tempels zu Elephantine’, OLZ 6 (1912), 247–48 Jones, B., Howling over Moab: Irony and Rhetoric in Isaiah 15–16 (SBL.DS, 157), Scholars, GA 1996 Jong, M.J. de, Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets: A Comparative Study of the Earliest Stages of the Isaiah Tradition and the Neo-Assyrian Prophecies (VT.S 116), Leiden 2007 Kahn, D., ‘The Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-i Var and the Chronology of Dynasty 25’, Or. 70 (2001), 1–18 ——, ‘Taharqa, King of Kush and the Assyrians’, JSSEA 31 (2004), 109–28 Kaiser, O., Der Gott des Alten Testaments: Theologie des Alten Testaments. Teil 3: Jahwes Gerechtigkeit, Göttingen 2003 Kákosy, L., ‘Orakel’, LdÄ 4.600–6 ——, Az ókori Egyiptom története és kultúrája, Budapest 1998

362

bibliography

Kapera, Z.J., ‘Biblical Reflections of the Struggle for Philistia at the End of the Eight Century B.C. Part II: Analysis of the Chapter xx of the Book of Isaiah’, FO 12 (1981–84), 277–93 Kasher, A., The Jews of Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights, Tübingen 1985 Katzenstein, H.J., ‘ “Before the pharaoh conquered Gaza” (Jeremiah xlvii 1)’, VT 33 (1983), 249–51 Kee, M.S., ‘The Heavenly Council and its Type-scene’, JSOT 31 (2007), 259–74 Keel, O., Uehlinger, C., Gods, Goddesses and Images of God in Ancient Israel, Minneapolis, MN 1992 Keown, G.L. et al. (eds), Jeremiah 26–52 (WBC, 27), Waco, TX 1995 Kilian, R., Jesaja 1–39 (EdF, 200), Darmstadt 1983 Kitchen, K.A., ‘Late-Egyptian Chronology and the Hebrew Monarchy: Critical Studies on Old Testament Chronology, I’, JANES 5 (1973), 225–33 ——, ‘Egypt, the Levant and Assyria in 701 BC’, in: M. Görg (ed.), Fontes atque pontes: Eine Festgabe für Hellmut Brunner (ÄAT, 5), Wiesbaden 1983, 243–53 ——, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 B.C.), Warminster 21986 ——, The Reliability of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids, MI 2003 ——, ‘Egyptian Interventions in the Levant in Iron Age II’, in: W.G. Dever, S. Gitin (eds), Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors, from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina, Winona Lake, IN 2003, 113–32 Klein, M.L., The Fragment Targums of the Pentateuch According to Their Extant Sources: Texts, Indices and Introductory Essays, vols 1–2, Rome 1980 Klengel, H., ‘Das Land Kusch in den Keilschrifttexten von Amarna’, in: E. Endesfelder (ed.), Ägypten und Kusch (SGKAO, 13), Berlin 1977, 227–32 Knauf, E.A., ‘Kedar’, ABD 4.9–10 Koenen, L., ‘Die Apologie des Töpfers an König Amenophis oder das Töpferorakel’, in: A. Blasius, B.U. Schipper (eds), Apokalyptik und Ägypten: Eine kritische Analyse der relevanten Texte aus dem griechisch-römischen Ägypten, Leuven 2002, 139–87 Köckert, M. et al., ‘Das Problem des historischen Jesaja’, in: I. Fischer et al. (eds), Prophetie in Israel (ATM, 11), Berlin 2001, 105–36 Köhler, L., ‘Bāzāʾ = fortschwemmen’, ThZ 6 (1950), 316–17 Kooij, A. van der, ‘The Old-Greek of Isaiah 19:16–25: Translation and Interpretation’, in: C.E. Cox (ed.), VI Congress of the International Organisation for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Jerusalem 1986 (SBLS.CS, 23), Atlanta, GA 1987, 127–66 ——, Die Alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches: Ein Beitrag zur Textgeschichte des Alten Testaments (OBO, 35), Göttingen 1981 ——, The Oracle of Tyre: The Septuagint Version of Isaiah 23 as Version and Vision (VT.S, 71) Leiden 1998 Korpel, M.C.A., A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine, Münster 1990 Kőszeghy, M., ‘Hybris und Prophetie: Erwägungen zum Hintergrund von Jesaja xiv 12–15’, VT 44 (1994), 549–54 Krašovec, J., ‘Healing of Egypt Through Judgment and the Creation of a Universal Chosen People (Isaiah 19:16–25)’, in: I. Shirun-Grumach (ed.), Jerusalem Studies in Egyptology (ÄAT, 40), Wiesbaden 1998, 295–305 Kratz, R.G., ‘Das Neue in der Prophetie des Alten Testaments’, in: I. Fischer et al. (eds), Prophetie in Israel (ATM, 11), Münster 2001, 1–22 ——, ‘Israel in the Book of Isaiah’, JSOT 31 (2006), 103–28 Kraus, H.-J., ‘hôy als prophetische Leichenklage über das eigene Volk im 8. Jahrhundert’, ZAW 85 (1973), 15–46 ——, Psalmen (BKAT, 15), Neukirchen-Vluyn 51978

bibliography

363

Krauss, S., Talmudische Archäologie, Bd. 1–3, Leipzig 1910–12 Kuhrt, A., The Ancient Near East, vols 1–2, London 1995 Kustár, Z., ‘Durch seine Wunden sind wir geheilt’: Eine Untersuchung zur Metaphorik von Israels Krankheit und Heilung im Jesajabuch (BWANT, 154), Stuttgart 2002 ——, ‘Ein Gottesvolk—oder mehrere Völker Gottes? Ein Konzept aus der ‘Peripherie’ der biblischen Eschatologie’, in: E. Noort, W. Wischmeyer (eds), Europa, Minderheiten und die Globalisierung: Theologische Überlegungen zu der sich erweiternden Welt, Groningen 2006, 24–32 Kutscher, E.Y., Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1 Q Isaa), Leiden 1974 Landsberger, B., Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon: The Fauna of Ancient Mesopotamia, vols 1–2, Rome 1960–1962 Lambdin, T.O., ‘Egyptian Loanwords in the Old Testament’, JAOS 73 (1952), 145–55 Leahy, A., ‘Ethnic Diversity in Ancient Egypt’, in: CANE, 225–34 Leclant, J., ‘Schabaka’, LÄ 5.499–513 Lefèvre, A., ‘L’expression « en ce jour-là » dans le livre d’Isaïe’, in: Mélanges bibliques rédigés en l’honneur d’André Robert, Paris 1957, 174–79 Leichty, E., The Omen Series Šumma Izbu, Locust Valley 1970 Lemaire, A., ‘Note epigraphique sur la pseudo-attestation de mois “ṣḥ” ’, VT 33 (1973), 243–45 Lessing, R., Interpreting Discontinuity: Isaiah’s Tyre Oracle (Ph.D. diss., Concordia Seminary), St. Louis, MO 2001 Lettinga, J.P., Jona / Ruth: Notities bij de Hebreeuwse tekst en proeve van vertaling, Kampen 1996 Liebreich, L.J., ‘The Compilation of the Book of Isaiah’, JQR 46 (1955–56), 259–77; 47 (1956–57), 117–38 Lilley, J.P.U., ‘By the River-Side’, VT 28 (1978), 165–71 Liverani, M., ‘The Sargon Geography and the Late Assyrian Mensuration of the Earth’, SAAB 13 (1999–2001), 57–85 Longman III, T., Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study, Winona Lake, IN 1991 Loretz, O., ‘Der Ugartische Topos bʿl rkb und die ‘Sprache kanaans’ in Jes 19:1–25’, UF 19 (1987), 101–12 Löw, I., Aramäische Pflanzennamen, Leipzig 1881 ——, Die Flora der Juden, Bd. 1–4, Leipzig 1881 Lubetski, M., ‘Beetlemania of Bygone Times’, JSOT 91 (2000), 3–26 ——, ‘King Hezekiah’s Seal Revisited: Small Object Reflects Big Geopolitics’, BArR 27.4 (2001), 44–51, 59 Lubetski, M., Gottlieb, C., ‘Isaiah 18: The Egyptian Nexus’, in: M. Lubetski et al. (eds), Boundaries of the Ancient Near Eastern World: A Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon (JSOT.S, 273), Sheffield 1998, 364–84 Luckenbill, D.D., The Annals of Sennacherib, Chicago, IL 1924 Machinist, P., ‘Assyria and Its Image in the First Isaiah’, JAOS 103 (1983), 719–37 Macintosh, A.A., Isaiah XXI: A Palimpsest, Cambridge 1980 Maier, J., Die Qumran-Essener: Die Texte vom Toten Meer, Bd. 1, München 1995 Mankowski, P.V., Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew (HSS, 47), Winona Lake, IN 2000 Mansoor, J., The Thanksgiving Hymns, Leiden 1961 Margolis, M.L., ‘Studien im griechischen Alten Testament’, ZAW 27 (1907), 212–70 Margulis, B., Studies in the Oracles against the Nations (Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University), Boston, MA 1975 Mattila, R., The King’s Magnates: A Study of the Highest Officials of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (SAAS, 11), Helsinki 1999

364

bibliography

Mazar, A., Archaeology and the Land of the Bible: 10.000–586 B.C.E., New York 1992 McKinion, S.A., Isaiah 1–39 (The Ancient Christian Commentary on the Scripture: Old Testament, 10), Leicester 2004 Meier, S.A., The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World (HSM, 45), Atlanta, GA 1988 Millard, A., The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire: 910–612 B.C. (SAAS, 2), Helsinki 1994 Monsengwo-Pasinya, L., ‘Isaïe XIX 16–25 et universalisme dans la LXX’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Salamanca 1983 (VT.S, 36), Leiden 1985, 192–207 Morkot, R.G., The Black Pharaohs: Egypt’s Nubian Rulers, London 2000 Mowinckel, S., ‘Die Komposition des Jesajabuches: Kap. 1–39’, AcOr 11 (1933), 267–92 ——, ‘Drive and/or Ride in O.T.’, VT 12 (1962), 278–99 ——, The Spirit and the Word: Prophecy and Tradition in Ancient Israel, Minneapolis, MN 2002 Muchiki, Y., Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-West Semitic (SBL.DS, 173), Atlanta 1999 Müller, W.W., ‘Altsüdarabische Beiträge zum Hebräischen Lexikon’, ZAW 75 (1963), 304–16 Munch, P.A., The Expression bajjôm hāhūʾ: Is It an Eschatological Terminus Technicus? Oslo 1936 Na’aman, N., ‘The Brook of Egypt and Assyrian Policy on the Border of Egypt’, TA 6 (1979), 68–90 ——, ‘The Historical Background to the Conquest of Samaria (720 BC)’, Bib. 71 (1990), 206–25 ——, ‘The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah’, TA 18 (1991), 3–71 ——, ‘Sargon II and the Rebellion of the Cypriot Kings against Shilta of Tyre’, in: Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction, Winona Lake, IN 2005, 118–28 Na’aman, N., Zadok, R., ‘Sargon II’s Deportations to Israel and Philistea (716–708 B.C.)’, JCS 40 (1988), 36–46 Nelson, R., ‘Realpolitik in Judah (687–609 B.C.E.)’, in: W.H. Hallo et al. (eds), Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the Comparative Method, Winona Lake, IN 1983, 177–89 Niccacci, A., ‘Isaiah xviii–xx from an Egyptological Perspective’, VT 48 (1998), 214– 38 Nielsen, K., There is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah (JSOT.S, 65), Sheffield 1989 Nissinen, M., References to Prophecy in Neo-Assyrian Sources (SAAS, 7), Helsinki 1998 ——, ‘Das kritische Potential in der altorientalischen Prophetie’, in: M. Köckert, M. Nissinen (eds), Propheten in Mari, Assyrien und Israel (FRLANT, 201), Göttingen 2003, 1–33 ——, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (WAW, 12), Atlanta, GA 2003 Ockinga, B.G., ‘rōʾš wĕzānāb kippāh wĕʾagmôn in Jes 9,13 und 19,15’, BN 10 (1979), 31–34 O’Connor, D., ‘The Locations of Yam and Kush and Their Historical Implications’, JARCE 23 (1986), 27–50 ——, ‘Meroë’, OEANE 3.472–74 ——, Ancient Nubia: Egypt’s Rival in Africa, Philadelphia, PA 1993 Olley, J.W., ‘ “Hear the Word of Yahweh”: The Structure of the Book of Isaiah in 1QIsaa’, VT 43 (1993), 19–49 Olyan, S.M., ‘Was the “King of Babylon” Buried Before His Corpse Was Exposed? Some Thoughts on Isa 14,19’, ZAW 118 (2006), 423–26 Onasch, C., ‘Kush in der Sicht von Ägyptern und Griechen’, in: E. Endesfelder (ed.), Ägypten und Kusch (SGKAO, 13), Berlin 1977, 331–36 Onasch, H.-U., Die assyrischen Eroberungen Ägyptens, Bd. 1–2 (ÄAT, 27), Wiesbaden 1994

bibliography

365

Pankhurst, R., The Ethiopian Borderlands: Essays in Ancient History from Ancient Times to the End of the 18th Century, Lawrenceville, NJ 1997 Parpola, S., ‘Neo-Assyrian Treaties from the Royal Archives of Nineveh’, JCS 39 (1987), 170–74 ——, ‘Assyria’s Expansion in the 8th and 7th Centuries and Its Long-Term Repercussions in the West’, in: W.G. Dever, S. Gitin (eds), Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors, from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina, Winona Lake, IN 2003, 99–111 Parpola, A., Parpola, S., ‘On the Relationship of the Sumerian Toponym meluḫḫa and Sanskrit mleccha’, StOr 45 (1975), 205–38 Paul, S.M., Amos (Hermeneia), Minneapolis, MN 1991 Peels, H.G.L., ‘God’s Throne in Elam: The Historical Background and Literary Context of Jeremiah 49:34–39’, in: J.C. de Moor, H.F. van Rooij (eds), Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets (OTS, 44), Leiden 2000, 216–29 ——, ‘ “Drinken zùlt gij!” Plaats en betekenis van de volkenprofetieën in Jeremia 46–51’, ThRef 44 (2001), 205–20 Penna, A. ‘La Volgata e il manoscritto 1QIsa’, Bib. 38 (1957), 381–95 Perlitt, L., Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk, Zephaniah (ATD, 25/1), Göttingen 2004 Pfeifer, G., Ägypten im Alten Testament (BNB, 8), München 1995 Pinker, A., ‘Nineveh—An Isle is She’, ZAW 116 (2004), 402–5 Pitard, W., ‘Arameans’, in: A. Hoerth et al. (eds), Peoples of the Old Testament World, Grand Rapids, MI 2000, 207–30 Pohlmann, K.-F., Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezekiel) (ATD, 22/1), Göttingen 1996 Pongratz-Leisten, B., ‘Toponyme als Ausdruck assyrischen Herrschaftsanspruchs’, in: B. Pongratz-Leisten et al. (eds), Ana sadî Labnâni lû allik: Beiträge zu altorientalischen und mittelmeerischen Kulturen (Festschrift für W. Röllig) (AOAT, 247), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1997, 325–43 Porten, B., ‘Settlement of Jews at Elephantine and the Arameans at Syene’, in: O. Lipschits, M. Oeming (eds), Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, Winona Lake, IN 2006, 451–70 Porten, B., Yardeni, A., Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt: Literature, Accounts, Lists, vols 1–3, Winona Lake, IN 1993 Posener, G., Princes et pays d’Asie et de Nubie: Textes hiératiques sur des figurines d’envoûtement du Moyen Empire, Bruxelles 1940 ——, ‘L’or de Pount’, in: E. Endesfelder (ed.), Ägypten und Kusch (SGKAO, 13), Berlin 1977, 337–42 Postgate, J.N., Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire (StP.SM, 3), Rome 1974 Potts, D., ‘The Road to Meluhha’, JNES 41 (1982), 279–88 Premstaller, V., Fremdvölkersprüche des Ezechielbuches (FzB, 104), Würzburg 2005 Priese, K.-H., ‘Der Beginn der kuschitischen Herrschaft in Ägypten’, ZÄS 98 (1970), 16–32 Quack, J.F., ‘Zur Frage des Meeres in ägyptischen Texten’, OLZ 97 (2002), 453–63 ——, ‘Ein neuer prophetischer Text aus Tebtynis (Papyrus Carlsberg 399 + Papyrus Psi Inv. D. 17 + Papyrus Tebtunis Tait 13 Vs.) (Tafel IX–XVI)’, in: A. Blasius, B.U. Schipper (eds), Apokalyptik und Ägypten: Eine kritische Analyse der relevanten Texte aus dem griechisch-römischen Ägypten, Leuven 2002, 253–74 Raabe, P.R., ‘Why Prophetic Oracles Against the Nations’, in: A.B. Beck et al. (eds), Fortunate the Eyes that See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday, Grand Rapids, MI 1995, 236–57 Reade, J., ‘Sargon’s Campaigns of 720, 716, and 715 B.C.: Evidence from the Sculptures’, JNES 35 (1976), 95–104 Redford, D.B., Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, Princeton, NJ 1992 ——, ‘A Note on the Chronology of Dynasty 25 and the Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-i Var’, Or. 68 (1999), 58–60

366

bibliography

Rendsburg, G.A., ‘Linguistic Variation and the “Foreign Factor” in the Hebrew Bible’, IOS 15 (1995), 177–90 Rendtorff, R., ‘Zur Komposition des Buches Jesaja’, VT 34 (1984), 295–320 Reventlow, H.G., Das Amt des Propheten bei Amos, Göttingen 1962 Ringgren, H., ‫משׁך‬, ThWAT 5.59–62 Roberts, J.J.M., ‘Egypt, Assyria, Isaiah, and the Ashdod Affair: An Alternative Proposal’, in: A.G. Vaughn, A.E. Killebrew (eds), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period (SBL.SS, 18), Atlanta, GA 2002, 133–42 ——, ‘Isaiah’s Egyptian and Nubian Oracles’, in: B.E. Kelle, M. Bishop Moore, Israel’s Prophets and Israel’s Past: Essays on the Relationship of Prophetic Texts and Israelite history in Honor of John H. Hayes, Edinburgh, 2006, 201–9 Romer, M., ‘Tanis’, LÄ 6.194–209 Rooy, H.F. van, ‘The nations in Isaiah: A synchronic survey’, OTWSA 22–23 (1979– 1980), 213–29 Rowley, H.H., The Zadokite Fragments and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Oxford 1952 Ruppert, L., ‫יעץ‬, ThWAT 3.750–51 Russell, J.M., The Writing on the Wall: Studies in the Architectural Context of Late Assyrian Palace Inscriptions (MC, 9), Winona Lake, IN 1999 Rüthy, A.E., Die Pflanze und ihre Teile im biblisch-hebräischen Sprachgebrauch, Bern 1942 Rudolph, W., ‘Jesaja xv–xvi’, in: D.W. Thomas, W.D. McHardy (eds), Hebrew and Semitic Studies Presented to Godfrey Rolles Driver, Oxford 1963, 130–43 ——, Jeremia (HAT, 12), Tübingen 1968 Ryou, D.H., Zephaniah’s Oracles against the Nations: A Synchronic and Diachronic Study of Zephaniah 2:1–3:8 (BIS, 13), Leiden 1995 Sadler, R.S., Can a Cushite Change His Skin: An Examination of Race, Ethnicity, and Othering in the Hebrew Bible (JSOT.S, 425), London 2005 Salonen, A., Die Fischerei im alten Mesopotamien nach sumerisch-akkadischen Quellen: Eine lexikalische und kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung (AASF), Helsinki 1970 ——, Die Wasserfahrzeuge in Babylonien nach šumerisch-akkadischen Qellen (mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der 4. Tafel der Serie har-ra=ḫubullu): Eine lexikalische und kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung (SOF 8/4), Helsingforsiae 1939 Sauneron, S., Yoyotte, J., ‘Sur la politique palestinienne des rois saïtes’, VT 2 (1952), 131–36 Sawyer, J.F.A., ‘ “Blessed Be My People, Egypt” (Isaiah 19.25): The Context and Meaning of a Remarkable Passage’, in: J.D. Martin, P.R. Davies (eds), A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of William McKane (JSOT.S, 42), Sheffield 1986, 57–71 Schenkel, W., ‘Sonst-Jetzt: Variationen eines literarischen Formelelements’, WO (1984), 51–61 Schenker, A., ‘Jesaja 19,16–25: die Endzeit Israels rekapituliert seine Ursprünge’, in: Studien zu Propheten und Religionsgeschichte (SBA.AT, 36), Stuttgart 2003, 3–11 Schipper, B.U., ‘Wer war „Sōʾ, König von Ägypten’ (2 Kön 17,4)?’, BN 92 (1998), 71–84 ——, Israel und Ägypten in der Königszeit: Die kulturellen Kontakte von Salomo bis zum Fall Jerusalems (OBO, 170), Freiburg 1999 Schmerl, C., Die Völkerorakel in den Prophetenbüchern des Alten Testaments, Würzburg 1939 Schoors, A., ‘Historical Information in Isaiah 1–39’, in: J. van Ruiten, M. Vervenne (eds), Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken (BEThL, 132), Leuven 1997, 75–93 Schultz, R.L., ‘How Many Isaiah’s Were There and What Does It Matter? Prophetic Inspiration in Recent Evangelical Scholarship’, in: V. Bacote et al. (eds), Evangelicals and Scripture: Tradition, Authority and Hermeneutics, Downers Grove, IL 2004, 150–70

bibliography

367

Schwally, F., ‘Die Reden des Buches Jeremia gegen die Heiden: XXV. XLVI–LI untersucht’, ZAW 8 (1888), 177–216 Seeligmann, I.L., The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of Its Problems (MVEOL, 9), Leiden 1948 Seitz, C., Zion’s Final Destiny: The Development of the Book of Isaiah Minneapolis, MN 1991 Seybold, K., Der Prophet Jeremia: Leben und Werk, Stuttgart 1992 Sharp, C.J., ‘ “Take Another Scroll and Write”: A Study of the LXX and the MT of Jeremiah’s Oracles against Egypt and Babylon’, VT 47 (1997), 487–509 Shaw, I., ‘Egypt and the Outside World’, in: I. Shaw (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford 2002, 314–29 Shemesh, Y., ‘Isaiah 31,5: The Lord’s Protecting Lameness’, ZAW 115 (2003), 256–60 Shipp, R.M., Of Dead Kings and Dirges: Myth and Meaning in Isaiah 14:4b–21, Atlanta, GA 2002 Shupak, N., ‘Egyptian “Prophecy” and Biblical “Prophecy”: Did the Phenomenon of Prophecy in the Biblical Sense, Exist in Ancient Egypt?’, JEOL 31 (1989–90), 5–41 Simons, J., The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament, Leiden 1959 Smothers, T.G., ‘Isaiah 15–16’, in: J.W. Watts, P.R. House (eds), Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts (JSOT.S, 235), Sheffield 1996, 70–84 Soggin, J.A., ‘Zum wiederentdeckten altkanaanäischen Monat ‫’צח‬, ZAW 77 (1965), 83–86 ——, ‘Nachtrag zu ZAW 77 (1965), S. 83–86’, ZAW 77 (1965), 326 Sommer, B.D., ‘The Scroll of Isaiah as Jewish Scripture, Or, Why Jews Don’t Read Books’, SBL Seminar Papers (1996), 225–42 Spalinger, A., ‘The Year 712 B.C. and Its Implications for Egyptian History’, JARCE 10 (1973), 95–101 ——, ‘Esarhaddon and Egypt: An Analysis of the First Invasion of Egypt’, Or. 43 (1974), 295–326 ——, ‘The Foreign Policy of Egypt Preceding the Assyrian Conquest’, CdÉ 53 (1978), 22–47 Sparks, K.L., Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel: Prolegomena to the Study of Ethnic Sentiments and Their Expression in the Hebrew Bible, Winona Lake, IN 1998 Spieckermann, H., Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit (FRLANT, 129), Göttingen 1982 Spronk, K., Nahum (COT), Kampen 1999 Stansell, G., ‘Isaiah 28–33: Blest Be the Tie that Binds (Isaiah Together)’, in: R.F. Melugin, M.A. Sweeney (eds), New Visions of Isaiah (JSOT.S, 214), Sheffield 1996, 68–103 Stähli, H.-P., ‫עבר‬, THAT 2.200–4 ——, ‫יעצ‬, THAT 1.748–53 Steck, O.H., Bereitete Heimkehr: Jesaja 35 als redaktionelle Brücke zwischen dem Ersten und Zweiten Jesaja (SBS, 121), Stuttgart 1985 ——, Die erste Jesajarolle von Qumran (1QIsaa) (SBS, 173), Stuttgart 1998 Steckoll, S.H., ‘The Qumran Sect in Relation to the Temple of Leontopolis’, RdQ 21 (1967), 55–69 Steiner, G., ‘Der Gegensatz “eigenes Land”, “Ausland, Fremdland, Feindland” in den Vorstellungen des Alten Orients’, in: H.J. Nissen, J. Renger (eds), Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn: Politische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im Alten Vorderasien vom 4. bis 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (BBVO 1/2), Berlin 1982, 633–64 Steiner, M., ‘I am Mesha, King of Moab, or: Economic Organisation in the Iron Age II’, in: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan VII: Jordan by the Millennia, Amman 2001, 327–29

368

bibliography

Sweeney, M.A., ‘The Book of Isaiah in Recent Research’, CRBS 1 (1993), 141–62 ——, ‘Sargon’s Threat against Jerusalem in Isaiah 10.27–32’, Bib. 75 (1994), 457–70 ——, ‘Reevaluating Isaiah 1–39 in Recent Critical Research’, CRBS 4 (1996), 79–114 ——, The Twelve Prophets, vol. 2, Collegeville, MN 2000 ——, King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel, Oxford 2001 Tadmor, H., ‘The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chronological-Historical Study’, JCS 12 (1958), 22–40, 77–110 Tallqvist, K., Akkadische Götterepitheta (StOr, 7), Helsinki 1938 Tate, M.E., Psalms 51–100 (WBC, 20), Dallas, TX 1990 ——, ‘The Book of Isaiah in Recent Study’, in: J.W. Watts, P.R. House (eds), Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts (JSOT.S, 235), Sheffield 1996, 22–56 Tawil, H., ‘The Historicity of 2 Kings 19:24 (= Isaiah 37:25): The Problem of yeʾōrê māṣôr’, JNES 41 (1982), 195–206 Taylor, J., ‘The Third Intermediate Period (1069–664 BC)’, in: I. Shaw (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford 2000, 330–68 Taylor, J.E., ‘A Second Temple in Egypt: The Evidence for the Zadokite Temple of Onias’, JSJ 29 (1998), 297–321 Tcherikover, V., Hellenistic Civilisation and the Jews, Philadelphia, PA 1959 Thacker, T.W, ‘A Note on ‫’ﬠרוֹת‬, ָ JThS 34 (1933), 163–65 Thiele, E.R., The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, Grand Rapids, MI 2000 Tita, H., Gelübde als Bekenntnis: Eine Studie zu den Gelübden im Alten Testament (OBO, 181), Freiburg 2001 Torczyner, H., ‘‫ משך‬eine mißverstandene hebräische Vokabel’, MGWJ 33 (1889), 401–12 ——, ‘‫’מ ָשּׂא יהוה‬, ַ MGWJ 76 (1932), 273–84 Török, L., The Kingdom of Kush: Handbook of the Napatan-Meroitic Civilisation (HdO, 1/31), Leiden 1997 Tov, E., The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (JBS, 8), Jerusalem 2 1997 Tropper, J., ‘“Seele” oder “Totengeist”? Erwägungen zum Begriff eṭemmu in Atramhasis I 215.217’, UF 19 (1987), 301–8 ——, ‘Spirit of the Dead’, DDD 806–9 Turkowski, L., ‘Peasant Agriculture in the Judean Hills’, PEQ 101 (1969), 101–12 Uffenheimer, B., ‘The “Desert of the Sea” Pronouncement (Isaiah 21:1—10)’, in: D.P. Wright et al. (eds), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, Winona Lake, IN 1995, 677–88 Ussishkin, D., ‘Lachish’, NEAEHL 3.897–911 Vaccari, A., ‘ΠΟΛΙΣ ΑΣΕ∆ΕΚ’, Isa. 19, 18’, Bib. 2 (1921), 353–56 Vanderhooft, D.S., The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets (HSM, 59), Atlanta, GA 1999 Vandersleyen, C., Ouadj our, w¡d̠ wr: Un autre aspect de la vallée du Nil, Bruxelles 1999 Vandier, J., Manuel d’archéologie Égyptienne, t. 1–5, Paris 1958–1969 Vaux, R. de, ‘Post-Scriptum to Delcor, M. “Le temple d’Onias en Égypte”. RB 75 (1968), 188–203’, RB 75 (1968), 204–5 Vercoutter, J., ‘L’image de noir dans l’Egypte ancienne (dès origines à la XXVe dyn.)’, in: Africa in Antiquity: Meroitica 5 (1979), 33–88 Vermeylen, J., ‘L’unité du livre d’Isaïe’, in: J. Vermeylen (ed.), The Book of Isaiah—Le livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures, unité et complexité de l’ouvrage (BEThL, 81), Leuven 1989, 17–26 Vlaardingerbroek, J. Sefanja (COT), Kampen 1993 Vogels, W., ‘L’Egypte mon peuple—L’universalisme d’Is 19, 16–25’, Bib. 57 (1976), 494–514

bibliography

369

Wachsmann, S., Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant, London 1998 Waddell, W.G., Manetho (LCL, 350), Cambridge 1940 Wäfler, M., Nicht-Assyrer neuassyrischer Darstellungen (AOAT, 26), Kevelaer 1975 Walsh, C.E., The Fruit of the Vine: Viticulture in Ancient Israel (HSM, 60), Winona Lake, IN 2000 Wanke, G., ‘‫ אוֹי‬und ‫’הוֹי‬, ZAW 78 (1966), 215–18 Ward, W.A., ‘Tyre’, OEANE 5.247–250 Watts, J.D.W., ‘Text and Redaction in Jeremiah’s Oracles against the Nations’, CBQ 54 (1992), 432–47 Weinberg, W., ‘Language Consciousness in the Old Testament’, ZAW 92 (1980), 185–204 Weinfeld, M., ‘ “Rider of the Clouds” and “Gatherer of the Clouds” ’, JANES 5 (1973), 421–26 Weippert, M., ‘The Balaam Text From Deir ‘Alla and the Study of the Old Testament’, in: The Balaam Text from Deir ‘Alla Re-evaluated: Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Leiden 21–24 August 1989, Leiden 1991, 151–84 ——, ‘ “König, fürchte dich nicht!” Assyrische Prophetie im 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr.’, Or. 71 (2002) 1–54 Weis, R.D., A Definition of the Genre maśśāʾ in the Hebrew Bible (Ph.D. diss., Claremont Graduate School ), Claremont, CA 1986 Werner, W., Studien zur alttestamentlichen Vorstellung vom Plan Yahwes (BZAW, 173), Berlin 1988 Westendorf, W., ‘Einst-Jetzt-Einst: Oder: Die Rückkehr zum Uhrsprung’, WO 17 (1986), 5–8 Williams, B.B., ‘Nile, Geography’, ABD 4.1112–16 Williams, J.G., ‘The Alas-Oracles of the Eighth Century Prophets’, HUCA 38 (1967), 75–91 Williamson, H.G.M., The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction, Oxford 1994 ——, ‘Synchronic and Diachronic in Isaian Perspective’, in: J.C. de Moor (ed.), Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis (OTS, 34), Leiden 1995, 211–26 ——, ‘Hope under Judgement: The Prophets of the Eighth Century BCE’, EQ 72 (2000), 291–306 ——, ‘In Search of a Pre-exilic Isaiah’, in: J. Day (ed.), In Search of Pre-exilic Israel— —(JSOT.S, 406), London 2004, 181–206 Willis, J.T., ‘Historical Issues in Isaiah 22,15–25’, Bib. 74 (1993), 60–70 Wilson, I., ‘In That Day: From Text to Sermon on Isaiah 19:23–25’, Int. 21 (1967), 66–86 Wilson, J.V.K., The Nimrud Wine Lists: A Study of Men and Administration at the Assyrian Capital in the Eighth Century B.C. (CTN, 1), London 1972 ——, ‘A Return to the Problems of Behemoth and Leviathan’, VT 25 (1975), 1–14 Wilson, R.R., ‘An Interpretation of Ezekiel’s Dumbness’, VT 22 (1972), 91–104 Winckler, H., Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen, Leipzig 1892 Winter, I., ‘Art in Empire: The Royal Image and the Visual Dimensions of Assyrian Ideology’, in: S. Parpola, R.M. Whiting (eds), Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project Helsinki, September 7–11, 1995, Helsinki 1997, 359–81 Wodecki, B., ‘The Heights of Religious Universalism in Is xix:16–25’, in: K.D. Schunk (ed.), ‘Lasset uns Brücken bauen’, Frankfurt 1998, 171–91 Wolff, H.W., Dodekapropheton 2: Joel und Amos (BKAT, 14/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969 Wong, G.C.I., ‘Deliverance or Destruction? Isaiah x 33–34 in the Final Form of Isaiah x–xi’, VT 53 (2003), 544–52

370

bibliography

Worrell, J., ‘‫עצה‬: “Councel” or “Council” at Qumran?’, VT 20 (1970), 65–74 Woude, A.S. van der, Amos–Obadja–Jona (T&T), Kampen 1997 Wutz, F., Die Transkriptionen von der Septuaginta bis zu Hieronymus (TUVGH), Stuttgart 1933 Wyatt, N., ‘The Titles of the Ugaritic Storm-God’, UF 24 (1992), 404–24 Wycichl, W., ‘Ägyptische Ortsnamen in der Bibel’, ZÄS 76 (1940), 91–93 Yamauchi, E.M., Africa and the Bible, Grand Rapids, MI 2004 Yannay, I., ‘Augmented Verbs in Biblical Hebrew’, HUCA 45 (1974), 71–95 Yehuda, E. ben, Thesaurus totius hebraitatis et veteris et recentioris, New York 1960 Younger, K.L., Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing (JSOT.S, 98), Sheffield 1990 ——, ‘Sargon’s Campaign against Jerusalem—A Further Note’, Bib. 77 (1996), 108–10 ——, ‘Assyrian Involvement in the Southern Levant at the End of the Eighth Century B.C.E.’, in: A.G. Vaughn, A.E. Killebrew (eds), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period (SBL.SS, 18), Atlanta, GA 2002, 235–63 ——, ‘Recent Study on Sargon II, King of Assyria: Implications for Biblical Studies’, in: M.W. Chavalas, K.L. Younger (eds), Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative Explorations, Grand Rapids, MI 2002, 288–329 Yoyotte, J., ‘Les principautés du Delta au temps de l’anarchie libyenne’, Mémoires publies par les membres de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire 66 (1961), 121–81 Yurco, F.J., ‘The Shabaka-Shebitku Corregency and the Supposed Second Campaign of Seennacherib against Judah: A Critical Assessment’, JBL 110 (1991), 35–45 Zaccagnini, C., ‘The Enemy in the Neo-Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: The “Ethnographic” Description’, in: H.J. Nissen, J. Renger (eds), Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn: Politische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im Alten Vorderasien vom 4. bis 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr (BBVO 1/2), Berlin 1982, 409–24 Zapff, B.M., Schriftgelehrte Prophetie—Jes 13 und die Komposition des Jesajabuches: Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Redaktionsgeschichte des Jesajabuches (FzB, 74), Würzburg 1995 Zeissl, H. von, Äthiopen und Assyrer in Ägypten: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Ägyptischen „Spätzeit” (ÄF, 14), Glückstadt 1955 Zibelius, K., Afrikanische Orts- und Völkernamen in hieroglyphischen und hieratischen Texten (BTAVO B1), Wiesbaden 1972 Zimmerli, W., Ezechiel (BKAT, 13/1–2), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969 Zobel, H.-J., ‫הוֹי‬, ThWAT 2.383–88

INDEX OF AUTHORS Ackroyd, P.R. 7, 325, 331 Ahituv, S. 163, 242 Ahlström, G. 330 Alexander, J.A. 112, 113, 122, 123, 153, 155, 156, 227, 231, 233, 308 Alonso Corral, M. 56 Auld, A.G. 2 Auvray, P. 250 Backersten, O. 4 Bahrani, Z. 351 Balkely, J.A. 198 Balogh, Cs. 5, 7, 20, 21, 79, 88, 99, 115, 162, 163, 170, 192, 267, 268 Barr, J. 156, 157 Barth, H. 10, 18, 84, 85, 93, 190 Barth, J. 157 Barthel, J. 13, 15, 18, 19, 188, 190, 319 Barthélemy, D. 227, 228, 307 Barton, J. 11, 40, 46, 47, 48 Baruq, A. 222, 226 Baumann, E. 156 Becker, J. 7 Becker, U. 2, 5, 9, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 28, 31, 89, 90, 93, 291 Becking, B. 326 Beentjes, P.C. 45 Begg, C.T. 78, 82 Bell, R. 165 Bentzen, A. 40 Ben Yehuda, E. 145 Ben Zvi, E. 5 Berge, K. 266, 268 Berges, U. 2, 11, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 29, 30, 92, 93, 95, 98, 123, 178, 187, 252, 255, 274, 286, 320 Bergmeier, R. 219 Berlin, A. 64 Beuken, W.A.M. 5, 7, 21, 24, 84, 113, 167, 174, 184, 320 Bierbier, M.L. 195 Blasius, A. 238 Blenkinsopp, J. 28, 30, 49, 58, 60, 61, 75, 80, 82, 84, 85, 91, 93, 96, 99, 105, 110, 141, 150, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 160, 167, 171, 174, 176, 184, 186, 187,

192, 253, 263, 274, 291, 309, 311, 313, 319, 323–25 Block, D.I. 286 Boadt, L. 12, 56, 168, 278 Bochart, S. 144 Boda, M. 271 Boer, P.A.H. de 152 Bogaert, P.-M. 21, 45, 49, 62 Bonneau, D. 242 Boorn, G.P.F. van den 245 Borger, R. 195, 236, 237, 238 Borghouts, J.F. 239 Borowski, O. 159, 174 Bosshard-Nepustil, E. 76, 78, 79, 80, 93, 103, 106, 116, 322 Bright, J. 99, 326 Bronner, L. 311 Bunnens, G. 125 Burkitt, F.C. 226, 227 Burney, C.F. 316 Butzer, K.W. 164 Cagni, L. 237 Cahill, J.M. 199 Calderone, P.J. 212 Calvin, J. 116 Carr, D. 12 Carroll, R.P. 50, 52 Casson, L. 166 Cheyne, T.K. 29, 30, 143, 149, 150, 153, 154, 156, 167, 176, 226, 227, 228, 258, 263, 272 Childs, B. 75, 326 Chilton, B. 213, 214, 215 Chimko, C.J. 294 Christensen, D.L. 41, 42, 43 Clements, R.E. 25, 26, 28, 31, 76, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 89, 90, 96, 101, 111, 116, 117, 128, 141, 150, 164, 167, 171, 172, 176, 178, 183, 185, 188, 191, 192, 223, 233, 253 263, 272, 273, 276, 309, 314, 315, 316, 319, 320, 330 Clifford, R.J. 141 Cobb, W.H. 103 Cole, S.W. 175 Conrad, E.W. 8

372

index of authors

Cross, F.M. 198 Currid, J.D. 239, 242, 291, 294 Dalley, S. 117, 181, 196, 237 Dalman, G. 159, 174, 175 Dandamayev, M. 137 Davies, G.I. 12, 20 Day, J. 157 Deissler, A. 29, 225, 233, 250, 255, 267 Dekker, J. 95 Delcor, M. 224, 225 Delitzsch, F. 28, 29, 72, 86, 112, 114, 120, 122, 124, 133, 145, 147, 149, 155, 159, 160, 172, 176, 271, 308, 309 Delitzsch, F(riedrich) 226 Deutsch, R. 198, 199 De Vries, S.J. 275 Dhorme, É. 71 Dietrich, W. 4, 15, 18, 28, 174, 176, 192 Dijk, H. van 56 Dijkstra, M. 58, 60, 61 Dillmann, A. 112, 116, 118, 124, 144, 150, 153, 154, 155, 164, 169, 172, 176, 180, 192, 218, 223, 228, 230, 231, 258, 291, 294 Dion, P.E. 279 Donner, H. 3, 28, 31, 219–20, 314, 316 Dorsey, D.A. 263 Driver, G.R. 115, 143, 144, 153, 160, 212, 218, 222 Duhm, B. 5, 9, 23, 28, 29, 55, 73, 75, 90, 111, 112, 114, 117, 118, 119, 128, 143, 153, 155, 156, 158, 167, 172, 175, 176, 179, 190, 191, 231, 233, 253, 258, 269, 273, 274, 309, 311, 314, 315, 318, 320, 340 Ebach, J. 210 Ehrlich, A.B. 85, 150, 222, 231, 306, 311 Eissfeldt, O. 21, 49, 79 Eitan, I. 143, 152, 156, 157, 217 Elat, M. 295 Elmaleh, A. 156 Emerton, J.A. 115, 152, 153 Eph’al, I. 110, 257 Erlandsson, S. 71, 75, 88, 104, 106, 252, 279, 291 Faulkner, R.O. 165 Fechter, F. 36, 37, 38, 56

Feuillet, A. 29, 180, 223, 225, 252, 258, 274, 286, 287, 288, 294 Fichtner, J. 249, 280 Field, F. 227 Fischer, A.A. 69, 71, 72, 106 Fischer, Ch. 26, 76, 79, 84, 99, 345 Fischer, G. 49 Fischer, J. 28, 29, 102, 141, 152, 156, 174, 176, 223, 226, 227, 269 Floyd, M.H. 270, 340 Fohrer, G. 18, 25, 28, 29, 30, 84, 87, 93, 97, 113, 116, 117, 120, 124, 128, 145, 149, 172, 175, 176, 178, 182, 223, 250, 251, 253, 274, 280, 297, 309, 315, 318, 319, 320, 340 Fraenkel, S. 165 Frame, G. 135, 196 Franklin, N. 194 Fried, L.S. 169 Fuchs, A. 194, 195, 295, 327, 328 Fuhs, H.F. 146 Gadd, C.J. 236 Galil, G. 93, 326 Gallagher, W.R. 3, 71, 72, 84, 104, 105, 106, 108, 113, 116, 123, 175, 197, 326, 346 Galling, K. 71, 103, 105, 108, 109, 110 García Martínez, F. 154 Gardiner, A.H. 165, 169 Gelston, A. 286 Gemser, B. 145, 146 Gerstenberger, E. 141 Gesenius, W. 141, 147, 150, 151, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 164, 175, 176, 211, 213, 222, 225, 227, 231, 232, 263 Geyer, J.B. 38, 43, 44 Goldberg, J. 326 Goldenberg, D.M. 143, 149, 152, 163, 164 Goldingay, J. 85, 262 Goldstein, J.A. 75, 78, 80, 88 Gomaà, F. 292 Gonçalves, F. 3, 326 Gordon, C.H. 160 Gosse, B. 46, 48, 49, 75, 82, 84, 89, 93, 99, 101, 183 Gottlieb, C. 148, 155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 161 Gottwald, N.K. 252, 297 Görg, M. 163 Gössmann Oesa, P.F. 237

index of authors Graeve, M.-C. de 166 Gray, G.B. 28, 29, 80, 99, 108, 113, 116, 123, 141, 143, 147, 149, 153, 155, 164, 167, 172, 176, 178, 211, 222, 223, 225, 228, 231, 253, 261, 271, 309, 311, 316 Grayson, A.K. 236, 237, 238, 241 Green, A.R.W. 234 Greenberg, M. 61 Greenfield, J.C. 211 Gressmann, H. 29, 42 Grimal, N. 293 Grimme, H. 80 Groß, W. 253, 258, 266, 267, 268 Grüneberg, K.N. 267 Guillaume, A. 215 Gunkel, H. 42, 268 Hagedorn, A.C. 41 Hallo, W.H. 236 Hamborg, G.R. 97, 132, 279 Haran, M. 50, 52 Hardin, J.W. 198 Hardmeier, Chr. 2, 13, 14 Hayes, J.H. 22, 28, 29, 35, 37, 40, 41, 42, 75, 96, 105, 106, 149, 152, 164, 167, 176, 189, 192, 233, 271, 293, 294, 296, 311, 346 Hayward, R. 224, 231 Heimpel, W. 162 Helck, W. 169, 189, 214 Hermisson, H.-J. 18, 186 Hertz, N. 213, 215 Hillers, D.R. 141 Hitzig, F. 147, 148, 251 Hoch, J.E. 159 Hoffmann, H.W. 28, 192 Hoffmann, Y. 37, 42, 43, 55 Hoffmeier, J.K. 189, 191, 195, 196, 254 Hoffner, H.A. 210 Holladay, W.L. 52, 53, 54 Hommel, F. 169 Hoonacker, A. van 153, 156, 169, 172, 176, 223, 225, 231, 260 Höffken, P. 2, 24, 29, 30, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, 77, 101, 107, 172, 253, 263, 272, 273, 274, 307, 311, 320 Høgenhaven, J. 4, 18, 98, 104 Høyland Lavik, M. 159, 161, 172, 173, 175, 176, 192 Huber, F. 4, 89, 318, 319 Hunger, H. 236 Huwyler, B. 37, 38, 45, 49, 50

373

Ibn Ezra, A. 71, 105, 141, 150, 152, 155, 213, 218, 227, 232 Irvine, S.A. 3, 22, 28, 29, 75, 96, 105, 106, 149, 152, 164, 167, 176, 189, 192, 233, 271, 293, 294, 296, 311, 346 Israelit-Groll, S. 214–15, 220 Jansen-Winkeln, K. 292 Janzen, W. 141, 161, 167, 168 Jenkins, A.K. 23, 26, 28, 73, 93, 96, 182, 326 Jeppesen, K. 75, 84, 91 Jeremias, J. 46, 47, 48 Jerome 158, 167, 172, 221, 223, 228 Jones, B. 96, 97, 98, 99, 271 Jones, H.L. 144 Jong, M.J. de 3, 4, 6, 15, 16, 17, 18, 28, 31, 39, 41, 183, 190, 247 Kahn, D. 195, 196, 281 Kaiser, O. 5, 9, 13, 20, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31, 49, 70, 75, 76, 81, 84, 85, 89, 91, 99, 106, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 121, 122, 124, 128, 133, 143, 147, 149, 153, 156, 164, 174, 176, 177, 178, 183, 190, 191, 222, 225, 231, 232, 253, 274, 291, 309, 311, 316, 318, 319, 320, 340 Kapera, Z.J. 310 Kaplony, U. 253 Karish, Judah ben 157 Kasher, A. 224 Katzenstein, H.J. 53 Kaufman, S.A. 236 Kákosy, L. 211, 239, 291 Kee, M.S. 168 Keel, O. 199 Kilian, R. 2, 5, 9, 13, 28, 29, 30, 31, 75, 80, 91, 96, 97, 98, 106, 145, 174, 178, 183, 266, 274, 279, 291, 294, 321 Kissane, E.J. 28, 29, 75, 78, 80, 144, 149, 153, 156, 158, 167, 175, 176, 187, 223, 231, 252, 263, 279, 294 Kitchen, K.A. 189, 195, 196, 248, 292, 295, 296 Klengel, H. 162 Knauf, E.A. 110 Knobel, A. 112, 113, 114, 117, 118, 124, 126, 149, 153, 180 Koenen, L. 243, 253 Kooij, A. van der 121, 123, 126, 225, 226, 227, 231, 234, 261, 267 Korpel, M.C.A. 235

374

index of authors

Köckert, M. 15, 18 Köhler, L. 154 König, E. 1, 28, 86, 99, 112, 114, 118, 141, 143, 155, 222, 227, 258, 309, 312–13 Kőszeghy, M. 86 Krašovec, J. 29, 254, 258 Kratz, R.G. 17, 189 Kraus, H.-J. 141, 287 Krauss, S. 145 Kuhrt, A. 291 Kustár, Z. 10, 29, 262, 263, 274 Kutscher, E.Y. 143, 158, 216, 306

Morkot, R. 163, 195, 248, 292 Motyer, A. 141, 145, 167, 172, 176, 227, 229, 253, 263, 264, 271 Mowinckel, S. 7, 20, 24, 55, 79, 182, 320, 340 Munch, P.A. 275 Muchiki, Y. 213, 214, 215, 246

Lambert, W.G. 236, 237, 238, 241 Leahy, A. 169 Leclant, J. 163 Lefèvre, A. 275 Leichty, E. 238 Lemaire, A. 156 Lessing, R. 122, 123, 128 Lettinga, J.P. 160 Lichtheim, M. 293 Liebreich, L.J. 7 Lilley, J.P.U. 146 Liverani, M. 162 Longman III, T. 181, 236, 237, 238, 241 Loretz, O. 272, 273, 291 Lowth, R. 144, 147, 150 Löw, I. 159, 213, 214, 215 Lubetski, M. 118, 145, 148, 155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 161, 198 Luckenbill, D.D. 94, 175

Ockinga, B. 220 O’Connor, D. 161, 163, 168, 169, 292 Ohmann, H.M. 22, 29, 80, 104, 183 Olley, J.W. 274 Olyan, S. 84 Onasch, H.-U. 197, 292, 295, 298, 299 Orelli, D.C. von 150, 152, 155, 253 Oswalt, J.N. 28, 29, 71, 86, 112, 116, 122, 133, 144, 167, 174, 180, 228, 231, 271, 294, 308, 311 Otto, E. 189

Machinist, P. 3, 256 Macintosh, A.A. 70, 71, 103, 105, 106, 109 Maier, J. 154 Mankowski, P.A. 165, 307 Mansoor, J. 154 Margulis, B. 42 Marlow, H. 243 Marti, K. 9, 20, 28, 30, 111, 143, 149, 153, 156, 164, 178, 225, 231, 253, 254, 272, 318, 319 Mattila, R. 307, 311 Mattingly, G.L. 101 Mazar, A. 198 McCarter, P.K. 117 McKinion, S.A. 228 Meier, S.A. 165, 167 Millard, A.R. 328 Miscall, P.D. 8 Monsengwo-Pasinya, L. 225, 260, 262

Na’aman, N. 125, 194, 295, 326 Nelson, R. 297 Niccacci, A. 1, 28, 29, 249, 294, 311 Nielsen, K. 10 Nissinen, M. 15, 38, 39

Pankhurst, R. 170 Parpola, S. 39, 135, 137, 259, 295 Paul, S.M. 48 Peels, H.G.L. 49, 50, 53 Penna, A. 156, 158, 164, 216, 221, 223, 253, 258, 294 Perlitt, L. 62, 63, 65, 187 Pfeifer, G. 164 Pierce, R.H. 293 Pinker, A. 150 Pitard, W. 114 Pohlmann, K.-F. 49 Pongratz-Leisten, B. 257 Porten, B 144, 260 Posener, G. 40, 169 Postgate, J.N. 295 Potts, D. 162 Premstaller, V. 56 Priese, K.-H. 197, 292 Procksch, O. 28, 29, 30, 31, 70, 80, 86, 89, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 121, 143, 149, 153, 154, 155, 158, 167, 174, 176, 180, 222, 226, 230, 233, 253, 258, 269, 271, 273, 274, 293, 294, 297, 307, 309, 316 Qimchi, D. 71, 105, 118, 152, 155, 167, 174, 227 Quack, J.F. 164, 242, 243

index of authors Raabe, P.R. 22, 344 Rashi 118, 144, 156, 159, 167 Reade, J.A. 194 Redford, D.B. 195, 291, 330 Rendsburg, G.A. 108, 123 Rendtorff, R. 7, 10 Reventlow, H.G. 42 Ridderbos, J. 29, 152, 271, 311, 314 Ringgren, H. 148, 232 Roberts, J.J.M. 28, 29, 194, 196 Romer, M. 189, 247, 248 Rowley, H.H. 224 Rudolph, W. 71, 96, 97, 99 Ruppert, L. 219 Rüterswörden, U. 210 Rüthy, A.E. 159, 175, 214 Ryou, D.H. 62, 63 Sa’adya (Gaon) 105, 150, 157 Sadler, R.S. 163, 180 Salonen, A. 144 Sawyer, J.F.A. 29, 225, 233, 252, 253 Schenkel, W. 238 Schenker, A. 29, 232, 255 Schipper, B.U. 167, 189, 197, 238, 330 Schmerl, C. 42 Schmid, H.H. 250 Schmidt, H. 150, 169, 172, 176, 318 Schoors, A. 3, 29, 30, 112, 116, 120, 143, 162, 253, 271, 273, 274, 286, 309, 311, 316 Schultz, R.L. 6 Schüpphaus, J. 209 Schwally, F. 42 Seeligmann, I.L. 158, 225 Seitz, Chr. 21, 71, 316, 326 Seybold, K. 50, 52, 53, 55 Sharp, C.J. 49, 55 Shemesh, Y. 190 Shinan, A. 163 Shipp, R.M. 83, 84, 85, 86 Shupak, N. 236, 245, 246, 247 Slotki, I.W. 227, 311 Smothers, T.G. 96, 97, 99 Soggin, J.A. 156 Sommer, B. 11 Spalinger, A. 196, 197, 295, 300 Sparks, K.L. 254 Spickermann, H. 260 Spronk, K. 150 Stansell, G. 21 Stähli, H.-P. 146, 219 Steck, O.H. 7, 10, 274 Steckoll, S.H. 224 Steiner, G. 250

375

Steiner, M. 101 Sweeney, M.A. 2, 3, 4, 6, 21, 23, 26, 28, 29, 30, 62, 63, 71, 72, 75, 82, 83, 84, 93, 96, 105, 106, 108, 128, 141, 167, 184, 193, 194, 232, 270, 273, 274, 276, 279, 291, 298, 316, 320, 330, 340 Tadmor, H. 165, 248, 326, 328 Tallqvist, K. 235 Tate, M.E. 2, 187 Tawil, H. 212 Taylor, J. 195, 291, 292 Taylor, J.E. 224 Tcherikover, V. 252 Tengström, S. 238 Thacker, T.W. 213 Thiele, E.R. 326 Tigchelaar, E.J.C. 154 Tita, H. 262 Torzyner, H. 147 Török, L. 162, 163, 169, 170, 195, 292 Tropper, J. 210, 211 Turkowski, L. 174 Uehlinger, C. 199 Uffenheimer, B. 71 Ussishkin, D. 198 Vaccari, A. 226 Vanderhooft, D.S. 71, 82, 105, 107, 136 Vandersleyen, C. 165 Vandier, J. 166, 169 Vaux, R. de 224 Vercoutter, J. 169 Vermeylen, J. 9, 10, 20, 21, 25, 30, 45, 62, 67, 73, 75, 80, 82, 85, 89, 124, 127, 167, 178, 182, 272, 294, 318, 340 Vitringa, C. 116, 144, 147, 148, 150, 152, 157, 172 Vlaardingerbroek, J. 62 Vogels, W. 29, 225, 252, 253, 274, 277, 284, 285 Waard, J. de 227 Wachsmann, S. 166 Wade, G.W. 263 Wanke, G. 141 Ward, W.A. 125 Watts, J.D.W. 8, 49, 52, 54, 75, 86, 112, 116, 145, 149, 153, 164, 167, 271, 307, 311 Weinberg, W. 254 Weinfeld, M. 235 Weippert, M. 39 Weis, R.D. 270, 271, 340

376

index of authors

Werner, W. 12, 13, 273, 279, 280 Westendorf, W. 238 Wildberger, H. 9, 13, 21, 22, 25, 28, 29, 30, 69, 70, 71, 75, 83, 84, 85, 90, 99, 101, 102, 112, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124, 128, 129, 141, 144, 145, 147, 149, 150, 153, 154, 155, 156, 159, 167, 174, 176, 177, 178, 187, 188, 189, 193, 216, 217, 218, 222, 231, 232, 233, 250, 258, 261, 267, 271, 272, 273, 274, 276, 297, 309, 311, 315, 318, 319, 320, 323 Williams, B.B. 242 Williams, J.G. 141 Williamson, H.G.M. 2, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 82, 83, 93 Willis, J.T. 117, 118, 120 Wilson, I. 266 Wilson, J.V.K. 143, 162 Wilson, R.R. 60 Winckler, H. 1 Winter, I. 259 Wodecki, B. 29, 223, 231, 252, 263 Wolff, H.W. 46, 48

Wong, G.C.I. 79 Worrell, J. 219 Woude, A.S. van der Wutz, F. 226 Wyatt, N. 235

47, 287

Yannay, I. 143 Yardeni, A. 144 Yamauchi, E. 167 Young, E.Y. 28, 29, 72, 86, 112, 114, 116, 122, 141, 147, 149, 151, 155, 164, 172, 175, 176, 258, 271, 294 Younger, K.L. 4, 191, 194, 195, 196, 197, 332 Yoyotte, J. 195 Yurco, F.J. 195 Zaccagnini, C. 254 Zadok, R. 295 Zapff, B.M. 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 76, 77, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 320 Zibelius, K. 162, 169 Zimmerli, W. 60, 61 Zobel, H.-J. 141

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES Genesis 2 10

12 15 19 25 31 32 40 41 43 45 46 47 48 49

13: 163 2–5: 64; 5: 253; 6–10: 168; 6: 64; 8–12: 1, 86; 8: 163; 10: 253; 14: 64; 22: 64; 31: 253 2–3: 266, 285 18: 285 2: 109 8: 118; 14: 71; 17: 118 260; 43–54: 258–59; 54: 109; 14: 110 22: 110 10: 158 14: 169; 24: 246; 34: 253; 45: 223; 48: 246; 50: 223 34: 253 8: 120; 22: 253 20: 223 2: 253; 24: 253; 26: 253 20: 268, 269 10: 160; 33: 118

15 16 18 19

87; 15: 97; 16: 22: 230 286 13: 148

Leviticus 5 13 19 20 21 23 26

4–5: 229 40–41: 149 4: 210; 31: 210 6: 210; 27: 210 5: 149 40: 221 8: 253

Numbers 6 7 12 13 15 16 21 23 24 27 32 36

Exodus 2 3 3 5 6 7 8

9 10 12 13 14–15

23: 284 255 8: 284; 9: 284; 10: 284; 12: 284 2: 262, 284; 3: 284 255 11: 246; 22: 246 3: 246; 14–15: 246; 18: 275; 19: 286; 21–23: 268; 25–26: 284 11: 246; 20: 286; 27: 286; 35: 307 7: 286 12: 235; 21: 148; 38: 83 17: 166 83, 87, 88

Deuteronomy 2 3 4 14 15 17 18 23 25 28

30 31 32

285

24–26: 269 3: 230 1: 163 22: 247 12: 230 31: 154 18: 77 7: 38 14: 249; 17: 114 23: 307 19; 146; 32: 164; 34: 101 3: 229; 8: 229 25: 283 8: 146; 12: 101 46–47: 146; 48: 101 1: 149 18: 218 16: 331 9–22: 40 19: 128, 302 18: 114 102; 13: 220; 27: 285; 35: 285; 42: 142, 145, 161; 44: 220; 49: 77; 55: 230 4: 77 17–18: 275, 276 8–9: 269; 15: 101; 18: 102

378 Joshua 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 13 19 22 24 Judges 1 2 4 5 7 8 9 11 12 19 20 Ruth 1 4 1 Samuel 3 5–6 6 8 10 14 15 16 18 20 25 26 28 2 Samuel 1 6

index of biblical references 8: 154; 15: 154 3: 109 1: 146 5: 148; 11: 109 9: 110 1: 146; 21: 83 252; 11–13: 80 9: 101; 16: 101 29: 126; 50: 227 258, 284; 10: 258; 25: 258 30: 227 8: 311 9–13: 288; 9: 227 6: 148 4–5: 80; 6: 263; 20: 80 285; 25: 285 12: 283 45: 310 25: 261 2: 261 11: 109; 26: 157 2: 219, 249; 37: 148 16: 288 5: 160; 11–12:

268

12: 275 261, 286 284 18: 275 3: 104, 150 4: 146; 15: 283; 38: 219, 249 5: 261; 28–29: 119 6: 121 6: 121 21: 150; 22: 150, 151; 37: 151 33: 121 19: 268 3: 210; 5: 239; 7: 210; 13: 211 6: 113; 15: 5: 142

230

7 12 17 18 24 1 Kings 1 4 7 10 11 14 16 18 19 22

2 Kings 1 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 12 13 15 16

17–18 17 18–20 18–19 18 19 20 21 22

120; 27: 106 26: 310; 29: 310 9: 114; 14: 127; 16: 109 21: 167 7: 126 40: 154 21: 285; 30: 248 45: 149 15: 72 31: 119 7–14: 119 31: 124 30: 227 12: 71 168, 188, 193, 344; 17: 105, 180; 25: 275; 28: 179; 34: 148 8: 312 4: 97; 16–19: 35, 37 39: 156, 214 13: 120; 15: 288; 17: 284, 288 20: 121 7: 150; 10: 150 1: 230; 25–26: 271 32: 154; 33: 101 18: 311 4–5: 264, 284, 290, 302 29: 101, 146 325; 5: 185, 323; 9: 113, 114; 10–14: 258; 20–21: 252 192, 326 167; 3: 185; 4: 185, 193, 194, 340 308, 323, 324 326 7–8: 196; 18: 117; 19–21: 196; 23–24: 196; 26: 117 2: 308; 9: 196, 326; 20–24: 35, 42; 24: 212, 243; 26: 317 180; 1: 308; 6: 327 6: 210; 9: 102 3: 120; 12: 120

index of biblical references 2 Kings (cont.) 23 330; 24: 210; 30: 330 24 1: 99; 2: 116; 7: 330; 15: 97 25 22: 120; 25: 120 1 Chronicles 1 4 17 2 Chronicles 14 18 20 21 26 28 32

30: 71 40–43: 296 24: 106

33 36

8: 163; 11–12: 163 32: 122 10: 121; 34: 325 16: 163 22: 308 18: 93 308; 20: 308; 23: 180; 31: 327; 32: 308 11–13: 120 21: 127

Ezra 1 2 9

1: 136 68: 121 3: 149

Nehemiah 1 2 5 8 9 13

9: 8: 11: 15: 30: 25:

Psalms 2 22 36 39 40 44 45 46 48 60 62 68 69

77 109 160 221 148 149

35, 37, 42; 8: 289; 10–11: 289 3: 71; 28–29: 287 11: 148 3: 71 2: 152 12: 97 2: 128; 17: 289 182 182 35 2: 71 2: 172; 29–31: 180; 30: 160, 185-87, 345; 31: 187; 32: 35, 187 7: 111

72

74 76 78 82 83 85 86 87 89 95 96 97 104 107 109 110 127 133 150 Job 1 3 4

379

243, 272; 4: 95; 8–11: 64, 289; 8: 136, 289; 10–15: 180; 10: 128, 170 15: 154 12: 160, 187 12: 247; 13: 247; 43: 247 287 172, 182; 8: 127 6: 148 9: 35 276; 4: 127 20: 35; 23–24: 35 3: 287 4: 287; 5: 235 9: 287 272; 4: 263; 40: 263 29: 71 12: 148 37; 6: 289 27: 221–22 2: 215 5: 142

9 11 12 14 15 21 24 28 30 36 37 38 40 41

20: 149 9: 157 12: 151; 15: 104; 16: 71; 19: 217 26: 166 20: 151 24: 263 11: 242 32: 221 12: 208; 33: 148 12: 113 10: 154 24: 113 11; 232; 19: 113 11: 157; 15: 157 28: 158 22: 144; 31: 142, 144 10: 157

Proverbs 11 13 15 23 25 26 28

18: 217 12: 148 13: 173 11: 81 13: 158 1: 173; 6: 3: 173

154

380 Ecclesiastes 2 12

index of biblical references 5–6: 109 12: 151

Song of Songs 5 10: 156 6 11: 158 7 12: 109; 13:

158 8

Isaiah 1–66 1–39 1–12 1 2

3

4 5

6

7–8 7

7, 11 7, 10, 12, 20 10, 21, 56, 91, 131 9, 24, 47; 1: 3, 70, 308; 21–26: 18; 24: 111; 26: 223, 225 24, 132; 1: 70, 308; 2–4: 10; 6–21: 132, 136, 333, 344; 7: 132; 8: 235, 303; 10: 136; 11–12: 303; 11: 332; 12: 132; 16: 132; 17: 303, 332; 18: 235, 303; 19: 136; 20: 132, 235, 303; 21: 136; 2:22–3:7: 277, 281, 341, 342; 22: 132, 192, 281 293; 1–5: 119; 1: 111, 201, 281; 4: 240; 5: 236; 6–7: 240; 7: 208; 12: 277, 281, 342; 15: 95, 111 2–6: 97; 2: 323; 4: 98; 5: 98, 173 102, 176; 1: 127; 8: 9; 12: 115; 19: 65, 90, 280; 25–29: 10; 25: 89, 90, 131, 343; 26–30: 37; 26: 77; 28: 104 9, 14, 15, 329; 6:1–9:6: 24; 1–8: 9, 15; 1: 70, 93, 310, 322; 2: 230; 3: 287; 5: 15; 9–10: 14, 115, 171; 10: 262; 13: 14 322, 339, 342 329, 330, 331; 1–17: 5, 9, 13, 185, 323, 325; 1–2: 319, 322; 1: 323; 4: 317; 5–8: 35; 5–6: 317; 5: 90, 280;

9–11 9–10 9

10–12 10

7: 57, 90; 8: 99, 121, 314, 315, 317, 322, 330; 9: 95; 11: 315, 317, 322; 14: 315, 317, 322, 342; 16: 314, 322; 18: 276; 20: 276, 315; 21: 276; 23: 276; 24: 90 329; 1–15: 9; 1–4: 14, 15, 18; 1: 9; 3–4: 9; 4: 35; 8: 114; 9–10: 19, 35, 182, 280, 339; 11–18: 14, 95; 11: 110; 16: 9; 17–19: 239; 18: 177, 315, 322; 19: 210; 21–23: 10; 8:23–9:6: 285; 23: 146, 155 86, 87, 90 285, 286, 342 1: 115; 3: 87, 89, 93, 155; 5–6: 97; 5: 89, 120; 7–20: 101, 131, 190, 277–78, 341; 9: 175; 10: 208; 11: 89, 90, 92, 131, 343; 12: 115, 190, 192; 13: 219, 220; 14: 220; 16: 89, 90, 92, 131, 343; 19–20: 236; 20: 89, 90, 92, 131, 343 87 13, 89, 132; 1–4: 131; 2: 95; 3: 132, 322; 4: 89, 322, 343; 5–34: 35, 79, 111; 5–11: 13; 5–15: 18, 85, 87, 89, 91, 94, 101, 131, 134, 265, 280, 289, 298; 5: 80, 87, 93, 131, 133, 135, 179, 335, 351; 7: 131; 9–11: 132; 11: 235; 12: 90, 92, 98, 343; 13–14: 343; 13: 97, 260; 14: 82, 90, 92, 131, 134; 15: 87, 93, 131; 16–19: 79, 101; 16: 101, 111; 18: 101; 20–23: 86, 101; 20: 281, 285;

index of biblical references Isaiah (cont.)

11–12 11

12 13–27 13–23 13–19 13–17 13–14 13

21–22: 91; 23: 89, 90, 111; 24–27: 85, 86, 87, 89, 91, 131; 24: 84, 87, 111, 285; 25: 93; 26: 87, 285; 27: 87, 89; 10:28–20:6: 73; 28–34: 79; 28–32: 6; 32: 283, 303; 33: 111 87 1–9: 94; 1–5: 97; 1: 87; 4: 87, 94; 6: 94; 7: 94; 8: 87, 94; 9: 87; 10: 87, 88; 11:11–12:6: 86, 87, 88, 285, 286, 342; 11–16: 10, 83, 132, 289; 11: 132; 14: 37; 15: 283 10, 21, 83, 87, 132; 1: 88; 2: 21, 3: 21 10, 20, 21, 23 1, 2, 9, 20–27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 35, 45, 65, 69–137, 139 24 33, 69 73, 79, 86, 87, 132 19, 21, 26, 81, 83, 88, 130, 132, 133, 339; 13:1–14:32: 75; 13:1–14:27: 73, 75–92; 13:1–14:23: 23, 75, 88; 13:1–14:21: 88; 13:1–14:4: 91; 1–22: 25, 75, 91; 1–16: 25; 1: 22, 25, 70, 75, 76, 78, 80, 130, 308; 2–22: 76, 83; 2–16: 76; 2–8: 76–79, 80, 81, 82, 130; 2–5: 76; 2–3: 76; 2: 77, 91; 3: 77, 80, 82, 127; 4–5: 76; 4: 77, 82; 5–16: 10; 5–6: 76; 5: 77, 78, 80, 82, 91; 6–8: 76; 6: 76, 78, 79, 80, 82, 128, 132; 7–8: 77, 78, 80; 7: 77; 9–22: 76; 9–16: 76, 77, 79–82; 9–13: 76, 81; 9–11: 80; 9: 76, 79,

14–22 14

381

80, 82, 132; 11: 80, 82, 85; 13: 132; 14–16: 76, 82; 14: 80, 82, 97; 15–16: 81; 15: 80; 16: 81; 17–22: 25, 76, 79–82; 17–18: 81, 295; 17: 76, 80, 81, 82, 106, 132, 136; 18: 76, 81; 19–22: 76, 82; 19: 82, 85, 332; 20: 78; 22: 76, 82, 148 25 1–27: 75, 96; 1–23: 83–89; 1–4: 37, 75, 82, 83, 87, 88, 89, 91, 130, 133, 285; 1–2: 25, 83; 1: 83, 86; 2: 79, 83, 87, 91; 3–4: 25, 83; 3–23: 43; 3: 83; 4–23: 13, 37, 83, 98, 132; 4–21: 25, 75, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 100, 131, 134; 4–8: 84; 4: 87, 88; 5: 84, 85, 87, 95; 6: 84; 7–8: 88, 91; 7: 83, 88, 91; 9–11: 84; 9: 97; 11–14: 88; 12–21: 84; 12–17: 84; 12–13: 84; 12: 84, 85; 13: 91, 132; 15: 84; 17: 84, 88; 18–21: 84; 18: 91; 19: 84, 85, 87; 20–22: 88; 20–21: 84; 20: 84, 85; 21: 84, 87, 88, 89, 91; 22–23: 25, 75, 87, 88, 89, 91; 22: 88; 24–27: 23, 25, 75, 89–92, 95, 98, 100, 131, 133, 182, 280; 24–25: 6, 25, 89, 90; 24: 22, 74, 89, 90, 91, 127; 25–27: 25, 26, 90; 25: 89, 90, 91, 180; 26–27: 90, 127, 131, 133, 135, 283, 343, 343; 26: 12, 19, 25, 90, 91, 131; 27: 25, 89, 280, 343; 14:28–20:6: 23, 320; 14:28–17:11: 23;

382

index of biblical references

Isaiah (cont.)

15–23 15–16 15

16

17

28–32: 24, 25, 43, 72, 75, 92–95, 131, 133; 28–30: 93; 28–29: 25; 28: 22, 25, 70, 75, 92, 93, 130, 310; 29–32: 9; 29: 84, 93, 94, 95, 131; 30: 25, 93, 94, 95; 31–32: 93; 31: 25, 93, 95, 128; 32: 23, 65, 93, 94, 95, 192, 344 23, 91 5, 25, 43, 73, 96–100, 102, 184, 234, 321, 333 15:1–16:5: 96–98, 131, 321, 340, 341; 1–9: 96, 98, 99, 126, 130, 243; 1-8: 25, 98, 99; 1: 22, 70, 98, 99, 108; 2: 99, 149; 3: 113; 4: 96, 99; 5: 99; 6: 123; 6–7: 96, 97, 99; 9: 25, 96, 98, 99 1–5: 96, 97, 98, 99, 130, 321, 343; 1: 25, 97, 99; 2: 25, 97, 99; 3–4: 25, 99; 4–5: 25, 97, 98; 4: 98, 100, 131; 5: 98; 6–14: 131, 321, 341; 6–12: 25, 96, 98–100, 133, 182; 6: 95, 98, 99, 100, 321; 7–11: 99; 7: 227; 8: 159; 9: 98, 100, 158; 10: 98; 11: 106; 12: 99; 13–14: 25, 96, 98–100, 130, 344; 14: 74, 99, 100, 110, 314, 322, 332, 333 24, 139, 202, 321, 333, 339; 1–11: 100–3, 184, 340; 1–8: 131, 340, 341; 1–6: 9, 25; 1–3: 9, 15, 25, 100, 101, 102, 103; 1: 22, 70, 76, 100, 121, 339; 2: 25, 100, 101, 102; 3: 25, 100, 101, 102, 332; 4–6: 25, 100, 101, 103, 253; 4: 24, 101, 102, 212, 276, 332; 5–6: 184, 190, 340; 6: 101, 102, 184; 7–11: 102; 7–8: 25,

18–21 18–20 18

19–20 19

100, 101, 103, 115, 190, 321; 7: 24, 276; 9–11: 131, 133, 185, 321, 341, 344; 9–10: 25; 9: 24, 100, 102, 103, 276; 10–11: 25, 100, 102, 103; 10: 115; 11: 132, 133, 158, 344; 17:12–18:7: 23; 12–14: 1, 19, 23, 25, 28, 36, 100, 103, 182–85, 339, 340, 344; 12: 22, 74, 142; 13: 185; 14: 25, 108, 152 23 1, 27, 32, 33 1, 24, 25, 26, 27–28, 100, 103, 139–203, 335–36, 339, 340, 341, 344, 346–47; 1–6: 25, 199; 1: 1, 22, 65, 74, 95, 141–47, 161–64, 176, 197–99; 1–2: 9, 25; 2: 94, 139, 147–54, 164–70, 177, 180, 193, 194, 201, 349; 3–7: 28; 3–6: 170–76; 3: 12, 25, 28, 155, 170–71, 178–80; 4: 25, 110, 155–58, 168, 171–74, 180, 185, 190, 192, 235, 329; 5–6: 139; 5: 25, 158–59, 174–75, 185, 192, 201, 350; 6: 175–76, 180, 181, 212; 7: 23, 25, 28, 35, 65, 95, 128, 147, 160, 176–77, 180–82, 185–87, 200, 288, 345, 349 32, 73, 74, 340 13, 24, 25, 29–30, 31, 122, 139, 205–304, 321, 333, 336–37, 339; 1–17: 271; 1–15: 29, 30, 36, 205, 261, 264, 271–73, 279–83, 291–96, 301, 341, 342, 344, 347; 1–4: 25, 29, 30, 234, 271, 272, 273; 1: 22, 70, 76, 185, 208, 222, 234–36, 241, 243, 254,

index of biblical references Isaiah (cont.)

20

272, 273, 297, 302, 305, 350; 2–4: 236–40, 271, 273; 2: 208, 271, 291, 293, 347; 3: 209–11, 241, 280, 303; 4: 111, 211, 237, 242, 261, 264, 265, 289, 291, 294, 302, 303, 347; 5–10: 25, 29, 30, 97, 205, 240–44, 272, 273; 5–7: 235, 303; 5: 242; 6: 211–13; 7: 126, 213–15; 8: 216; 9: 215–17; 10: 216, 217–18, 245, 249; 11–15: 25, 29, 30, 40, 43, 244–50, 272, 273; 11: 218–19, 247, 280, 291, 292, 294, 296, 303, 347; 12: 127, 219, 248, 271, 273, 280, 281, 343; 13: 219, 247, 249, 291, 303, 347; 14–15: 271; 14: 222, 249, 273; 15: 217, 219–20, 273, 321; 16–25: 24, 25, 29, 30, 205, 271, 273–77, 283–90, 296–302, 321, 342, 345; 16–17: 25, 127, 250–51, 256, 343; 17: 221–22, 254, 276, 297; 18–25: 25, 31, 205, 271; 18–22: 128, 303; 18: 65, 187, 222–30, 251–57, 261, 300, 350; 19–22: 257–63; 19: 228, 290, 298, 300, 349, 350, 351; 20–25: 320, 321; 20–21: 255, 301; 20: 224, 230, 289, 346, 348; 21: 229, 230–31, 232, 255, 274, 290, 303; 22: 232; 23: 231, 232, 263–65, 276, 289, 297, 343, 346, 347–48; 24–25: 266–69, 276; 24: 233; 25: 233–34, 276 5, 24, 25, 26, 30–31, 180, 184, 305–33, 336, 337, 339, 341, 342;

21–27 21–23 21–22 21

22

383

1–2: 31, 310, 318–19, 320, 322; 1: 22, 30, 70, 74, 75, 93, 306–7, 311, 316, 350; 2: 307–8, 311–13; 3–6: 30, 176; 3–4: 9; 3: 25, 308–9, 313–15, 317, 318, 332; 4–6: 5, 31, 322; 4: 309, 315, 332, 350; 5–6: 319, 322, 350; 5: 309–10, 316, 332; 6: 24, 153, 224, 310, 316–17, 320, 330, 344 24 33, 69 23, 70–74, 75, 103, 130, 133, 137, 281, 320, 339, 344 26, 72, 105, 111, 130; 1–10: 25, 36, 43, 70, 73, 103–107, 112; 1–9: 25; 1–4: 72; 1: 22, 26, 70, 72, 130, 305; 2: 25, 72, 81, 104, 105, 106, 107; 3: 72, 113; 4: 72, 106, 113; 5–10: 72; 5: 72, 105; 6–9: 104; 6: 72, 105, 108, 110, 315, 329; 7–9: 105; 9: 103, 105; 10: 25, 72, 94, 104; 11–12: 25, 71, 94, 107–9; 11: 22, 26, 70, 71, 72, 108; 12: 25, 108; 13–17: 43, 72, 109–11; 13–15: 25, 72, 110; 13–14: 110; 13: 22, 26, 70, 72, 109, 110; 14: 73, 78, 110; 15: 73; 16–17: 25, 72, 110, 344; 16: 72, 99, 314, 322, 332, 333 22, 24, 25, 26, 72, 73, 111–21, 130, 133, 339; 1–14: 23, 25, 93, 111–17, 121; 1–8: 111, 112, 116, 117; 1–4: 111; 1–3: 9, 25, 112, 113; 1: 22, 26, 70, 72, 113, 120; 2–3: 111, 112, 116; 3: 73, 113, 120; 4: 25, 72, 112, 113, 115, 116, 312; 5–9: 112; 5–8: 113,

384

index of biblical references

Isaiah (cont.)

23

116, 117; 5–6: 25, 78, 111, 114, 116, 117; 5: 70, 72, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 132, 133, 153, 344; 6: 72; 7: 25, 112, 114; 8–11: 25, 114, 115, 116, 117; 8–9: 111; 8: 24, 112, 114; 9–14: 111; 9–11: 111; 9: 115, 116; 10–11: 115; 11: 115; 12–14: 9, 25, 111, 112, 116, 117; 12: 24, 111, 113, 115, 312; 13–14: 115; 13: 72, 105, 112; 14: 72, 111, 112, 115, 329; 15–25: 73, 111, 117– 21, 182; 15–23: 119; 15–19: 25, 118; 15–18: 9, 25, 118, 119, 121; 15–17: 111; 15: 22, 74, 111, 117, 118, 329; 16: 117, 121; 17–18: 118, 119; 18: 119, 120, 121; 19–24: 119, 120, 121; 19–23: 25, 118, 120; 19: 118, 119; 20–24: 118; 20–23: 118; 20: 24, 127; 23: 120, 121; 24–25: 25; 24: 119, 120, 121; 25: 24, 118, 120, 121, 130 23, 25, 26, 36, 43, 73, 74, 97, 121–29, 131, 133, 137, 280, 281, 302, 339, 340; 1–14: 124, 126, 128, 129; 1–4: 25, 124; 1: 22, 70, 76, 121, 122, 127, 132; 2: 125, 126, 316; 3: 126; 4: 122, 125, 126, 215; 5: 122, 124, 128, 281; 6–9: 124; 6: 126, 316; 8–9: 127, 129, 131, 133, 280, 283, 343; 8: 284; 9: 127, 132, 332; 10–14: 124; 10: 127; 11–12: 127; 11: 127, 129, 131, 133, 135, 283, 284, 343;

24–35 24–27 24

25–27 25

26 27 28–39 28–35 28–31 28–33 28

29

30–31 30

12: 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 128, 129; 13: 25, 122, 123, 124, 127, 128, 129, 134; 14: 127; 15–18: 124, 126, 127, 129; 15–16: 25; 15: 24, 25, 127; 16: 127; 17–18: 25; 17: 128; 18: 128, 180, 302 21 1, 10, 21 21, 24; 1–13: 25; 1: 76; 4–12: 243; 5: 102; 6: 216; 10: 102, 121; 12–13: 102; 12: 65, 102; 15: 135; 18–20: 25; 23: 177 21, 65, 83 2–3: 256; 4: 94, 104, 173; 6–9: 289; 7: 114; 25:9–27:13: 24; 9: 21; 10–12: 35 1: 21; 5: 65; 9: 122; 18: 21; 19: 157, 214 1: 289; 2–11: 102; 8: 104; 9: 102; 10: 65, 102; 12: 289 21 10, 21 9, 25, 26 56, 339 1–4: 189; 1: 9; 2: 76, 80, 104, 173; 3: 9; 7–10: 9, 16; 7: 4, 115; 10: 152, 153; 13: 152, 153; 14: 18, 153; 16: 57, 76, 95; 17: 153, 173; 22: 89, 90, 111; 27: 87 4: 211; 6: 80, 104, 173; 7–8: 91, 177, 182; 15–24: 79, 115; 15: 90; 17: 314; 19–20: 94; 22: 216 30, 191, 341 31, 330; 1–17: 176, 188, 189, 192; 1–5: 15, 189; 1: 90, 280; 2: 192; 4: 247, 295; 5: 323; 6–7: 23, 73, 189, 320; 6: 72, 323; 7: 323; 8: 329;

index of biblical references Isaiah (cont.)

31

32 33 34 35 36–39 36–37 36

37

38

9–17: 190; 10: 115; 12: 281; 15: 110, 201, 342; 16: 57; 20: 115; 18–26: 10; 25: 132; 27–33: 91; 27: 76; 30: 80, 173; 31: 35, 84; 32: 87, 93 31, 330, 336; 1–5: 176, 188; 1–3: 15, 190, 192; 1: 87, 192, 201, 281; 3: 90, 181, 192, 281; 4–5: 91, 177, 190; 4: 329; 6–7: 190; 7: 235; 8–9: 91, 190; 9: 249 1–2: 97; 3: 115; 4: 156; 9–12: 96; 11: 312; 1–12: 35 1: 79, 104, 141; 4: 79; 7–8: 243; 8: 192, 263; 9: 96, 213 35; 2–4: 10; 5: 76; 8:132 4: 76; 5: 115; 7–8: 263 5, 9, 13, 19, 21, 191, 308, 322, 323, 324, 329, 330, 331, 342 13, 92, 117, 118, 191–92, 317, 325, 326, 327 1–2: 319, 322; 3: 117; 4: 322; 6: 117, 191, 192, 196, 201, 278, 341; 7: 322; 9: 191, 196; 10: 322; 11: 117; 15: 322; 18–20: 13; 18: 322; 22: 117 2: 117, 322; 7: 191; 8: 329; 9–10: 94, 196; 9: 326, 341; 10–13: 13; 10: 322; 16: 106; 21–35: 35; 21: 322; 22–35: 87; 22–29: 85; 24: 87; 25: 212, 243, 301, 303; 26: 115, 280; 27: 317, 322; 30: 96, 314, 315, 317, 322; 37–38: 303, 330 327; 1: 17, 322; 5–6: 327; 5: 17; 6: 327; 7: 315, 322; 8: 315, 317; 9–20: 21,

39 40–66 40–55 40 41 42 43 44 45

46 47 48 49 50 51 52 55 56 58 60 61 62 65:13 66 Jeremiah 1–45 1 2–24 2

4

385

83; 14: 212; 20: 21; 22: 315, 322 1, 192, 327; 6: 76, 212 7, 10 286 12 5: 316 2: 208; 4: 316; 11: 109, 208; 18–25: 115 3: 169, 170, 186 28: 265 1–13: 37, 186; 1: 265, 289, 290, 352; 13: 186; 14: 83, 180, 185, 186, 345; 15: 169, 170; 21: 249 10: 115, 280; 11: 265, 280 35, 43; 1: 126; 2–3: 114; 5: 71; 12–14: 40, 80 3: 115; 5: 115; 14: 265; 20: 80 22–23: 83; 22: 57 6: 149; 10: 115 1–8: 10; 11–16: 10 3–6: 10; 4: 57 1: 142 3: 83; 6: 83 8: 157 2: 108; 3–17: 186; 5–16: 180; 6: 128; 10–16: 83; 13: 128 5–6: 83, 180 6: 108; 10–12: 10 57 18–21: 286, 345; 19: 148; 20–23: 288 54 55, 60; 1: 54, 60, 308; 2: 50; 4: 57; 5: 35; 11: 57; 15: 78 55 1: 57; 10: 110, 124; 16: 37; 18: 163, 331; 19: 111; 35: 76; 36–37: 331 79; 5–8: 76; 8: 128; 11: 104, 156; 13: 104; 19: 106; 23–29: 243; 23–25: 80; 28: 80; 30: 82

386

index of biblical references

Jeremiah (cont.) 5 10: 159, 175; 14: 76 6 4: 144; 9: 159; 22–24: 37, 79; 22: 76, 77; 26: 105 7 20: 57 9 24–25: 35 10 12: 151 12 4: 243; 14–17: 35, 288 13 1–11: 313; 3: 57; 8: 57; 22: 114; 26: 114 14 96; 1: 50; 5–6: 123 16 1–9: 313; 1: 57; 6: 149 18 1–10: 313; 5: 57 19 313 21 13: 112 23 9: 50; 10: 243; 33–40: 108, 271; 35–36: 108 24 4: 57 25 52, 290, 313 25 1–2: 70, 308; 1: 52, 53, 54; 9: 52, 78; 11: 52, 127; 12: 71; 13: 50, 51; 15–17: 313; 18–26: 52, 53; 22: 316; 24: 72; 23: 110; 29: 52, 54, 56; 30–38: 55; 34: 97, 128; 36: 97 26–45 55 26 18–19: 331, 342; 18: 17, 202; 22: 331 27–28 107 27 50, 290, 331; 2: 265; 6: 289, 352; 11: 265 28 2–4: 6; 3: 315; 8: 36; 9: 16 29 10: 127; 22: 268 31 3: 148 36 54, 55; 2: 51, 52, 53, 54; 23: 55; 32: 55 37 5–10: 331; 13: 121 38 15: 249 41 7: 121 43–44 253, 331 43 8–13: 35; 13: 251, 252 44 253; 1: 251, 252; 17: 121; 21: 121; 29–30: 54

45 46–51 46–49 46

47 48

49

50–51 50

51

52, 54 35, 43, 45, 49–56, 61 50, 52 54; 1–12: 36, 281; 1: 51, 53, 70, 308; 2: 51, 53, 308; 9: 105; 10: 111, 121; 11: 105; 13–24: 36, 281; 13: 51; 20–21: 186; 23: 109; 25–26: 36, 281; 25: 76; 26: 19, 279; 52: 50 1: 51, 53; 2: 76; 4: 127, 316 5, 73, 98, 99, 234; 1: 51; 5: 99; 16: 128; 20: 128; 24: 97; 28: 99; 29–30: 99; 31: 99, 227; 32–33: 99; 32: 158, 159; 35: 99; 36: 99, 227; 37: 99; 38: 99, 113; 39: 128; 40–42: 128; 45–47: 50; 47: 19, 53 1–6: 55; 1–2: 128; 1: 51; 5: 76, 111; 6: 19; 7: 51; 23–27: 36, 101; 23: 51; 28–33: 110; 28: 51, 53, 72, 110; 34–39: 50, 107; 34: 51, 53; 35: 76; 38: 52, 56, 289; 39: 19 50, 52, 73, 88 1: 51; 8: 80, 97; 15: 79; 16–17: 80; 17–18: 89, 91; 18: 76; 21: 71, 105, 114; 23: 88; 25: 111; 26: 88; 28: 53, 82; 29: 88; 31: 111; 33: 88; 34: 81, 88; 35–37: 243 1: 76; 6: 80; 8: 128; 11: 53, 81, 106; 12: 108; 20–23: 78; 28: 81, 106; 33: 105; 36–37: 71; 36: 165; 40: 97; 41–43: 37, 79; 45: 80; 59–64: 52; 59: 52, 53; 60: 53; 64: 54

index of biblical references Lamentations 1 3 4 Ezekiel 1–24 1 3

4–24 4 5 6 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21

23

24 25–32 25–28 25

26–32 26–28 26

6: 97; 15: 26: 71 7: 156

126

60 2: 60; 6: 230 60; 15–16: 60; 15: 60; 16–21: 60; 17: 108; 21: 60; 26: 60 60 1–17: 313; 6: 60 5: 60; 6: 60; 7: 60; 14: 60; 15: 60 2: 58 14: 230; 21: 230 10–16: 271; 21–25: 104, 107; 25: 148; 28: 148 14: 122; 17: 58 21: 110 3–5: 87 3: 284; 26: 331; 31–41: 82; 59: 110, 256 106, 331; 13: 256; 16: 256; 18: 256; 19: 256 60; 25: 61; 29: 61 10–14: 175 2: 58; 7: 58; 14–16: 149; 17: 128; 28–32: 35; 33–37: 61; 33: 149 9: 82; 11: 115; 19–21: 331; 22–24: 82; 23–24: 114; 23: 113; 27: 331; 31: 115 60, 314; 1: 60; 24: 314; 27: 60 35, 43, 45, 56–62 56 57, 58; 1: 57; 2–6: 58; 2: 58; 3: 57; 8–14: 36; 8: 57; 12–14: 61; 12: 57; 15–17: 63; 15: 57 281 57, 73 129; 1–6: 59; 1: 57; 2–7: 57; 7–14: 59;

27

28

29–32 29

30–32 30

31–32 31

32

387

4: 122; 7: 57; 14: 122; 15: 57; 16–21: 59; 19: 57 1–36: 59; 1: 57; 3: 57, 121; 7: 145; 21: 72; 31: 149; 32: 71 84; 1–10: 37, 59; 1: 57; 2–10: 85; 2: 57; 6: 57; 7: 295; 11–19: 85; 11: 57; 12–19: 59; 12: 57; 20–23: 57, 58; 20: 57; 21: 58; 22: 57; 24–26: 58; 24: 58, 60; 25: 57; 26: 60 56, 57, 73, 74 1–6: 59, 281; 1: 57; 2: 58; 3: 57, 165, 242; 5: 85; 6–16: 59; 6–12: 59; 6–9: 58, 281; 6: 59, 278; 8–10: 242; 8: 57; 9–12: 58, 281; 9: 58; 12: 253; 13–16: 59, 279; 13: 57; 14: 59, 253; 16: 58, 59, 281; 17–20: 59, 99, 281; 17: 57, 61; 18–20: 5, 128; 18: 149; 19: 57; 20: 218; 21: 58, 59, 60 59 295; 1–19: 59, 278; 1: 57; 2: 57, 128; 3: 278; 6: 57; 9: 167, 168; 10–12: 243; 10: 57, 295; 11–12: 295; 12: 211; 13: 57; 14: 247; 17: 223, 248; 20–26: 59; 20: 57; 23: 59; 26: 59 84 85, 86; 1–18 59; 1: 57; 10: 57; 12–13: 85; 12: 87; 15: 57 37; 1–16: 59; 1–10: 85; 1: 57; 2: 164, 165; 3: 57; 4–6: 85; 7–8: 80; 11: 57; 12: 295; 17–32: 59, 85;

388

index of biblical references

Ezekiel (cont.) 33–48 33 34 35

36 38–39 38 39 46 Daniel 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 11 Hosea 1 2 4 8 9 12 13 14 Joel 1–2 2 3 4

17: 57, 60; 24: 106; 31–32: 84 60 60; 9: 60; 17: 61; 21–33: 60; 22: 60; 25–26: 61; 30–33: 61 6: 97; 25: 109 35, 60, 61; 1–15: 61; 2: 58; 5–6: 61; 9: 61; 10–11: 61; 15: 61 62; 1–15: 61; 3: 60; 4: 60; 7: 60; 36: 60 35, 61 2: 58; 12: 266 6: 61; 18: 97 17: 230 20: 246 2: 246; 10: 246; 21: 352; 27: 246; 47: 286 27–33: 286 2: 106; 4: 246; 6: 246 105; 11: 246 15: 106; 28: 106 4: 123; 7: 123; 27: 106 2: 127; 26–27: 91 14: 228 5: 18: 23: 3: 8: 6: 8: 3: 10:

127 276; 20: 276; 276 243; 5: 157 209; 14: 101 248 284 173 246, 247

12: 112; 14: 112; 18–21: 36; 19: 36 Amos 1–2

6 7–9 7 8 9

35, 43, 45, 46–49, 55, 61, 62, 345 1: 48; 2: 55; 1:3–2:5: 46, 47, 49; 5: 113; 14–15: 55 4–5: 48, 6–16: 46, 47, 64, 73; 6–8: 47; 7: 47; 14–16: 47 46, 47, 48, 73 1–2: 48; 2: 48; 3–6: 47; 8: 47; 9: 37; 18–20: 47, 80 2: 37, 48 47, 48 48; 12: 48; 17: 119 9–10: 80; 11: 76 7: 37, 48, 113; 13: 76

Obadiah 1 6 16 20

57 108 123 284

1 2 3–6 3

Jonah 1 3–4 4 Micah 1 2 3 4 5

Nahum 2 96 1: 80; 2: 80; 6: 80; 10: 80; 18–27: 36; 20: 36, 212 4–8: 36 1–3: 36; 2: 112; 7: 76; 9–17: 36;

3 Habakkuk 1

5: 145; 9: 288; 16: 262, 284, 286, 345 286, 287, 288, 345 10–11: 288 6: 114, 122, 149; 8–9: 312; 10–15: 6 1–4: 35 5: 16; 12: 17 8–14: 36; 11–12: 36 1–8: 36; 4–5: 36; 5: 86; 14: 36; 12: 212 1: 76; 2: 105; 2:4–3:19: 43; 9: 8: 164, 235

150

105; 1–4: 107; 2–11: 107; 2: 107; 5–11: 37; 11: 104;

index of biblical references Habakkuk (cont.) 12–17: 106; 13: 105, 107; 14: 97 2 81; 1–3: 104, 107; 1: 107; 4: 76, 85; 6–12: 85; 8: 79; 19: 71 3 7: 163; 9: 154, 14: 94; 16: 106, 107; 17: 96 Zephaniah 1

2

3

Haggai 1 2

62, 65, 79, 202; 1:1–2:3: 62; 2–18: 62; 7: 80; 8: 64; 11: 128; 12: 64, 65; 14–16: 80; 14: 64, 80; 18: 65, 78, 80, 90 63, 95; 2:1–3:20: 62; 2:1–3:8: 62; 1–3: 62, 63, 64; 1: 65; 4–15: 35, 45, 62, 63; 4: 6, 62, 63; 5–10: 63, 64; 5–7: 63, 64; 5–6: 63; 5: 63, 284; 7: 63; 8–10: 36, 63, 64; 8: 65, 95; 9: 63, 65, 106; 11–15: 63; 11: 63, 286; 13–15: 78 62, 63, 95; 1–8: 62, 65; 1–7: 64, 65; 2: 64; 6–7: 63, 64; 8–9: 345; 8: 64, 65, 90; 9–20: 62; 9–10: 288; 9: 65; 10: 95, 160, 185, 187, 202, 336; 12–13: 95; 12: 95; 18: 65 1: 308; 3: 308 1–2: 307, 1: 308; 6–7: 82; 7: 128; 10–12: 308; 20–23: 36; 22: 36

Zechariah 1–2 2

4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

389

82 5–17: 36; 6–7: 94; 9: 94; 10: 80, 142; 11: 80; 13–16: 83; 13: 36, 283; 15–16: 288; 16: 83 8: 57 9: 57 5: 127 13: 267 1: 113; 5: 309; 10: 136, 349 3: 97; 4: 219; 14: 120 97; 2: 128 3: 276; 4: 276; 6: 276; 8: 276; 9: 276; 11: 276; 1: 276; 2: 276; 4: 276, 312 288; 4: 276; 6: 276; 8: 276; 9: 276; 13: 276; 20: 276, 286, 345; 21: 276

Malachi 1

11:

286, 287, 345

1 Maccabees 11

32:

120

Sirach 11 24 43 44

12: 212 27: 163 20: 156; 22: 5: 152

Matthew 3

4:

312

158

INDEX OF NON-BIBLICAL REFERENCES (1) Ancient Near Eastern Sources Arad ostraca 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17 ARE §321 §743 Assurbanipal LET 31’–32’ 37’-69’ Prism A i 130 i 60–62 i 90–116 i 90–109 i 90–95 i 118–ii 6 i 134–ii 4 ii 5–7 ii 16–18 ii 48–50 ii 114 vii 95–96 ix 103–104 Prism B i 61–62 i 80–82 i 87–95 i 95 ii 3–6 Prism C i 13–15 ii 85–109 ii 85–100 ii 87–92 ii 105–130 ii 130–iii 5 iii 6–9 Prism E iii 16–17 iv 29–80 iv 29–46 Stück 11 1–10

Fragment 82-5-22,10 Warka Cylinder

280, 299 136

Babylonian Chronicle

298

331 169 165

299 299 269, 299 300 260, 298 299 299 300 299 300 300 248 121 301 268 135 236, 299 260 303 299 300 300 260 300 299 299 299 300 300 236, 238–39, 280, 299 298 299 300 303

COS 1.35 1.42 1.43 1.44 1.45

1.60 1.149 2.6 2.7 2.36 2.42 2.54 2.70D 2.70R 2.117 2.118A 2.118E 2.118F 2.118I 2.119B

246 238, 241, 246 246, 247 246 238, 240, 243, 245–46 164, 241, 242, 246 239 237 254 293, 154 160 328 117, 118 120 117, 118 125 327 327 327 194 197

Cyrus the Great Cylinder inscription

136

Deir ’Alla inscription

271

Dynastic prophecy ii 17’

200 181

El-Amarna Tablets 49:20 70:19 84:37 95:40 108:67 127 131:13

162 162 248 162 162 162 162

1.53

index of non-biblical references El-Amarna Tablets (cont.) 133:17 162 139:8 248 148:11 126 148:30 126 149:49 126 287 162 Enuma Elish iv 50–51

235

Erra and Ishum iv 130–36 iv 130

181, 200, 240 236–37 71

Esarhaddon, Nahr-el Kelb Relief

135

FHN 1.9 1.26 1.29

154, 236, 251, 292, 293 239, 242 164, 264

Gezer calendar

174

IAKA §8:2–7 §11 Ep. 10 §21:1–14 §24:2–3 §27:54–76 §27 Episode 21:63 §44:1–5 §57 §57:8–9 §64:25 §65 §65:30–37 §65:30–34 §65:37–38 §65:40 §65:48–53 §65:50–53 §65:50 §76:6–11

295 127, 302 134 295 299 317 295 164 164, 253 298 281, 295, 350, 351 289 135 164 253 258, 298 259 260 162

KAI 14:21 191B 202B:5 214:18 215:6

211 118 221 160 160

391

224:2–3 278:5

211 221

KTU 1.3 i 22–25 1.3 iii 5–8 1.17 v 21 2.13:14–15 2.30:13–14

157 157 248 160 160

Lachish ostracon 3:14–16

331

Marduk prophecy i 23 ii 1

200, 237–38, 240, 241 181 181

Nabonid Adad-guppi Stele i 40–44 Harran Stele i 39–44 Harran Stele iii 18

136 135 136

Nebuchadnezzar Etemenaki Cylinder

136

PPANE 1:13–28 4 4:32–43 5 7:11–19 9:29–50 10:17–20 17:15–17 17:31–34 18:1–14 19 19:6–18 19:8–10 19:15–18 20:11–16 24:8–18 38:9–39 38:24–39 38:32–39 54–56 58–59 68–77 69 ii 5’–7’ 71 ii 37’ 78–83 79 i 17–18 80:3’–10’

16 39 39 39 39 38 39 39 38 39 39 39 39 39 38 39 38 39 312 312 40 187 285 40 285 190

392

index of non-biblical references

PPANE (cont.) 82 iii 24’–25’ 85 85 ii 32 93 94 100 iii 4–7 101:29–31 137 A 11–17 RIMA 3 A.0.102.1:1–9 A.0.102.1:11–12 A.0.102.1:35 A.0.102.1:57’–58’ A.0.102.1:63’ A.0.102.1:73’–77’ A.0.102.1:76’ A.0.102.2 i 5–10 A.0.102.2 i 13 A.0.102.2 i 49–50 A.0.102.2 i 49 A.0.102.2 ii 8 A.0.102.2 ii 34–35 A.0.102.2 ii 44 A.0.102.2 ii 62–63 A.0.102.5 i 1–6 A.0.102.5 i 6–ii 1 A.0.102.5 ii 1–2 A.0.102.6 iii 28 A.0.102.8:17’, 33’, 38’ A.0.102.8 24’–27’ A.0.102.9 15–17 A.0.102.10 ii 19’ A.0.102.10 iii 2–3, 19 A.0.102.10 iv 22–34 A.0.102.11 A.0.102.14:15–17 A.0.102.14:60–61 A.0.102.14:78–79 A.0.102.14:88 A.0.102.14:134–35 A.0.102.16:78’–79’ A.0.102.16:152’–153’ A.0.102.16:219–20 A.0.102.16:221–22 A.0.102.16:285’ A.0.102.17:43–44 A.0.103.1 i 26–33 A.0.104.1:1–9 A.0.104.20:10 A.0.105.1:1–2

187 40 40 40, 161 269 40 269 40 134 135 259 135 259 256 259 134 135 259 259 259 257 259 259 134 134 289 317 317 181 289 317 317 259 135, 352 134 317 136 317 136 317 317 136 136 259 136 134 134 311 134

SAA 2 6:116–17 3 4:rev. ii 13’ 3 11 4 88 5 168:r.4 7 1 rev. i 12–ii 7 10 174:7–9 Sargon Assur Prism Basalt Stele from Cyprus Great Display Inscription Khorsabad Annals Nimrud Inscription Nimrud letter ND 2765 Nimrud Prism Nineveh Prism Tang-i Var Inscription

16 179 268, 272 299 166 236 247 181, 248 135 194, 295 194, 295, 328 194, 317, 326, 327 295 122, 236 195, 328 135, 195–96, 328

Sennacherib, Annals B1 Bull Inscription 4 Rassam Cylinder ii 4–5 ii 25–26 Taylor Prism i 10–16 i 45 ii 48–55 ii 34–64

259 257 197 136 113, 114 127 129

Šumma Izbu

238

TADAE Scroll III B 2:24 2:18 3:31

144 144 144

Text A Text B

237, 241 237, 241

Tiglath-pileser III Summary Inscription 4 Summary Inscription 7 Summary Inscription 8 Summary Inscription 9 Summary Inscription 13 Annals 23 11’–12’

295 175 248, 259, 295 248, 295 248, 295 175

175 125

index of non-biblical references

393

(2) Classical Sources Diodorus Siculus i 12.6 i 19.4 i 96.7 i 31 i 32.1 i 37.9

165 165 165 253 164 163, 170

Heliodor, Aethiopica viii 16.4

167

Herodotus, Histories ii 5 ii 17 ii 21 ii 22–23 ii 28 ii 36 ii 83 ii 97 ii 154–55 ii 158 ii 177 iii 12 iii 20 iv 183 vii 70

242 148 164 148 164 169 239 165 214 254 253 169 148, 149, 169 167 162

Homer, Ilias i 423–24 xxiii 205–7

169 169

Homer, Odyssey i 22–24 i 22–23 iv 447 iv 84 v 282 v 287

169 162 164 169 169 169

Pliny, Naturalis Historia v8 vi 65

163 164

Strabo, Geography ii 2.3 ii 5.37 iv 7 vii 4 xvi 4 xvii 1

144 144 163 170 163, 170 163

Theocritus xvii 82–84

253

(3) Jewish Sources Babylonian Talmud (alphabetical order) b. Ber. 2b 157 b. Ber. 54b 148 b. BQam. 117a 212 b. Pes. 2b 157 b. Ketub. 10b 148 b. Men. 109b 228 b: Men. 110a 223 b. Mo‘ed Qat. 16b 163 b. Naz. 46b 149 b. Pes. 53a 159 b. Sotah 46b 216 b. Ta’an. 7b 157 b. Yom. 18b 214 b. Yom. 61b 149 b. Yom. 87a 212 Josephus, Antiquities ii 243 ii 248–49 xiii 64 xiii 66–68

163 170 223 224

ix 283–87

125

Josephus, Jewish War vii 432

223

Letter of Aristeas 13

299

Mishna m. Kel. 16:6 m. Sotah 9:5

215 216

Pesikta de-Rab Kahana 7:5 Pesikta Rabbati 17:4

223, 251 223, 251

Qumran (non-biblical manuscripts) CD 12:1–2 224 CD 12:2–3 210 1QH i 28 152 1QHa xvi 14–15 154 1QM xii 9–10 158 11Q10 xxxi 6 158