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

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

Author: Dekker | J.

26 downloads 534 Views 2MB Size Report

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

DOWNLOAD PDF

Zion’s Rock-Solid Foundations

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

Editor

B. Becking Utrecht Editorial Board

H.G.M. Williamson Oxford

H.F. Van Rooy Potchefstroom

M. Vervenne Leuven

VOLUME 54

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

by

Jaap Dekker

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2007

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

2006050012

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

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

ix xiii

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

1 1 2 6

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

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

vi

contents

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

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

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

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

viii

contents

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

339 339 340 342 343 345 346 347 348 349 351

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

355

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

367

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

391

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

397

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

x

foreword

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

foreword

xi

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

xii

foreword

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

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

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

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

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

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

xv

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

xvi

list of abbreviations

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

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

xvii

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

xviii VT VT.S VWGT

list of abbreviations

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

CHAPTER ONE

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

2

chapter one

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

introduction

3

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

4

chapter one

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

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

introduction

5

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

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

6

chapter one 1.3. Goals and methodology

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

introduction

7

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

CHAPTER TWO

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

10

chapter two

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

isaiah 28:16 in the history of exegesis

11

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

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

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

12

chapter two

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


13

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

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

10

14

chapter two

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

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

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

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

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


15

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

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

16

chapter two

Septuagint, however, differs considerably from that of the Masoretes. In order to facilitate comparison we once again provide both text versions (the Masoretic text followed by the Septuagint) together with an English translation: v=D;q]mil] hy:h;w“ l/vk]mi rWxl]W πgWnr“T;s]nI rq,V,b'W

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

13 Cf. J-M § 143d: “hz does not in itself contain a nuance of contempt, but it can sometimes have this nuance by the omission of a fuller expression.” In 28:14, hZvyjiy: alø ˆymia}M'h' One who trusts shall not hurry off.”

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

exegesis of individual pericopes

125

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

126

chapter four

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


127

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

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

128

chapter four

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

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


129

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

130

chapter four

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


131

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

132

chapter four

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

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


133

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

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

134

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

dS;Wm ds;Wm tr'q]yI tN"Pi ˆj'Bo ˆb,a,

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

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

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


135

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

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

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

136

chapter four

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

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


137

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

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

138

chapter four

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

112


139

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

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

140

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

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

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

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


141

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

142

chapter four

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


143

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

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

144

chapter four

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


145

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

146

chapter four

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

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

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


147

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

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

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

148

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

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

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

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

// //

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

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

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


149

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

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

150

chapter four

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


151

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

152

chapter four

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


153

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

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

154

chapter four

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


155

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

156

chapter four

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


157

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

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

158

chapter four

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

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


159

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

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

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

Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study

The Protocols of Zion

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

The Protocols of Zion

The Question of Zion

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

The Gospel of Isaiah

Isaiah

The Romance of Zion Chapel

The Foundations of Research (Palgrave Study Guides)

Foundations of Education (Student Text) , Tenth Edition

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

Elders of Zion

Elders of Zion

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

The Theology of the Book of Isaiah

Studies in Isaiah

The DVD and the Study of Film: The Attainable Text

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

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

The DVD and the Study of Film: The Attainable Text

Aquaculture: An Introductory Text

Epidemiology an Introductory Text

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

Спор о Сионе. The Controversy of Zion

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

The Foundations of Nursing: An Integrated Approach

Studien

Studien

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

Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study

The Protocols of Zion

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

The Protocols of Zion

The Question of Zion

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

The Gospel of Isaiah

Isaiah

The Romance of Zion Chapel

The Foundations of Research (Palgrave Study Guides)

Foundations of Education (Student Text) , Tenth Edition

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

Elders of Zion

Elders of Zion

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

The Theology of the Book of Isaiah

Studies in Isaiah

The DVD and the Study of Film: The Attainable Text

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

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

The DVD and the Study of Film: The Attainable Text

Aquaculture: An Introductory Text

Epidemiology an Introductory Text

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

Спор о Сионе. The Controversy of Zion

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

The Foundations of Nursing: An Integrated Approach

Studien

Studien

Recommend Documents