Event and Text in Early First Isaiah

Part IV

Theological Reflections on an Emerging Text

Chapter 10:1-21, 33-34

 

Somewhere in the order of five-to-six-years after Ahaz’s ascension to the throne of Judah, the prophetic school of Jerusalem was in possession of a text built around a historical narrative of the encounter between king and prophet at the Gihon Spring. That text was approximately what we know as chapters 3-9 of the Isaiah scroll. While the school continued to edit this text, they also were in the process of reflecting theologically on it. This was registered as corrections and additions to the text. My version of how the Isaiah text has come about is based on a different understanding of authorship than is commonly assumed. Traditionally, a text is supposed to be the result of a single inspired individual, in this case, Isaiah, who was writing with personal knowledge of the events not long after they happened.  Alternatively, critical studies which came along with time, continued to think about authorship as the work of an individual, but at some distance from the events, possibly centuries, who composed text based on the needs of his or her times.

I have been arguing that the authorship of the Isaiah text lies in the working of a community, which I identify as “the prophetic school of Jerusalem.” That school included Isaiah as well as poets, historians, thinkers and editors.  Particularly, in the special case of chapter 3-12 this process is quite visible, and, in being so, enhances what this text has to say to us. We have seen in our study of Chapter 8, that there are three brief testimonials which were clearly the work of Isaiah, dateable to months following the prophetic event.   Before that, in chapter 7, we identified an author which we have called “the historian.” He was an anonymous member of the prophetic school of Jerusalem, and he was responsible for the opening section of the chapter 7.  Since historians are seldom poets or poets, historian, we imagine the existence of one or more poets, who authored units as “the ballade of the beloved vineyard,” Chapter 6, or the birth announcement of Hezekiah, Chapter 9, or the splendid poem, “Surly it is God who saves me,” chapter 12, which was used to close this literary unit which I call proto-Isaiah.

In addition to these testimonials, historical narratives and poems, there are what I call “theological reflections.” They were the result of the community reflecting theological on particular units like the historical narratives or one of the poems, some of which were then recorded and appended to those units, augmenting the text. 

Finally, there were editors who recorded, shaped and preserved the various materials.  In the course of the critical study of ancient texts, Biblical and otherwise, editors have often been dismissed as uninspired technicians, standing in the way of discovering the original genius of the individual author, the beguiling conviction of Western culture under which we continue to struggle.  One of the major changes in textual studies in the last 50 years was to reappraise the role of the editor.  Source criticism which searched for individual authors was joined by redaction criticism which valued the contribution of an editors. This led to an understanding that editors are an inspired part of the authorship. Clearly editors have played an important role in the formation of the Isaiah scroll and in the material on which we are presently focusing.  Indeed, we can recognize the work of a chief editor who has been assembling a text. By the end of the 730’s, the text had become what we know as chapters 3-9.  At this point the prophetic school’s theological reflection turned from individual units, as we have seen, to the new text as whole.  It is this change that gave rise to the material which we find in Chapter 10, on which this talk is focused.

It is characteristic of editors that they leave poems alone, the poem’s interior logic making it difficult to make changes. Historical narratives are more tempting and easier to amendments but are rather easy to sort out.  Theological reflections are another matter, being a more fluid and subjective. Not only do they tempt an editor, but amendments are more difficult to spot since in reality they are unfolding discussions in which various opinions are coming together.  All that is to say, Chapter 10 presents us with more difficulties than the material we have looked at up to now.

Our initial problem with Chapter 10 is where does the chapter begin?  The two modern commentators on whom we have relied, Childs and Blenkinsopp, are of the opinion that it is not with verse 1, but with verse 5. Blenkinsopp argues that the “Woe unit” of verse 1-4 belongs to Chapter 5, as it properly pairs with the series of woes found there.  For him, Chapter 10 begins, verse 5, “Woe to Assyria.”  This works, if the description of being the rod and the staff of God is bracketed out as an aside, for in the long run Assyria, after serving God’s purpose, would come to woe, being punished for its arrogance.  Child agrees, except for a different reason.  He makes verses 1-4 part of Chapter 9 on the grounds that verse 4 ends with the refrain which we already encountered in Chapter 9; “for all this his anger did not turn and his hand remained outstretched.”  In 9, this refrain appears three times, at ends of three units, each of which describes the suffering that the Israel is experiencing, which however, has not led to and end of God’s wrath.  Not only is the triadic unit sufficiently eloquent by itself, the content of an alleged fourth, 1-4, which is not about a punishment that is happening, but one that was to come and is a question addressed to specific individuals about how they will respond: “to whom then will you leave your wealth/glory when you are visited from afar?”

            The ending in verse 4, “for all this .. .” is a good example of the work of the editor who is compiling this text. Not only is it awkward, but we can also see that it is an editorial suture, tying chapter 10 to 3-9.  Doing so, however, has obscured the fact that 10 begins with a single “woe” directed at Israel’s leadership.  They are identified, in an unusual manner, as החקקים hchakakim and  מכרבים  makarabim , ruler makers and writers.  We might, say from our own context, politicians and media people.  The rulers rule vainly, doing nothing, and the writers write corruptly and about things that are beside the point. The graphic image suggests a firsthand experience and not a more generalized condemnation of injustice by not hearing the poor. The condemnation continues not only do they distort the defense of the poor but they steals from the judgment of the lower class and loot  שללם shallam the widows and יבזו ybzu prey on the orphans. These two verbs shalal and bz, are not actions usually directed at widows and orphans, but they are directly link with the name of Isaiah’s son, mahar shalal, chash bz who we learned about in chapter 8.

Given that, on the day of a visitation “which will come from afar,” clearly a reference an Assyrian campaign, it asks the “politicians and media” from whom they will seek aid and to whom they will leave their glory.  

This introductory woe sets the stage for a primary proposition, verse 5.  It is not “Woe to Assyria,” but Assyria is the woe.  With it, the prophetic school is announcing its major theological claim, in the very words of text:

 

“Assyria is the rod of my wrath and my fury is a staff in their hand.”

 

God will direct them, the rod and the staff, against a hypocritical nation, גוי חנף, and he will order them to loot and plunder. ( לשלל משלל ולבז בז ) and to make this people trodden down like the mud of the street.  The words, “loot” and “plunder,” links the theological proposition to the opening lines of this chapter, and to the amending prophesy of Isaiah which was recorded in chapter 8.

The primary theological proposition has a corollary. While Assyria is the agent of God, they are not exempt from punishment for the manner in which they carry out their commission. As it is, Assyria is acting with arrogance. Verse 7, while the king of Assyria is God’s agent, “he does deem it so, and his heart does not think it so.”  In the following verse Assyria is given a voice: “Are not my princes together kings?”  Victories are listed, Carchemish, Calno, Arpad, Damascus and so will Samaria be added to the list.  Verse 12 bring this to an end with an important summation: “When the Lord completes all His work on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, he will bring retribution upon the Assyrians.”  Underline first the proposition that what has been done by Assyria against Isreal is God’s work, and then note that when it is done, with transforming Israel to accord with God’s will, the punishment of Assyria will follow.

 There is a special delight in giving voice to the arrogant speech of Assyria, mimicking the kings, so in verse 13 it is given a second round. “I have erased borders,” “My hand found the wealth of the peoples as one gathers eggs from untended nests. No one moved a hand, or opened his mouth, or even chirped.”  With verse 15, we now have a second argument on the nature of Assyrian arrogance.  An instrument, an ax or a saw does vaunt itself over the one who wields it.  There follows with this new argument a rather cryptic version of the retribution which in the end Assyria will suffer.  The light of Israel will become a fire, and the fire will rid the land of thorns and thistles. This is likely the work of a secondary editorial process which is a common part of the textual tradition, and it is neither the first of the last that we will find in the Isaiah text.

In spite of this reset, the theological reflection that began with the “Woe,” verse 1, finds its ending in verse 20: “It shall come to pass that on that day the remnant שאר of Israel and the survivors פליטצ of the house of Jacob shall not continue to lean on him that smote them,” Assyria, “but they shall lean on the Lord, the Holy one of Israel, Amen.” This is immediately echoed:  with final summation of the prophetic school, “The remnant shall turn,” שאר ישבו .” Recall that is the name of Isaiah’s first son who accompanied him on the prophesy in Chapter 7. Continuing, the people will turn “to God All Mighty, אל גבר.” The name, el gabor is one of the names given to the child whose birth is announced in Chapter 9. This ties the theological reflection of chapter 10 to a core text, well on its way to being that text we know of as Isaah, Chapter 3-9.

The text that follows 22 to 32 is an intrusion on the part of an editor which Blenkinsopp calls commentary. As intrusions in text frequently do, they make room for others to follow, here it is a wonderful poem which recounts the itinerary of an invading army, which I will pass over in interest of time, but, it you are interested you will find my take on this material in my blog, the Elder of Omaha.

For now, let us follow Blenkinsopp suggestion that the first draft of chapter 10 continued with verse 33 where the text returns to the metaphor of the saw and the ax.  “Behold the Lord, God Sabaoth lops off the branches with a saw. . .” leading to a deforestation of the land, Lebanon in the wake of the Assyrian campaign of 734 comes to mind.  This image of deforestation lead directly into the announcement in chapter 11 that “a branch shall spring forth from the stump of Jesse, resulting in the renewal of the Davidic dynasty.  Our next talk will be on “the royal figure” of chapter 11,  and on its preludes in chapter 9, and 7. 

Before bringing this talk to a close, I would like to go back for another look at the theological position, “Assyria is the rod of my wrath and my fury is a staff in their hand.” This likely strikes a modern ear as a theology that belongs to darker ages that we have somehow left behind.  This, however, misses the point that the prophet school of the 8^th century was not resting on, or turn back to some dark ancient mystagogue.  It was essaying a theology that was a radical innovation. Their world posited “local gods,” and with that the attack of the Assyrian would be understood as a struggle between gods, theirs and ours.  Was the god of Assyria, Assur, stronger than the god of Damascus or of Samaria?  Corollary of  “local gods” is that the violences that one is enduring is meaningless and that suffering one going through is irredeemable.

Once the prophetic school of Jerusalem committed themselves the conviction of a universal monotheism, it was necessary to conclude that the violence to come must be, in  some way, God’s will.  If it was God’s will then it had purpose and meaning. The corollary of their conviction was the Assyrian king was an agent of God, even if unaware of it. The suffering that resulted could be redeeming.  For the prophetic school, this meant that through suffering Israel would be transformed into the Israel of the future.  This, as we have seen in 10:12, explicit stated: “When the Lord Sabaoth will have completed all that he would do on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem . . .”

Thus, proto-Isaiah, at the close at the 8^th century, launches the trajectory that passes though the later sections of its text, where it finally takes on the mature form of “the suffering servant,” and ultimately, passes on into the Christian interpretation of the cross.

Next time, in our fifth talk we will bring our series, “Event and Text in Early First Isaiah” to a study of those fascinating royal figures found in Chapter 7:13-16, 9:5-6 and 11:1-5, which were so fundamental to the hope the prophetic school held for the Israel in their own times and so provocation for the age to come.