Prophecy as trap

Abstract

In Isaiah 6, the prophet is commissioned to speak so that people should not understand and thus be destroyed. The commission has parallels in other 8th century prophets, notably Amos and Hosea, for whom prophecy and history are a divine trap. I will proceed through a discussion of the ethical implications of the commission, using especially the ethical philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas, to a reading of particular texts: Isaiah 6, 29:1–14, and the Immanuel prophecy in 7:14–25. I will end with a consideration of reading and meaning. Criticism is a process of bafflement, of realising that one will never fully understand, that there are doors in the text one will never open.

Notes

1. “Aber ich denke … daß es .. zu den Hoffnungen des Gedichts gehört… in eines Anderen Sache zu sprechen – wer weiß, vielleicht in eines ganz Anderen Sache.” (Celan, Der Meridian.)

2. Carroll, “Revisionings,” 226–241; Carroll, “Blindsight and Vision,” 79–93.

3. The contrast may be somewhat schematically identified as that between Kantian and Burkean theories of the sublime, as suggested by Gold, Aesthetics and Analysis, 71–85.

4. “The secret necessarily exemplifies (a) double bind, for the secret can be a secret only to the extent that it is hidden, but the secret can be hidden only to the extent that it is revealed.” (Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being, 164). The quotation from Wolfson is taken from a discussion of Derrida, for whom the duplicity of the secret is a perennial preoccupation, for instance in The Gift of Death.

5. Liss, Die Unerhöhrte Prophetie, 61–75.

6. In German scholarship, the Rückprojizierungsthese is usually attributed to Hesse, Das Verstockungsproblem, and in English, to Kaplan, “Isaiah 6 1–11,” corresponding to his Reconstructionist theology. As Gruber, “Mordechai M. Kaplan,” points out, it is in fact much older, with roots in the medieval Jewish commentarial tradition (602).

7. Ajzenstadt, Driven Back, esp. ch.2.

8. Levinas, Otherwise than Being, 149. Me voici is something of a watchword throughout the fifth chapter of Otherwise than Being. The point, for Levinas, is that as the grammatical object me represents the self as passive, even before there is a grammatical subject (Ajzenstadt, Driven Back, 90–91).

9. Otherwise than Being, 149. The French is retournement, and has evident connotations with the Hebrew concept of teshuvah.

10. Driven Back, 108–137 comprises a Midrash on Levinas's own Midrash on Isaiah 6.

11. I have discussed this issue at length in my article “Levinas on Prophecy.”

12. Uemura, “A Hardening Prophecy?” follows an earlier suggestion of Vermeylen, Du Prophète Isaïe, 195, that the Waw of ושב is adversative and means that nonetheless there will be healing. This would, however, render the whole sequence from פן, “lest," onwards essentially meaningless and without a conclusion.

13. “Concentration and Diffusion.”

14. The phrase is taken from an early interview with Jacques Derrida, in which he says he “tries to write (in) the space where the question of saying and intending to say is posed” (Positions, 14). Vouloir dire means both “to want to say” and “to mean.” It is also the subject of his later difficult essay “Literature in Secret.”

15. Sonnet, “Le Motif,” writes that the message to the implied reader is “s'apprêter à recevoir l'inouï de Dieu.” (238)

16. There are different interpretations of the referent of “all.” Most relate it to the immediate context e.g. Exum, “Of Broken Pots," 349, or to a greater or lesser collection of prophecies (Beuken, Isaiah II, 95). Conrad, Reading Isaiah, 131 thinks it refers to what he calls the "Vision of Isaiah," chapters 6–39. Barthel, Prophetenwort und Geschichte, 383 considers that it encompasses the entire prophetic tradition. Irwin, Isaiah 28–33, 53 suggests that it is a subjective genitive, referring to the sleeping “heads” and “eyes” of the previous verse. I think that it should not be restricted to a particular text or content.

17. I follow most commentators in adopting the Qere and 1QIsa^a as against the Ketib which has “the book.”

18. O'Kane, “Concealment and Disclosure,” 488 notes the opposition to normal modes of sight. He describes חזון as “a human exploration into another world.”

19. For metaphor as an instrument of concealment, see O'Kane, “Concealment and Disclosure," 486–491.

20. Ariel, as a sacred or poetic term for Jerusalem, occurs only here, and has occasioned extensive discussion. Beuken, Isaiah II, 81, n.9, says that the old translation as “lion of God” is obsolete; it is maintained, however, by Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 400–01 and Watts, Isaiah 1-33, 450. It refers to the altar in Ezek 43:15–16, and appears on the Moabite stone. It may be related to the obscure אראלם in 33:7.

21. Most scholars see “prophets” (הנביאים) and “seers” (החזים) in this verse as glosses which restrict the scope of the condemnation, largely on metric and syntactic grounds, e.g. Barthel Prophetenwort und Geschichte, 378, 382; Liss, Die Unerhöhrte Prophetie, 205, n. 6; Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 81. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 404 and Beuken, Isaiah II, 95 attribute them to post-exilic polemic against unauthorized prophets. On the other hand, they do correlate with the motif of prophets and seers in 28:7 and 30:10, as mentioned by Liss, and for this reason I regard the supplements, if such they be, as an intrinsic part of the text continuum. Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 453, notes that there is no textual basis for the consensus.

22. Many critics emend התמהמהו to התמהו as a Hithpael of תמה, “be astounded," so as to conform to the alleged repetition of the root שעע in the parallel colon. The duplication is accounted for by dittography (Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 80; Liss, Die Unerhöhrte Prophetie, 202, n. 2; Barthel Prophetenwort und Geschichte, 378; Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 238; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 403). However, Beuken, Isaiah II, 92 defends the MT (as does Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 452), as suggesting complementary states of mind. Correspondingly, the same scholars see השתעשעו as unambiguously a Hithpalpel form of שעע. For its derivation from שעשע, see Beuken, Isaiah II, 92–93, who rightly comments “the semantic word game being played with these four verbs is highly intricate.” [93]).

23. Many scholars think that the subject is the “multitude of all the nations,” who dream about capturing Jerusalem and find it to be unattainable. Exum, “Of Broken Pots," 346 and Beuken, Isaiah II, 88, are examples. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39, 402, in contrast, sees it as “an effective analogy for the prophetic sense of the insubstantiality of the display of military and political power juxtaposed with the abiding reality of the divine.”

24. In 29:5 the enemy disappears “suddenly” (לפתע פתאם); this phrase in fact creates a Janus-parallelism, referring both to the sudden onslaught of the enemy and the immediacy of the divine transformation of reality.

25. Most commentators see in the phrase a reference to some version of Isaiah, e.g. Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39, 382; Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 338. In contrast, Blenkinsopp, Opening the Sealed Book, 4, limits it to some lost book containing imprecations against Edom or other nations, and rejects universalistic interpretations. Beuken, Isaiah II, 302, more broadly, suggests that it includes all texts regarded as scripture at the time. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 441, in contrast, thinks it is “a more general or foundational document for YHWH's relationship to the world.” Miscall, Isaiah 34–35, 87, similarly, describes the image as “multi-levelled.” The idea that the world is a text is implicit in the motif of the divine tablet in Mesopotamian literature, e.g. Enmeduranki and Enuma Elish. See also Crenshaw “Transmitting Prophecy Across Generations,” 42 and Schniedewind, How the Bible, 33–34.

26. Liss, Die Uneröhrte Prophetie, 92 comments that the chapter is a narrative illustration of chapter 6. See also Nielsen, “Dramatic Writing,” 7; Barthel, Prophetenwort und Geschichte, 63, 152; Childs, Isaiah, 62; and Blum “Jesajas prophetisches Testament,” 23.

27. For an extensive argument for the ambivalence of the sign, see Liss, Die Unerhöhrte Prophetie, 72–93. Collins, “The Sign of Immanuel,” 237–39, thinks that it is positive, promising continuity for the Davidic dynasty. Barthel, Prophetenwort und Geschichte, 146, argues, to the contrary, that it is unambiguously negative, in accordance with his view of the complex growth of the text. Benzi, Il libro d'Emmanuele, 105–06, lists four different significations of the word אות, “sign,” and suggests that it changes meaning between vv. 11 and 14. In v. 11 it is confirmatory, in v. 14 anticipatory.

28. The literature on the identity of the son, and correspondingly of his mother, is vast and need not detain us. Briefly, there are four views: i) that he is the king's son, specifically Hezekiah, who is an antitype to Ahaz, as has been argued by Ackroyd, Religious Tradition, 116–20; Becker, Jesaja, 47–59; Oswald “Textwelt, Kontextbezug,” 218, and many others. This view is very ancient, and is probably implied in the Septuagint, with its 2^nd masc. sing. translation of וקראת. That Hezekiah was in fact born some time before the Syro-Ephraimite War is no serious objection, since the text may have been written some time later. Examples of advocates of this position are Beuken, Jesaja 1–12, 204; Barthel, Prophetenwort und Geschichte, 145; and Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 312. A variant is that Isaiah was announcing the end of the Davidic line in favour of a new dynasty. ii) that he is the prophet's son, like She'ar Yashub and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, a view advocated by Rashi and Ibn Ezra and in several articles by Johannes J. Stamm: “La Prophetie d'Emmanuel,” 17–24, “Die Immanuel Weissagung” and “Die Immanuel Perikope;” Gottwald, “The Prophet's Son;” and by Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 86, and “The Immanuel Prophecy,” 232; Wolf, “A Solution,” identifies him with Maher-Shallal-Hash-Baz; Rice, “A Neglected Interpretation,” with the prophet's disciples and a faithful remnant; iii) that the עלמה is a particular young woman who is the partner of neither; iv) that it is a collective term. Dohmen,“Das Immanuelzeichen,” 314–16, argues that עלמה initially had a particular meaning, referring to a foreign woman, in this case an Assyrian princess married to Ahaz, indicative of his pro-Assyrian policy. This seems over-speculative. In contrast, Rice, “A Neglected Interpretation," 222–23 identifies her with Mother Zion. The first two views have overwhelmingly greater support, though the majority of scholars are in favour of the first, in the context of concern for the future of the dynasty. Höffken, “Notizen zum Textcharacter,” 326–28, sees it as a dynastic oracle. Williamson, Variations on a Theme, 109, stresses that it need not be a biological heir of David, especially in its reinterpretation. Auret, “Yahweh – the post-exilic Immanuel,” 67–84, likewise argues that in post-exilic interpretation, Immanuel was applied to YHWH. Oswald, “Textwelt, Kontextbezug," 216–18, develops this further and suggests that the עלמה does not refer to any particular person, but is a metaphor. The עלמה is a woman who has not yet given birth, and for whom consequently labour is most difficult. Thus the sign would indicate both the extremity of the present crisis and deliverance from it, corresponding to the parallel story in 37:3. This is in line with Oswald's minimalist position that the text is a fifth century composition whose context is the struggle of the Yehud community with its northern rivals. A contrary position is represented by Irsigler, “Zeichen und Bezeichnetes,” 107, who argues that the identity of the child is insignificant, since the burden of the sign is directed at Ahaz. See also Vermeylen, Du Prophète Isaïe, 220. Adamthwaite, “Isaiah 7:16,” 82–83, from an overtly Christian perspective, thinks that Isaiah's vision collapses several eras into one and uncritically identifies Immanuel with Jesus. Apologetic readings bedevil the entire discussion.

29. O'Kane, “Isaiah,” has noted detailed parallels between Iaaiah and Moses, though he does not mention this passage. The confrontation between Moses and Pharaoh is the prototype for all subsequent encounters between prophets and monarchs. See also Nielsen, “Dramatic Writing," 12–13.

30. For this reason, Liss thinks that the sign is ambivalent, and open-ended. However, most critics regard “the king of Assyria” as a clarifying gloss, because it is asyndetically tagged on to the previous sentence. Dohmen, “Das Immanuelzeichen," 48, indeed, attributes the whole of v. 17 to a later, historicizing stratum. In any case, “the king of Assyria” provides a fitting climax to the section, a structural antithesis to Immanuel, and has linkages both with vv. 18–20 and 5:24–30. Hubmann, “Randbermerkungen zu Jes 7,1–17,” uniquely thinks that the reference in v. 17 is to the departure of the Ephraimites at the end of the Syro-Ephraimite War and the imminent threat of Assyria.

31. Nearly all scholars consider v. 15 to be secondary, resulting from a combination of vv. 16 and 22, because it interrupts the connection between vv. 14 and 16, and because it is anachronistic cf. Beuken, Jesaja 1–12, 203; Wagner, Gottes Herrschaft, 266–69. It adds a Messianic significance that was not originally present in the text. For a strong counter-argument, however, see Werlitz, Studien zur literarkritischen Methode, 182–86, from a post-exilic perspective. Benzi, Il libro d'Emmanuele, 123, shows that 7:15–16 is structurally parallel to vv. 5–6. Clearly, the discussion is inseparable from more general theoretical considerations and presuppositions concerning the meaning of the passage, e.g. the priority of the “original” meaning. Synchronically-inclined readers, such as Bartelmus, “Das Stilprinzip des Kontrastes,” 62, and Liss, Die Unerhörhte Prophetie, 85, tend to defend the integrity of the text, for instance by arguing that the “curds and honey” evoke siege conditions. Contrariwise, Stamm, “La Prophetie d'Emmanuel,” 20–21, suggests that it evokes “bucolic and idyllic” conditions immediately following the lifting of a siege, when citizens could avail themselves of country foods.

32. For the final sense, see Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 286; Beuken, Jesaja 1–12, 186; Barthel, Prophetenwort und Geschichte, 179; and Irsigler, “Zeichen und Bezeichnetes,” 82, n. 27. Werlitz, Studien zur literarkritischen Methode, 184–85, argues for the temporal one. The former is grammatically better founded.

33. The only scholar I know who connects our story with Gen 2–3 is Görg, “Hiskija als Immanuel,” 122–23, who thinks that Isaiah supported Hezekiah's opposition to the serpent or seraph cult, and thus attributed to him the epithet Immanuel. See also Görg, “Das Wort zur Schlange,” 133–39.

34. Many commentators note the correspondence, in particular with Gen 16:11, cf. Barthel, Prophetenwort und Geschichte, 141–42; Bartelmus, “Das Stilprinzip des Kontrastes,” 59–60; Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 307–08. Laato, Isaiah's Messianic Expectation, 130, also adduces the Ugaritic texts, Nikkal and the Kotharot and Keret, in which a woman is described as ´gmlt. The connection was first made by Gaster, “The ‘Graces,’” 50, who thought Isaiah 7:14 was a quotation of Nikkal and the Kotharot, and has frequently been discussed since, e.g. by Vawter, “Ugaritic use of ǵlmt;” Gordon, “Almah in Isaiah 7:14;” and Wolf “A Solution,” 450. Görg, “Hiskija als Immanuel,” 118–23, argues that it is a royal birth oracle, similar to and influenced by Pharaonic ones, in which the proclamation of new king's divine conception served to legitimate his accession

35. The reference is noted by most scholars, though in general they see the diet as a sign of devastation of agricultural land in the wake of the invasion rather than of abundance cf. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 155, 162. For a contrary view, see Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12, 160–61 and Laato, Isaiah's Messianic Expectation, 134. Sommer, “Is It Good?” 324–25, thinks that it is ambiguous. See also Collins, “The Sign of Immanuel," 232–34.

36. For the pastoral vision in Isaiah, see Blenkinsopp, “Cityscape to Landscape.”

37. Benzi, Il libro d'Emmanuele, 125. One may add, in view of 6:9–10, that the sign may be deceptive (Bartelmus, “Das Stilprinzip des Kontrastes,” 65, n. 56; Höffken, “Grundfragen von Jesaja 7,1–17,” 40). It would then articulate a note of false confidence.

38. Clearly, “glaze over,” is the primary meaning, since it refers to the lifting of the prophetic blocking of vision in 6:10, and parallels “and the ears of the hearers shall listen.”

39. However, Irwin, Isaiah 28–33, 120, followed by Williamson, Variations on a Theme, 62–66, and Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 481, think that the sentence is conditional: “if (הן) a king rules righteously, the officials govern justly.” Williamson suggests that it is a proverb, either invented by Isaiah or used by him. Others translate as “when” (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 428; Childs, Isaiah, 234, 239), or “behold!” (Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 234, 236), and see in it the prediction of a royal paragon. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 416, thinks it celebrates the reign of Josiah.

40. The connections between chapter 35 and chapters 40–66 have long been recognized, and many scholars regard it as belonging to the second half of the book (e.g. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture; Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 47, who sees it as part of the prologue to 34–66). Clements, “Isaiah 114,” proposes that it was composed as a summarizing conclusion to chapters 5–35, corresponding to chapter 60, drawing together motifs from all over the book.

41. Miller, “Stories About Pictures.”