Posts
1. Randall Heskett, Messianism Within the Scriptural Scrolls of Isaiah, pages 101-103:
“Scholars, who have been puzzled by how [Isaiah] 9:1-6 can be messianic, often overlook how the later editing in ch. 8 seems to invite messianic interpretation. Williamson comments that this passage is not ‘particularly suitable to a post-exilic date’ but completely overlooks the later import of this level of editing. Some explain messianism in 9:1-6 by alleging that these verses originally were post-exilic. More recent scholarship acknowledges that 9:1-6 could function form-critically as a hymn of thanksgiving or a royal enthronement hymn either to Hezekiah or Josiah, and might not be originally messianic. Granted that 9:1-6 originally might derive from a royal accession or thanksgiving oracle to either Hezekiah or Josiah, we can still ask: How did these verses gain messianic import? Wegner moves in the right direction by arguing that the text has been editorially reinterpreted as messianic. On the basis of our prerequisite that messianism must have arisen during the post-exilic period, we must question his proposal for a 722 or 701 ‘rereading.’ It makes better sense that post-exilic editors reinterpreted this royal accession oracle with imagery that belongs to this later time (light cast on the darkness of exile, torah interpreted as Mosaic Torah, and the ‘former things’ reinterpreted in the time of Cyrus.”
This is a big theme in Randall’s book: non-Messianic oracles were reinterpreted as Messianic in the post-exilic period, as post-exilic editors inserted stuff into Isaiah to give them a Messianic context. I’ve often assumed that First Isaiah believed that eschatological restoration would occur in his time period, when the Assyrians were a major power; I didn’t think that later post-exilic editors inserted that stuff about eschatological restoration. But I’m open-minded on this. I’d like for the Book of Isaiah to be about more than hopes that did not come to pass. But later editors reinterpreting older oracles seems, well, rather contrived to me.
2. In my reading today, Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah, Jacob Neusner talked about the issue of intentionality in the purity system. There was a passage that highlighted the topic quite well, but I can’t find it. But it reminded me of something I’ve heard among people recovering from alcoholism: a person doesn’t officially “relapse” if she drank alcohol accidentally—if she drank something that she didn’t know had alcohol. She doesn’t have to get a new sobriety date! But, in such a case, some may think that they relapsed, wonder “Why bother?”, and proceed to go on a drinking binge. In any case, intention is key to determining if there is officially a relapse. And it’s key to determining if an Israelite has become impure.
3. I’m continuing my way through Avi Hurvitz’s A Linguistic Study of the Relationship Between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel. Essentially, Hurvitz is contending that there’s a chronology of the Hebrew language: early Hebrew is one way, later biblical Hebrew is another way, and Mishnaic Hebrew is a certain way. Hurvitz’s argument is that Ezekiel dates after P, since Ezekiel uses aspects of later Hebrew, which are absent in P. In what I read today, Hurvitz argued that meruvim verbs occur in later Hebrew, and he showed that later biblical books, such as Chronicles, used certain words in the plural—words that earlier biblical writings used in the singular.
4. I started Jean-Louis Ska’s Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch. In my reading today, Ska surveyed different scholarly ideas about what unit the Pentateuch was a part of. Gerhard Von Rad believed in a Hexateuch, which encompassed Genesis-Joshua. His reason was that the promise of the land is a major feature of the Pentateuch, so why would we have a collection of books that ended with that promise going unfulfilled? Consequently, Von Rad concluded that the unit went through Joshua, which narrates the Israelites’ conquest and reception of the Promised Land.
Martin Noth believed there was a Tetrateuch consisting of Genesis-Numbers, and that Deuteronomy was added to that to create a Pentateuch. His reasons were that we see no traces of Deuteronomy in Genesis-Numbers, nor do we see references to Genesis-Numbers in Joshua. For Noth, that would be odd, if Genesis-Joshua were one unit. Noth also notes that Deuteronomy repeats what readers have already learned from Numbers. Noth wondered why Deuteronomy would do that, if it was continuing Numbers.
Then there are scholars who believe in an Enneateuch, a unit that encompasses Genesis-II Kings. They believe there was one big book of Israel’s history, which went from creation, through the patriarchs, all the way to exile. Believers in this view interpret Adam and Eve’s expulsion from Eden in light of the exile, and they believe there’s a similarity between Exodus 1:6, 8 (the Pharaoh who did not know Joseph) and Judges 2:8, 10 (the generation of Israelites who did not know God).
As far as Ska’s view goes, Ska seems to endorse the notion that the unit is a Pentateuch, period. He says it’s a life of Moses “from his birth in Exodus 2 to his death in Deuteronomy 34″ (14). But the unit gives background information—creation, the “origin of Israel as a people”—because the Pentateuch is about Moses’ life “in the service of YHWH and of the people.”
But Joshua does appear to continue the Pentateuch. Moses has died, and a new guy, Joshua, takes his place. Don’t we need the Pentateuch to know who Joshua is? And we see the Conquest of the land, which is the fulfillment of the promises in the Pentateuch. And yet, even part of the Book of Joshua acknowledges that the promise wasn’t completely fulfilled, for Israel didn’t take all of the land of Canaan. The story is not yet over, and so we need David’s battles for the promise to be fulfilled.
I guess that, right now, I lean towards the Enneateuch view, which I just learned about.
