Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

The Origins of Isaiah 24–27: Josiah’s Festival Scroll for the Fall of Assyria

2020; Eisenbrauns; Volume: 30; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.5325/bullbiblrese.30.3.0447

2576-0998

Daniel Hodges,

Archaeology and Historical Studies

Christopher Hays propounds a bold new thesis that Isa 24–27 originated in the period of Josiah, specifically, that the author wrote to reflect on the withdrawal of Assyria from Judah and to reconcile the remnant of the Northern Kingdom (p. 1). The book proceeds with an introduction, followed by seven chapters, a conclusion, and three appendixes.Hays begins by stating his thesis and expositing the corpus by pericopes. A foundational claim is that “early compilations of biblical prophetic books can be assigned to specific moments” (p. 3). He also notes a few key proposals for the date of Isa 24–27 and that critiques of a Josianic edition of Isaiah have not dealt with this text. Such an edition is at least possible. The introduction ends with his translation.Hays’s initial four chapters posit the original Sitz im Leben of key themes and texts. The first argues from ANE literature that the “eschatological” language in Isa 24–27 need not be so, nor is it (proto-)apocalyptic. He appeals to texts such as Amos, the Prophecy of Neferti, the Potter’s Oracle, and Zephaniah, which are demonstrably not apocalyptic or eschatological. He finds corroborating evidence in Isa 24:15–16, where destruction occurs “among the nations,” that is, within history, not a feature of eschatological literature. He ends by explaining the absence of Josiah in the text by redaction after Josiah’s untimely and disillusioning death.The second chapter designates the feast in ch. 25 as an invitation to the northern remnant. Hays notes that myths bolstered kings’ reigns despite rarely mentioning them explicitly (cf. Baʿal’s banquet in KTU 1.4). Further, victories portrayed in Neo-Assyrian texts display concursus of the gods and the king. As such, references to Yhwh’s kingship (cf. Isa 24:23) do not prove lateness.The third chapter deals with revivification of the dead in Isa 26:19, arguing that it promised national deliverance in the preexilic period. Hays appeals the divine epithet muballiṭ mīti (“he who gives the dead life”) and the theophoric name bʿlḥyww (“Baʿal gives life”), which appear in ANE texts before the exile (cf. Amos 9:1–2; Ps 139:7; Deut 32:39; Prov 15:11, 2 Kgs 4:32–37; 5:7). Then he notes metaphorical revivification in Hittite treaties, the Amarna Letters, and numerous Iron Age II exemplars. He ends with a discussion of Hos 6:1–3, Isa 25:6–8, 26:11–21, and Ezek 37:1–14, concluding that Ezek 37 is the latest of the three.Chapter four posits that the enigmatic “city of chaos” was Ramat Raḥel, biblical Beth Hakkerem. The rest of the chapter reviews the archeology of the site, concluding that the end of Building Phase I coincided with the Assyrian withdrawal in the late seventh century. Mention of Ramat Raḥel was expunged by later Deuteronomistic editorial activity.Chapter five defends that Josiah had ambitions to incorporate the former Northern Kingdom. Hays appeals to 2 Kgs 23–24; Zeph 2:4–15; 3:12–13; Jer 30–31; and 3:12–4:2. The key is identification of Deuteronomic vocabulary and ideas and the irenic attitude toward the North in the seventh century. Two further pieces bolster his claim: incorporation of Northern traditions (e.g., the Elijah and Elisha narratives) and Israeliean Hebrew in Isa 24–27.In the sixth chapter, Hays navigates the field of linguistic dating. He concludes that Isa 24–27 have nearly no indexes of Late Biblical Hebrew. He discerns only four plausibly late lexical and grammatical features. Building on the charts compiled by Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd, Hays notes that Isa 24–27 contains the same concentration of late features as Amos, which supports an early date.Chapter seven is an intertextual analysis of texts typically thought to connect with Isa 24–27. Hays begins with a warning about assuming direction of dependence. He allows that the author has used earlier prophecies in Hosea, Amos, Nahum, and proto-Isaiah, as well as the contemporary Zeph 1:2–2:3 and Jer 23:23 and 31:3 (not 48:43–44a!). Supposed allusions to the primeval history and Psalms are thematic connections that do not demonstrate dependence. Hays concludes that Isa 24–27 demonstrate the phenomenon of scribal prophecy, thought to have begun in the seventh century. An analogy is increased textual authority evidenced by Deuteronomistic editing.The concluding chapter is a creative endeavor to present a historical nonfiction account of a scribe’s experience in Josiah’s time composing the text. Hays includes three appendixes. The first is a review of the data and debates concerning seal impressions at Ramat Raḥel. The second is the raw data from Hays’s density-based linguistic dating. The third is a brief argument for the inauthenticity of the Moab Pericope (25:10b–12).One is impressed by Hays’s command of secondary literature, especially related to the Deuteronomistic history and Josiah’s reforms, literary criticism of the prophets, and archeology of Ramat Raḥel. His use of ANE texts is judicious and helpful, and his argument for a preexilic date is plausible, perhaps inductively strong.The most significant weakness is that Hays’s thesis is unfalsifiable. He musters no positive evidence for a Josianic date, only observations that permit a preexilic one with ad hoc suggestions appended. He makes much of the “original” referent but fails to provide an urtext or parameters for recovering it. Rather, he employs the canonical text. His rejection of eschatology (e.g., pp. 81–85) is confusing, because he admits that the text “came to appear apocalyptic” through redaction (pp. 47, 49–50). Yet its eschatological outlook itself suggests a(n) (post)exilic date to critics. Again, the problem of falsification resurfaces. Second, Hays’s translation contains numerous idiosyncrasies (e.g., קריה as “citadel”; refusal to take תבל universally). For such a bold claim, one expects a well-defended translation. While creative and interesting, few scholars will find Hays’s argument convincing.