Search

This article argues that Isaiah's so-called ‘refrain poem’ ( Kehrvergedicht) in Isa. 9.7–20 is a composite text, going back to two early prophecies with different concerns. Isaiah 9.7–17* focused originally on the arrogant refusal of the divine word, while Isa. 9.18–20* reflected on the chaotic social circumstances in Samaria in the eighth century. The refrains in vv. 9,1 11cd, 16ef and 20cd were added to these two already connected prophecies at a later stage. The theological summary in v. 12 is yet another addition, closely affiliated with 5.24–25. Unlike v. 12, the refrains do not have the repentance of Israel in view, nor its final destruction, but the fall of Assyria in Isa. 10.5–15, 24–27. The refrains support the theory that the Isaianic collection was formed by means of reusing, restructuring and reinterpreting earlier material.

Al Wolters recently suggested that Zech. 1.11c, ‘all the earth is at rest and quiet’, alludes to Isa. 14.7. His interpretation, however, does not fit well with the context of Zechariah's vision and does not take into account canonical Zechariah's method of allusion. This article offers a reinterpretation of the allusion proposed by Wolters in light of these two things. Further, it seeks to establish two additional Jeremian texts to which Zechariah alludes, both of which fit the allusive mold cast by Zechariah's use of Isaiah.

The Deuteronomistic school/movement has left its traces in several biblical books. The Deuteronomistic History from Deuteronomy to Second Kings is not the only representative of Deuteronomistic (Dtr) theology—Dtr phraseology also occurs repeatedly in the book of Psalms. The most significant examples are Psalms 18, 25, 44, 50, 74, 78, 79, 81, 89 and 132. The Dtr influence originated differently in these psalms. In some cases editors inserted passages with Dtr colour into an earlier prayer, but in some other cases the original author of the psalm had employed Dtr language. It seems likely that Deuteronomism represented a kind of normative theology in the Second Temple period. However, this heritage was open for reinterpretation. Psalm 44, at least, protests against the Dtr way of thinking.

This article argues that Hebrew ‭יצ‬ is not an Egyptian loanword for ‘ship’ but a verbal noun with the base meaning ‘coming forth’, hence ‘(military) expedition’ or the like. This new understanding requires reinterpretation of two important passages in which this word appears, namely, Num. 24.23-24 and Isa. 33.21-22. It is suggested that Num. 24.23-24 is a reference to the fall of Assyria to the Chaldeans, which both gives the passage geographical sense and marks it as a late addition to the original text. Isaiah 33.21-22 is a miniature hymn in which, it is argued, Yahweh is described as an inaccessible place of rivers and streams, a rather odd metaphor, but one expressing the concept of transcendent godhead in its original formulation.

This article written from a Bible's translator's perspective takes issue with the way in which the use and translation of certain ethnic terms in the Hebrew Bible con tinues to distort the understanding of ancient pre-monarchic Israelite society. The dominance of models drawing from western-European systems is no doubt a con tributory factor. What kind of social entity is suggested by these terms? What in fact was the social character of ancient pre-monarchic Israelite society? The paper focuses attention on the problem of 'tribal identity' in pre-monarchic Israelite soci ety. A review of the complex process of 'retribalization' in the African context is taken as a basis for reflecting on the Israelite case. It is suggested that social pro cesses in some contemporary peasant societies offer useful insights for understand ing ancient societies. In conclusion a reinterpretation of ancient Israelite kinship terms as used in the Hebrew Bible is attempted.

The LXX rendering of Nah. 2.2 (esp. v. 2a) differs dramatically from the MT, and this paper first examines the meaning of this rendering, and its possible referent(s), before considering the factors that may have led to its adoption by the translator. It is argued that dominant among these was the translator's understanding that Judah (and not the oppressive enemy power) was being addressed in this verse, which led him to a particular 'reinterpretation' of his Hebrew Vorlage. The argument is related to a brief discussion of some questions of method in LXX interpretation.

In a re-examination of Exodus 3 and 6, the author proposes to interpret these texts from the perspective of three contexts. Our historical context extends from approximately 450 BCE at the very earliest to 150 BCE at the very latest. The intellectual context involves a reinterpretation of traditional beliefs of ancient Palestine from a Late Persian/Early Hellenistic perspective that understands the truly divine as both universal and transcendent: an 'inclusive' monotheistic perception, a perception that is not at all antagonistic to polytheism but rather one that offers a new under standing and translation of it. The biblical tradition of Exodus 3-7 does not reject Palestine's polytheistic past, but transforms it by reinterpreting it. Indeed, this reinter pretation is most explicit in the theophanies of Exodus 3 and 6, in which the traditional South Levantine deity yhwh is identified as the name of the truly divine, the means by which the heavenly divine is present ( 'ehyeh 'immāk ) to those who identify themselves as 'Israelite'. Comparable Old Testament texts, reflecting such an 'inclusive monotheism'—such as Job, Qoheleth, Jonah and many others that are committed to the virtues of philosophy—provide us with an immediate literary context for Exodus.