Erich Bosshard-Nepustil. Die Stadt in Jesaja 24–27

In this recent study, Erich Bosshard-Nepustil tries his hand at identifying the unnamed city in Isa 24–27, applying methodology and theses from prior publications. For him, identification requires two insights: (1) recognition of a redactional stage in Isaiah that thematized world judgment (Weltgerichts-Fortschreibungsphase) and (2) a reception history of Gen 1–19, especially the Flood Narrative and destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. These insights suggest a Hellenistic date and an identification of Moab with the Nabateans in the fourth or third centuries BC.Bosshard-Nepustil proceeds in seven chapters. The first reviews exegetical debates. Most importantly, he considers the Moab Pericope (25:10b–12) an integral part of the corpus and Moab in some way related to the city, though specific identification of the city is impossible. The second chapter elucidates the literary context of Isa24–27, arguing that the texts in which the city appears (Stadtabschnitte) share a content profile, especially a contrast with Jerusalem. Using “on that day” (אוהה םויב) and futurum instans participles as guides, he discerns three time frames: present (26:7–19, 20), imminent future (24:1–25:12; 26:21), and distant future (26:1–6; 27:1; 27:2–13).The third chapter expands the context to the book of Isaiah. Based on correspondences with Isa 15–16 (cf. also 2 Kgs 3:20–23; Zeph 2:8–10; Jer 48), Bosshard-Nepustil concludes that the city is construed by analogy with Moab, is an accumulation of cities from the Oracles against the Nations, and transfers judgment against Israel a la Sodom and Gomorrah to the city. These features are shared in the redactional layer, which consists of 13:5–13 (perhaps also 14:[20b], 21); 34:2–4; 11:11–16; 35; 62:10–12; 20:20–23; 51:1–8, 9–11 (?); 54:2–3, 9–10, and was one of the final redactions, succeeded only by 56–59, 63–66, and 12. Chapter 4 suggests use of Gen 1–19 in the description of Moab’s (Isa 25) and Edom’s (Isa 34) destruction, which provides the “missing link” between Moab and the world city. Further, Abraham and Noah represent the people of God under threat within the land and the Diaspora community, respectively. Chapter 5 links the themes of (New) Exodus and destruction of Moab/Edom (Num 24; Jer 48). Chapter 6 suggests that either Isaiah 24–27—or the redactional layer—complete the reception history of these themes. References to Sodom and Gomorrah in universal judgment (Zeph 2:4–10), critique of pride and sexual deviance (Ezek 16:44–58), and contrast between Sodom and Gomorrah and Jebus/Jerusalem (Judg 19) appear in isolation but are found in combination only in Isa 24–27 and postbiblical literature.The seventh chapter places the redactional layer between the end of the fourth and third centuries BC. Bosshard-Nepustil finds references to Alexander in an inclusio of 14:21 and 23:1–12, 14, which sets the terminus post quem. The rhetoric against Babylon in chapter 13 perhaps refers to its overthrow by Seleucus I (312/11 BC), while the critique of sexual deviance and indulgence in wine may critique Greek culture. Further, “the West” in 24:14 might refer to the special position of the Ptolemies in Egypt, whereas references to the Northern Kingdom connect to the Samaritan Diaspora. The future rescue of Jerusalem could reflect thoughts during the conquest of that city by Ptolemy I (between 320 and 301 BC), under whom Judah and Samaria were once more in the same administrative district (impetus for chapter 27?). Then he argues that the unnamed city represents the Hellenistic polis, all manifestations of which would receive the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah. Moab’s mention in chapter 25 refers to the impending fate the Nabateans, who, like Moab and Edom, resisted Yhwh’s instrument of judgment and were thus to be destroyed.Bosshard-Nepustil’s tracing of themes and reception is a significant contribution. His creative synthesis of thematic development is commendable and stimulating. Others have noticed affinities with Gen 1–19 (e.g., Seitz, Hibbard), but no one has so thoroughly examined the exegetical potential of Sodom and Gomorrah and the application of their judgment in Isaianic reception. Integration of Moab’s damnation via Sodom and Gomorrah related to the city is certainly a positive step. Several critiques must also be leveled. Despite his stringent defense of the Moab Pericope (a disputed text), Bosshard-Nepustil dismisses 25:6–8 as a later insertion due to its perceived conflict with 26:14, 19 and the positive future of the nations. This decision seems unnecessary even within his own parameters. His temporal framing is understandable but ignores the weqatal framing of the corpus as well as the potential rhetorical depiction of time. His method is in line with ongoing discussions in anglophonic and continental scholarship, but many scholars do not assume his precise redactional framework, date, or available intertexts (e.g., Polaski explicitly denies that the Flood Narrative in written form was available). Further, the historical linkage is subject the same critique leveled against others (e.g., Polaski, Hays): the corpus is too historically opaque for this kind of reconstruction to be verified. The conditions in 27:7–11, for example, are so generic that they could be applied to any period of destruction/suffering starting with the eighth century. And what makes the polis a stronger candidate than urban life in the late monarchic period, Ramat Raḥel in the seventh century, or the social conditions in the Persian period? Finally, the dating of the redactional layer seems too late. If the expansion were finished and widespread by the mid-third century with at least one further redaction to come, is it reasonable that the Urtext behind both 1QIsaa (mid-second century) and Old Greek Isaiah (likely second century in Alexandria) could be finished and dispersed in sufficient time to be their Vorlage? And, of course, such redactional proposals must always be evaluated considering one’s bibliology.Critiques notwithstanding, scholars researching Isa 24–27 ought to read Bosshard-Nepustil’s study and consider his synthesis concerning Moab as should all who are interested in understanding redaction-critical approaches as undertaken by one of their best proponents

Analogy · Archaeology · Art · Linguistics · Literature · Narrative · Theology · Archaeology and Historical Studies · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · Classics · Historical and Linguistic Studies · History · Philosophy