[/SOI 77 (1998) 55-73]

REFLECTIONS ON A MOSAIC COVENANT: THE ETERNAL COVENANT (ISAIAH 24.5) AND INTERTEXTUALITY*

Donald C. Polaski

1313 Brookland Parkway, Richmond, VA 23227, USA

Two assumptions have grounded much of the study of so-called 'late prophecy' or 'proto-apocalyptic literature' in this century. First, late prophecy is taken to be a socially marginal phenomenon, located in 'outsider' groups excluded from the centers of power in society. This assumption is grounded in sociological theories of deprivation which hold that millennial thought derives from groups which are, or con­sider themselves to be, deprived.1 Thus, as some prophetic circles in the post-exilic period lost power in society, they developed an apoca­lyptic mind-set, reflected in their literary remains.2 This analysis, however, leaves the disturbing question of how these texts from 'mar­ginal' groups became authoritative for those in the 'center'. It is also difficult to understand why late prophecy (if marginal) cites other texts, even those of the 'center', often in affirming ways.

The second assumption about late prophecy involves just this point: late prophecy drew power from reliance on older, authoritative texts. David Petersen, for example, characterizes what he calls 'deutero-prophetic' literature as 'dependent and/or composite to the degree to which it alludes to or interprets earlier prophetic (and other

* An earlier version of this paper was read at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting (Israelite Prophetic Literature Section), Philadelphia, in November 1995. Thanks to Sandra Hack Polaski and Jeff Rogers for their assistance.

1. For a fine introduction to this sociological work, especially as it touches upon the reading of proto-apocalyptic literature, see Cook (1995b: 1-18).

2. This view is seen especially in Plöger (1968) and Hanson (1983). See Cook (1995b: 9-11) for other examples.

56 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 77 (1998)

authoritative) words, motifs, or traditions' (1977: 14).3However, Petersen does not discuss the supposed authority of previous prophetic material. That authority is simply assumed; what appears to be the earlier 'text' is 'cited' by the deutero-prophet as 'authoritative'.4

Michael Fishbane assumes a similar state of affairs in his analysis of 'inner-biblical exegesis', yet with a more nuanced view of textual authority. Inner-biblical exegesis begins, in Fishbane's view, with a received Scripture (traditum) presumed to be authoritative. Yet that authority is maintained by a process of continual interpretation and reapplication to changed circumstances (traditio):

In different ways, then, the older traditum is dependent upon the traditio for its ongoing life. This matter is paradoxical, for while the traditio cul­turally revitalizes the traditum, and gives new strength to the original reve­lation, it also potentially undermines it (1985: 15).

Despite this view, which could point to traditio as securing a tradi­tion's or text's power in society, Fishbane generally understands tra­ditio as confirming a text's already recognized status. This is clear in his discussion of late prophecy, especially Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah:

[EJnough evidence has been assembled to indicate that a learned preoccu­pation with older prophetic language is characteristic of late biblical prophecy, which saw itself in the shadow of the great exilic prophets, especially Isaiah (1985:498).

Both Fishbane and Petersen assume that late prophecy is essentially epigonal—the post-exilic prophets lived happily in the penumbra cast by older, authoritative prophets. Fishbane's approach, however, points to the instability of such authority: if a text is to stay authoritative, its authority must be continually worked out in new circumstances. Although Fishbane refuses to do so, his analysis of traditio may be extended to cover the development of a text's authority.5 The late

3. For other expressions of this common assumption, see Day (1988: 43-51), Meyers (1995: 720-23) and Blenkinsopp (1977: 128-29; 1996: 227-39).

4. Petersen seems to be making a value judgment similar to that of many New Testament scholars on the deutero-Pauline literature: it is secondary and derivative, standing at a distance from the inspired source.

5. For Fishbane, the development of a text's authority is relegated to oral stages of traditio and thus precedes his project of inner-biblical exegesis:

The authority of these traditions is singularly assured by the very process of their transmission and final stabilization. Inner-biblical exegesis, on the other hand, takes the stabilized literary formulation as its basis and point of departure (1985: 7).

POLASKI Reflections on a Mosaic Covenant 57

prophetic 'epigones* may not be citing texts in order to defend or reflect those texts' putative authority, but could be building or nego­tiating the social power of those precursor texts (and their own inter­pretations of them) through citation and allusion.

Isaiah 24-27, the so-called 'Isaiah Apocalypse9, is a post-exilic text (or group of texts) generally held as an example of 'late prophecy' or 'proto-apocalyptic'.6 Isaiah 24-27 has been read under the assump­tions detailed above: it reflects the experiences of a marginal social group and depends upon earlier prophetic texts.7 In particular, debate about the appropriate referent for the eternal covenant (Ώ^ν ΓΓΊ3) in Isa. 24.5 serves as an example of how these assumptions have come into play.

Dan Johnson (1988: 27-29) asserts that the EhlO ΓΓΏ refers to the covenant which claimed to originate with Moses.8 For Johnson, the ρπ (statute) and ΠΊ1Π (laws), violated in 24.5, always appear in reference to the covenant people (1988: 27). In addition, while m m is never applied to the Mosaic covenant in the Hebrew Bible, the two are at least associated in Judg. 2.1, Ps. 111.5, 9 and Exod. 31.16.9 Johnson's strongest arguments oppose the identification of the 0*7)2 ΓΓΉ as the Noachic covenant. The Noachic covenant is never used to judge humanity while, unlike the D IP ΓΡΊ3 in Isa. 24.5, it could not be broken.

Note also that in his discussion of 'Torah and Tradition', Fishbane establishes the

authority of the Torah as an α priori assumption which grounds his whole analysis

(1977: 275-76).

6. See Johnson (1988: 11-14) for a presentation of a variety of views concern­

ing the date of the Apocalypse. Many earlier commentators, relying on the passage's

'apocalyptic' nature, asserted extremely late dates. The recent trend in scholarship

has been to date these chapters much earlier. As Cook (1995b: 212-13) notes, other

proto-apocalyptic texts date from the exilic and early post-exilic periods. Following

Wildberger (1978: 911) and Sweeney (1996: 316-20), I believe the Apocalypse fits

most readily in the period fairly soon after the establishment of the Second Temple,

probably in the first half of the fifth century BCE.

7. For Isa. 24-27 as the product of a marginal social group see Albertz (1994:

570-75); for its assumed dependence on earlier texts see Wildberger (1978:910-11).

8. This view is also espoused by March (1966: 29-32). See also Kissane (1941 :

279-80) and Ludwig (1961: 108-109).

9. Johnson (1988:27 n. 55) also believes that the author of 24.5 has echoed the

words of Isa. 33.8, which he takes as a reference to the Mosaic covenant. In this,

Johnson is following the views of Kissane (1941: 363).

58 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 77 (1998)

Despite this negative evidence, Christopher Seitz (1993: 179) claims that Isaiah 24 represents 'a return to the days of Noah'. The covenant with Noah is called a übw ΓΓΤ3 (Gen. 9.16); references in Isaiah to the earth being polluted echo the earth's corruption before the flood. Most telling, the cosmic scope of the 0*712 ΓΓΊΙ1 and its violation reflects the universal concern of the flood narrative instead of the national focus of the Mosaic covenant.

The above approaches attempt to prove that the eternal covenant in Isa. 24.5 has one particular referent, excluding all others.10 This ref­erent, once found, serves as a key to unlock Isa. 24.5 which was, according to these commentators, penned under the influence of one particular tradition or another.11 But is this the way these texts relate? Recent work in literary theory on 'intertextuality' leads the discussion of the 0*7)2 Π*Ί2 in a different and, I believe, profitable direction.

Intertextuality: The Mosaic of Texts and Cultures

Intertextuality, although a term of relatively recent origin in literary theory, has accumulated a bewildering variety of definitions and uses, serving as a 'covering term' which describes any possible relationship between texts (Miscall 1992: 44). Intertextuality is thus not so much a methodology as it is a theoretical term; or, rather, a theoretical term which may give birth to several different methodologies. Harold Bloom's Oedipal struggle between an author and his predecessors (1973), Julia Kristeva's semiotics (1980), Roland Barthes' focus on the reader (1974), Michael Riffaterre's path to assured meaning (1978), and the emphasis on the relation between texts and culture traceable to

10. Chisholm asserts that both the Noachic and Mosaic covenants are present in 24.5, based on 'Isaiah's penchant for irony' (1993: 247). While cleverly constructed ambiguity may lie at the root of the problem, Chisholm's argument assumes both that Isaiah possessed Gen. 9 in completed form, and that his audience divided Gen. 9 into sections of 'promise' and 'mandate'. The end result is, thus, not persuasive.

11. Wildberger notes that the claims that Ρ was known and used in 24.5 are common, even though problematic: 'Es ist immer wieder erklärt worden, daß Teile der Apokalypse auch schon Ρ vorauszusetzen scheinen: 24.5 spricht davon, daß die Völker eine rbw m a gebrochen haben... Das bedeutet jedoch nicht, daß diese Stellen jünger sein müssen als die wohl erst kurz nach 400 promulgierte Priester­schrift, da deren Entstehung und öffentliche Inkraftsetzung nicht zusammenfallen und manche Stoffe von Ρ zweifellos eine lange Vorgeschichte haben... ' (1978: 910-Π )

POLASKI Reflections on a Mosaic Covenant 59

Michel Foucault (1972) all draw on some notion of intertextuality.12

What enables and allows any brand of intertextual reading is not the temporal diffusion of texts from sources, but the existence of all texts within a network of other texts. As Julia Kristeva, who coined the term 'intertextuality', has stated: "Any text is constructed as a mosaic of quotations; any text is the absorption and transformation of another* (1980: 66). However, the term 'text' here is not limited to something published or printed; intertextuality is not simply a cipher for citation. Intertextuality 'situates the text within history and society, which are then seen as texts read by the writer, and into which he inserts himself by rewriting them' (1980: 65). Intertextuality, so defined, takes a whole culture as its subject; texts are locations where the institutions, norms, conventions and other texts which make up a culture collide.

Such a wide open field for interpretation renders interpretation problematic. It is impossible to consider the relation of a text to all the other residents which inhabit intertextual space. Decisions must be made which limit the field, which select only a portion of the inter-textual web for analysis. In this case, I am limiting myself to texts which we may assume existed (in oral or written form) for the author of Isa. 24.5.13

Yet the author's relation to intertextual space is not what intrigues me. My focus will be upon how the connections with other texts relate to issues of power in society. This social understanding of intertextu­ality relies on the work of Michel Foucault. Foucault's analysis of modern Western society and its development resists summary.14 He

12. 'Intertextuality' also possesses several different definitions in current biblical scholarship. For examples of work in dialogue with intertextuality as it is variously conceived by literary theorists, see the contributions in Fewell (1992), Aichele and Phillips (eds.) (1995) as well as Carroll (1993) and Hays (1989).

13. It must be granted that much remains uncertain regarding precise dates for texts and their sequence of writing. In my view, an approach which does not focus on citation or quotation, but rather attempts to look at a large set of texts which make up a given culture within a general period of time, is recommended by this inevitable lack of precise knowledge. The focus of my examination will not be an author using prior texts, but how these texts, especially Isa. 24.5, may represent the culture of their period.

14. One obstacle to summarizing Foucault is that his viewpoints and interests shifted over time, often expressed as Foucault having an 'archaeological' phase addressing discourse, a 'genealogical' phase addressing power, and so on. Yet this

60 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 77 (1998)

inaugurates no new social theory or overarching historical methodol­ogy, but raises questions about how a discourse not only regulates what is said and determines what counts as true but also how it is itself regulated by forces external to it.15 The question 'why is this said and not something else?' is implicated in both the visible practices of a society or discipline and in their invisible rules of formation (Lemert and Gillan 1982: 39).

Accounting for intertextual relationships is accounting for these rules and practices. As literary theorists Jay Clayton and Eric Roth-stein claim, intertextual relations 'situate a work within existing net­works of power, simultaneously creating and disciplining the text's ability to signify' (1991: 27). For my purposes, Foucault raises the question of what 'rules of formation' were present in early Second Temple discourse which made possible the appearance of the ΓΡΊ3 d7\S in the Isaiah Apocalypse, and how such rules were implicated in power relations.16

Gathering the Fragments: Piecing Together a Mosaic Covenant

The phrase 'they have broken the eternal covenant' (Isa. 24.5) has rightly been called 'an oxymoron' (Johnson 1988: 28) and 'ein Unsinn' (Wildberger 1978: 922): one simply cannot break that which is eternal. In my view, this oxymoron may serve as a clue to the posi­tion of Isa. 24.5 within the intertextual web of early Second Temple Judaism's discourse. Instead of seeking a single covenant to which Isa. 24.5 refers, we will instead ask what the place of Isa. 24.5 is among the variety of covenants, eternal and otherwise, which were 'in play' during the time of the formation of the Isaiah Apocalypse. What does the presence of Isa. 24.5 do to the covenantal economy, so to speak?

periodization of Foucault is ultimately schematic, tending to play down the way these phases and concerns blur into each other. This project, while relying especially upon insights from The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language, also looks forward from those works to Foucault's later, more fully-formed analysis of power.

15. The best source for Foucault's thoughts on 'discourse* is his 1972 offering (1972:215-37 [Appendix: 'The Discourse on Language*]). A helpful introduction to the use of the term 'discourse' in post-modern thought can be found in Bove (1990). Foucault's relationship to biblical studies via history is ably discussed in The Bible and Culture Collective (1995:138-44).

16. On 'rules of formation*, see Foucault (1972: 31-39).

POLASKI Reflections on a Mosaic Covenant 61

Johnson, although claiming that Isa. 24.5 refers to the Mosaic covenant, does not attend significantly to the echoes of the 'other' Mosaic covenant, that found in Deuteronomy. There are striking simi­larities between what is taking place in Isaiah 24 and the covenant on the plains of Moab (Deut. 29-32). The term rfrtt in the sense of 'curse' is used in both passages: in Deut. 29.20, 21 it refers to curses trig­gered by covenant violation, while in Isa. 24.5-6 a curse devours the earth after the eternal covenant is broken (übw JV"Q Ή3Π). Deuteronomy 31.16 uses identical terminology 0ΣΤ"α~ηκ Ί3ΠΊ) to describe the apostasy of Israel after Moses' death.

More telling, the description of the state of the earth following the violation of the übw ΓΓΊ3 is strongly reminiscent of the results of the curses in Deuteronomy 28. In both texts, the land is made into a waste, suffering a drought, which, among other dire effects, cuts off the supply of wine. The inhabitants suffer through the end of society as they knew it—cities are destroyed, societal roles are confused, the population dwindles and people are scattered.

These parallels could be taken to support Johnson's thesis that Isa. 24.1-20 predicts the destruction of Jerusalem in 586. The Isaiah pas­sage is not universal in scope, focusing instead on purely national con­cerns. In short, the f ΊΚ at issue here is the land, not the earth (Johnson 1988: 25-26). But another set of echoes render this view problematic. The oracles against the nations in Isaiah 13-23 also pro­vide images which appear in Isaiah 24, raising further questions con­cerning that passage's cosmic scope:17

1. God's wrath against the whole land/earth, especially clear in 24.1, 3-6, appears in oracles against Babylon and Ethiopia (13.5, 9-13; 14.17, 26; 18.3-6).

2. The earth languishing, with accompanying human grief, as a result of YHWH's activity, is seen in oracles against Moab and Egypt (15.1-5, 8; 16.7; 19.8-10).

3. The destruction of vineyards and lack of wine is heavily emphasized in Isaiah 24, and finds parallels in oracles against Moab and Ethiopia (16.8-10; 18.4-6; cf. 24.4, 7, 9, 11).

4. The cessation of joyous singing (24.9) is found in oracles against the valley of vision and Tyre (22.2; 23.7, 12, 15-16).

17. These parallels are emphasized by Biddle (1995:7-8).

62 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 77 (1998)

Drunken staggering which comes from YHWH's blows occurs both in 24.20 and in the oracle against Egypt (Isa. 19.14). The destroyed, and variously identified, city of chaos lies desolate in 24.12, while Babylon, Damascus, Tyre, and unnamed cities of Israel are ruined in the oracles against the nations (13.19-22; 14.23; 17.1-3, 9; 23.13). The population is reduced to a remnant in 24.13, an almost exact verbal parallel for the fate of the glory of Jacob in 17.4-6.18In both cases, the people remaining will be like the olives left behind after harvest. Reduction of population is also the fate of Babylon, Moab, Damascus and Ethiopia (14.22, 30; 15.9; 16.14; 17.3; 18.5).19

Delbert Hillers notes similar imagery in treaty curses, which appear to have played a role in prophetic traditions.20 Yet, apart from this allusive treaty curse imagery, there is no covenantal language in the oracles against the nations in Isaiah 13-23. Isaiah 24.5-6 brings covenant violation explicitly into play as the cause of ills similar, if not identical, to those of the nations in Isaiah 13-23. In addition, the deployment of language from Deuteronomy brings the covenant in the land of Moab into the mix. We are presented with an intertextual col­lision point in which the boundaries of textual meaning are broken down. What emerges from this collision is a Deuteronomic covenant made cosmic and perpetually valid.21 The curses of the Deuteronomic

18. See Sweeney (1988: 42-43) for his reading of 24.13 as a citation of 17.6a. Wildberger holds that 24.13 could serve as fulfilment for 17.6: '24.13 will offenbar sagen, daß die Weissagung von 17.6 nun zur Erfüllung kommt' (1978:910).

19. Another almost exact verbal parallel to an oracle against a nation occurs in w . 17-18a. Jer. 48.43-44a uses the same imagery in an oracle against Moab. Although scholars have made many attempts, identification of who is citing whom has been elusive. At the very least, Isa. 24 is here using language elsewhere applicable to an individual nation in the context of cosmic catastrophe.

20. Hillers (1964) mentions several texts from the oracles against the nations in Isa. 13-23 as using treaty curse imagery. Hillers also uses Isa. 24.5-6 as an epilogue to his whole book (89).

21. This result is similar to that of Wildberger's Uminterpretation. Wildberger (1978:921) holds that the author has mixed Mosaic and Noachic covenants together, universalizing the Mosaic covenant. Sweeney (1988: 51) also points to the tendency of the Isaiah Apocalypse to 'universalize' other prophecies. The view expressed here agrees substantially with this conclusion but arrives at it and applies it differently. My

POLASKI Reflections on a Mosaic Covenant 63

covenant are now yoked to an eternal covenant, which, if broken, would result in a kind of damage which stands as a summation of the experience of all the surrounding nations.

Pieces of Legislation: Ρ and the Covenant Mosaic

What are the requirements of this tfrtt ΠΠ3? Johnson (1988: 28) assumes that if one reads the eternal covenant as Noachic, then human responsibility and human involvement are ruled out. Otto Kaiser (1974: 183), focusing on the pollution of the land (24.5), cites Num. 35.33, which presents the spilling of blood as the cause of the land's pollution. Thus the covenant in Isa. 24.5 is violated by pollution aris­ing from bloodshed.

Seitz also focuses on human violence, but follows a different path. He claims that the violent ways of the antediluvians are paralleled by the violent ways of the nations in Isaiah 13-23. Thus the nations have broken God's covenant: 'The world is not destroyed again by a forty-day flood, as God had promised, but rather by the centuries-long assaults of the nations' (1993: 182).

Both Kaiser and Seitz have attempted to make sense of the eternal covenant in Isa. 24.5 and its putative requirements by reference to other texts: Numbers 35 or Isaiah 13-23. But neither has looked at the term tìJW ΓΗΊ3 itself as a possible aid to determining the nature of its requirements. The appellation ub*M ΓΡΊ3 refers to several different covenants in addition to the Noachic covenant in the writings associ­ated with the Priestly source. If the eternal covenant in Isa. 24.5 tells us about the place of Deuteronomic covenant formulation in the dis­course of early Restoration Judaism, perhaps the intertextual connec­tions between Ρ and Isaiah 24 will lead to a fuller picture of priestly appropriation of covenant language in that time.

The eternal covenant appears in Ρ with at least three different senses. First, ühw ΠΠ2 is associated with sabbath observance in Exod. 31.16:

The Israelites shall keep the sabbath, observing the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant (rh\9 ΓΓΊ3). It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel...

concern is what such universalization does in the network of texts which make up early Restoration culture, not what it means for the redactional history of the book of Isaiah, as for Sweeney.

64 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 77 (1998)

Profaning the sabbath was to be punished by death; working on the sabbath was to be punished by being 4cut off from the people' (v. 14) or by death (v. 15). It is important to note here that the sabbath is an example of an eternal covenant that can, nevertheless, be broken. The requirement is perpetually valid; violating the requirement reinscribes the covenant by an act of punishment which excludes the offender from the community.

The same situation applies to circumcision, which is referred to as an eternal covenant in Genesis 17. Here the parallel to Isaiah 24 is most explicit; the male who is not circumcised will be excluded from the community because he has broken the eternal covenant:

So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant ÇdTiV JT~Q). Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant ΠΒΠ ·ΤΤη:ΓΠΚ) (Gen. 17.13b-14).

In addition, Genesis 17 strongly links circumcision with continued possession of the land: the übiV m a of v. 7 is paralleled by the ΠΤΠ« ti?iu (eternal possession) in v. 8. In fact, in Gen. 17.19, possession of the land seems to overwhelm circumcision as the 'content' of the eter­nal covenant: Isaac's bearing of the eternal covenant distinguishes him from Ishmael, although both are destined to bear the marks of circumcision.

Perhaps Isa. 24.5 is speaking of an Israelite departure from cir­cumcision and/or the sabbath as a potential reason for cosmic destruc­tion of life on the earth. But it is important to note a distinction between P's account of circumcision and sabbath and the account of the übw nnn in Isaiah 24. For P, the effects of breaking the eternal covenant were severe but were focused on the individual: the sabbath violator and the uncircumcised one are excluded from the community or killed.

In Isaiah 24, violation of the eternal covenant leads to the destruc­tion of the whole community, if not the whole cosmos. The inter­section of the eternal covenants of circumcision and sabbath with the language of treaty curse makes these covenants matters of vital com­munity concern, not simply an individual or family concern as von Rad claims regarding circumcision (1972: 201). Violation of circum­cision or sabbath traditions can now destroy the whole people.

A third use of übw m a in the Priestly writings focuses on the per­petuity of a variety of temple procedures. First, the arrangement of

POLASKI Reflections on a Mosaic Covenant 65

the shewbread and the incense in the tabernacle is claimed to be an eternal covenant (Lev. 24.8) paralleling the eternal statutes (0*7)2 πρπ) which mandated the lighting of the lamp (Lev. 24.3) and the priests' exclusive access to the shewbread (Lev. 24.9). Second, Num. 18.19 records that there is an eternal statute (tfTUrpn) that the priests are to receive certain portions of certain offerings. This statute is equated with a 'covenant of salt forever' (0*712 ΓΟΏ ima), whose perpetuity may refer to the requirement that all offerings be salted (Lev. 2.13).22

Third, a Priestly addition to Numbers 25 indicates that the line of Phineas is guaranteed the priesthood as an eternal covenant (ΓϋΠΏ m a 0*7)2) (v. 13), also styled as a covenant of peace (ΠΟΌ TTD) (v. 12).23

With these understandings of 0*7)2 m a , the breaking of the eternal covenant would mean the cessation of proper worship in the Temple, especially violations that altered established priestly procedures and prerogatives. Where Ρ is silent on penalties for such violations, Isaiah 24 marshals treaty curse language to supply the punishment. Priestly prerogatives must be kept or else there is a risk of recapitulating the exile, with its scattering of population and destruction, as well as instigating a cosmic destruction which would efface the lines in soci­ety, including that between priest and people (Isa. 24.2).24

Isaiah 24 may thus be read, not as an example of 'late prophecy', dependent on the presumed authority of D and P,25 but as an example

22. Levine (1993: 449) understands Num. 18.19 as a direct reference to Lev.

2.13, stating that the priestly entitlements in Num. 18 'have the same binding force

as the rule requiring the salting of sacrifices'. Milgrom (1990: 154) views salt as a

symbol of permanence, linking its use to the motifs of the covenant meal and treaty

curses.

23. The precise political significance of the covenant with Phineas remains unde­

cided. Cross (1973:201-203) links this text with a rejection of the Elide (or Mushite)

priesthood in favor of the Aaronides. Noth (1968: 195-99) understands the text to be

a legitimation of the line of Phineas in the high-priesthood, within an established

Aaronide succession. For the purposes of this project, solution of this problem is not

vital. The eternal covenant as used in Num. 25 buttresses certain (though not

definitively understood) prerogatives of a priestly group.

24. On cosmic destruction, see also the eternal covenant in Job 40.28.

25. For the view that late prophecy depends on D and P, see Meyers (1995: 721).

Meyers, discussing Malachi, sees evidence there of 'the increasing tendency to

depend on words and laws already transmitted*. For Meyers, 'intertextuality* is

equivalent to later texts* dependence on older texts (p. 722).

66 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 77 (1998)

of active negotiation with texts and/or their antecedent traditions26

which may serve to undergird those texts' authority. The Deutero­nomic covenant is read as an agreement with cosmic consequences, whose validity is perpetual, not exhausted by its fulfilment in the exile. The eternal covenants of the priestly writers now may be broken (as the priestly writers themselves claimed in some cases) but with far-reaching consequences. Ignoring the commands of priestly tradition is now to tempt a lapse into chaos.

Echoes Filling a Canyon: The 0*7$ Dna in Second Temple Discourse

What 'rules of formation' are in play in the appearance of the eternal covenant in the Isaiah Apocalypse? Why is it, and not something else, written? In this case, a parallel in Ezekiel is most helpful. In Ezek. 16.59-60, a covenant is broken and an eternal covenant established:

Yes, thus says the Lord God: I will deal with you as you have done, you

who have despised the oath, breaking the covenant (ΓΡΊ3 "TSnb); yet I will

remember my covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will

establish with you an everlasting covenant (0*712 m 3 ) .

In this passage, the covenant YHWH made with Israel in its youth has been broken, yet YHWH will make an eternal covenant with it, because he recalls the broken covenant. Israel, too, is to recall the broken covenant even as the eternal covenant is put into effect:

Then you will remember your ways, and be ashamed when I take your

sisters, both your elder and your younger, and give them to you as

daughters, but not on account of my covenant with you. I will establish

my covenant with you, and you shall know that I am the Lord, in order

that you may remember and be confounded, and never open your mouth

again because of your shame, when I forgive you all that you have done,

says the Lord God (Ezek. 16.61-63).

The discontinuity between the eternal covenant and the former covenant is clear: the covenant of vv. 59 and 60a is a matter of the past, while that of vv. 60 and 62 appears to be a future phenomenon.27

26. For a similar approach, which tends to erase the distinction between tradition and text, see Cook (1995a: 196).

27. Begg (1986: 78) also assigns the covenant in v. 61 to a 'future* orientation. In my view, the text is too unclear to allow any definitive judgment. Zimmerli (1979: 353) suggests several solutions for the 'difficult to interpret' yrab i6 l , reaching no certain conclusion.

POLASKI Reflections on a Mosaic Covenant 67

Put another way, the text's implied reader is caught in narrative time between the covenant of Israel's youth and the üblV ΓΓΊ3 in Israel's future.28 But, while broken, the former covenant has an important function in the memories of both YHWH and Israel. Both parties, in YHWH*s view, will remember the failure of the covenant made in Israel's youth. YHWH will remember and establish a new everlasting covenant.29 Israel will remember the past covenant, producing silent shame even under the eternal covenant. In Ezek. 16.59-63, the shat­tering of the former covenant, presumably the exile, stands as the essential moment, grounding YHWH's making of the übw m a and producing unending contrition for Israel.

Isaiah 24.S, instead of presenting a two-stage process of breaking and re-establishing covenants, places the fracturing of the covenant in a future period.30 The implied reader is situated, not in a gap between covenants, but in the period prior to the breaking of the übiV m a . The effects of the breaking of the covenant, especially the exile, which are to be remembered for shame in Ezekiel 16, are elided here. While using exile language in 24.131 and Hosea's prophecy of Israel's immi­nent destruction (4.9) in 24.2, Isaiah 24 brings up echoes of exile only to cast them forward in time. Isaiah 24, in effect, erases the exile and Ezekiel's 'remembering for shame'.

Given this, and the echoes of the übiV Dna in P, Isa. 24.5 may be seen as part of a new discourse surrounding the new temple, in which continuities between it and the former temple were valued. In a way similar to the Chronicler's equation of Second Temple worship prac­tices with Davidic and Solomonic practice, Isaiah 24 leaps over the exile by using the eternal covenant as a trope of continuity.

The future violation of that covenant, however, would appear to

28. Contra Eichrodt (1970: 216-17), who views the second covenant YHWH makes as a continuation of the first one which was broken. For another eternal covenant which will be put into effect after the exile, see Jer. 32.40.

29. For an analysis of the relation of the new covenant of Jer. 31 and the eternal covenant in Ezek. 16, see Renaud (1986). Renaud claims that Ezek. 16 modifies the claims of Jeremiah, focusing more on the continuity of God's project than its novelty.

30. For the future orientation of Isa. 24, see Clements (1980: 200). 31. The verb f © is often used, especially in Deuteronomy, Jeremiah and Ezekiel,

to indicate the dispersion of Judah during the exile. The verb pp3 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem (Jer. 19.7), the activities of the Assyrians against Judah (Nah. 2.2), and the fates of both Babylon (Jer. 51.2) and Egypt (Isa. 19.3).

*? Jvuïiiaifor ine Siudy of me Old Testament 77 (1998)

place this continuity in question. At some point, the eternal covenant will be broken, effectively destroying its sense of permanence. Why would this text, which struggles to validate the new temple, admit to such a possibility?

First, the breaking of the covenant in 24.5 is not as large a threat to its permanence as might at first appear. Scholars have often noted the parallels between Exodus 24 and Isa. 24.21-23 and 25.6-8 (Welten 1982: 137-42; Steingrímsson 1994: 69-74). In Exod. 24.9-11, Moses, Aaron and the elders of Israel see YHWH in the context of a meal which apparently cements the recently established covenant relation­ship. In Isaiah 24 and 25, YHWH's glory appears before his elders (24.23), setting the stage for a meal on Zion for all nations hosted by YHWH (25.6-8).32 Thus the events surrounding the beginning of YHWH's universal reign also participate in images of covenant formu­lation and renewal. Even the violation in 24.5 will not finally abrogate thet±n»rro.

Second, the prospect of violation foregrounds the universalized Deuteronomic curses as punishment. A covenant for which violation cannot be imagined is a covenant which needs no enforcement. The eternal covenants of the priestly writers, however, certainly needed such enforcement. The redeployment of Deuteronomic curses pro­vides a powerful and ominous rationale for the maintenance of such covenants.

In short, the fluidity of discourse surrounding the eternal covenant had significant benefits for those attached to the sanctuary. While dis­cussion of future violation of the covenant allows for a description of dire punishments, the language of permanence attached to both covenant and sanctuary (buttressed by 24.21-23 and 25.6-8) allow for an emphasis on the essential continuity of new and old Temple. While the Chronicler's Temple has a rather static permanence, the eternal covenant in Isa. 24.5 deploys a sense of continuity while accounting for active enforcement on a variety of fronts. The 'rules of formation' in play here involve both stability and enforcement.

32. The continuity between 24.21-23 and 25.6-8 is accepted by many, if not most, scholars. Cf. Wildberger 1978: 960; Clements 1980: 208; Kaiser 1974: 199.

POLASKI Reflections on a Mosaic Covenant 69

Conclusion

In the understanding presented here, Isaiah 24 takes its place in the negotiation of power relations in early Second Temple Judaism. The übw ΓΓΏ in Isa. 24.5 redeploys the Mosaic covenant by rendering it perpetual—violation is a matter for the future—and by yoking it to cosmic catastrophe. Priestly traditions concerning sabbath, circumci­sion and Temple propriety link up with the numinous force of the treaty curse, undergirding the authority of those traditions. All of this operates under 'rules of formation' which appear to privilege institu­tional continuity over the discontinuity arising from focus on the Exile.

My intertextual model for reading has focused on the function of the D ltf m a in the web of texts, institutions, norms, conventions which made up early Second Temple discourse. This approach allows more texts to be considered as possible referents, while refusing to force the diversity of 'late prophecy' into a traditum/traditio relation­ship privileging earlier texts. Scholars have isolated such streams of tradition by channeling, digging and damming their way through the post-exilic bayou, the watery confluence of texts and traditions of Second Temple Judaism. An approach based in notions of intertextu­ality elaborated here provides, I believe, a more ecologically sound approach to this wetland.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aichele, George, and Gary A. Phillips (eds.) 1995 Intertextuality and the Bible (Semeia, 69-70; Atlanta: Scholars Press).

Albertz, Rainer 1994 A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period (OTL;

Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press). Barthes, Roland

1974 S/Z (trans. R. Miller; New York: Hill & Wang). Begg, Christopher T.

1986 *Berit in Ezekiel', in R. Giveon et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th World Congress of Jewish Studies: Division A (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies): 77-84.

The Bible and Culture Collective 1995 The Postmodern Bible (New Haven: Yale University Press).

70 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 77 (1998)

Biddle, Mark E. 1995 'The City of Chaos and the New Jerusalem: Isaiah 24-27 in Context',

Perspectives in Religious Studies 22: 5-12. Blenkinsopp, Joseph

1977 Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press).

1996 A History of Prophecy in Israel: From the Settlement to the Hellenistic Period (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, rev. edn).

Bloom, Harold 1973 The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry (New York: Oxford Uni­

versity Press). Bove, Paul A.

1990 'Discourse*, in F. Lentricchia and T. McLaughlin (eds.), Critical Terms for Literary Study (Chicago: University of Chicago Press): 50-65.

Carroll, Robert P. 1993 'Intertextuality and the Book of Jeremiah: Animadversions on Text

and Theory', in J.C. Exum and D.J.A. Clines (eds.), The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup, 143; Sheffield: JSOT Press): 55-78.

Chisholm, Robert B„ Jr 1993 'The "Everlasting Covenant" and the "City of Chaos": Intentional

Ambiguity and Irony in Isaiah 24*, Criswell Theological Review 6: 237-53.

Clayton, J., and E. Rothstein 1991 'Figures in the Corpus: Theories of Influence and Intertextuality', in J.

Clayton and E. Rothstein (eds.), Influence and Intertextuality in Liter­ary History (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press): 3-36.

Clements, Ronald E. 1980 Isaiah 1-39 (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

Cook, Stephen L. 1995a 'Inner-Biblical Interpretation in Ezekiel 44 and the History of Israel's

Priesthood*, JBL 114: 193-208. 1995b Prophecy and Apocalypticism: The Postexilic Social Setting (Minne­

apolis: Fortress Press). Cross, Frank Moore, Jr

1973 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Reli­gion of Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).

Day, John 1988 'Prophecy*, in D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (eds.), // is Writ­

ten: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Linders, SSF (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 39-55

Eichrodt, Walther 1970 Ezekiel: A Commentary (OTL; trans. C. Quin; Philadelphia: West­

minster Press). Fewell, Danna Nolan (ed.)

1992 Reading between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible (LCBI; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press).

POLASKI Reflections on a Mosaic Covenant 71

Fishbane, Michael 1977 'Torah and Tradition', in D. Knight (ed.), Tradition and Theology in

the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press): 275-300. 1985 Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

Foucault, Michel 1972 The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language

(trans. A. Smith; New York: Pantheon). Hanson, Paul D.

1983 The Dawn of Apocalyptic (rev. edn; Philadelphia: Fortress Press). Hays, Richard B.

1989

Hillers, Delbert 1964

Johnson, Dan G. 1988

Kaiser, Otto 1974

Kissane, E.J. 1941

Kristeva, Julia 1980

Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press).

Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (BibOr, 16; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press).

Chaos and Restoration: An Integrative Reading of Isaiah 24-27 (JSOTSup, 61; Sheffield: JSOT Press).

Isaiah 13-39: A Commentary (trans. R.A. Wilson; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press).

The Book of Isaiah: Translated from a Critically Revised Hebrew Text with Commentary (Dublin: Browne & Nolan Limited; rev. edn).

'Word, Dialogue and Novel', in L. Roudiez (ed.), Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art (trans. T. Gora, A. Jardine and L. Roudiez; New York: Columbia University Press): 64-91.

Lemert, Charles C, and Garth Gillan 1982 Michel Foucault: Social Theory and Transgression (New York:

Columbia University Press). Levine, Baruch Α.

1993

Ludwig, Otto 1961

March, W.E. 1966

Meyers, Eric 1995

Numbers 1-20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 4A; New York: Doubleday).

Die Stadt in der Jesaja-Apokalypse: zur Datierung von Jes. 24-27, (Cologne: Kleikamp).

Ά Study of Two Prophetic Compositions in Isaiah 24:1-27:1' sertation, Union Theological Seminary, New York).

(dis-

'The Crisis of the Mid-Fifth Century BCE: Second Zechariah and the "End" of Prophecy*, in D.P. Wright, D.N. Freedman and A. Hurvitz (eds.). Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Ancient Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 713-23.

72 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 77 (1998)

Milgrom, Jacob 1990 Numbers: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation

(JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society). Miscall, Peter

1992 'Isaiah: New Heavens, New Book*, in Fewell 1992: 41-56. Noth, Martin

1968 Numbers (OTL; trans. J.D. Martin; Philadelphia: Westminster Press). Petersen, David L.

1977 Late Israelite Prophecy (SBLMS, 23; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press). Plöger, Otto

1968 Theocracy and Eschatology (trans. S. Rudman; Oxford: Basil Blackwell).

Rad, Gerhard von 1972 Genesis: A Commentary (OTL; trans. J.H. Marks; Philadelphia: West­

minster Press, rev. edn). Renaud, Bernard

1986 'L'alliance éternelle d'Ez 16,59-63 et l'alliance nouvelle de Jér 31,31-34*, in J. Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and his Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation (BETL, 74; Leuven: Leuven Univer­sity Press): 335-39.

Riffaterre, Michael 1978 Semiotics of Poetry (Bloomington: Indiana University Press).

Seitz, Christopher 1993 Isaiah 1-39 (IBC; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press).

Steingrimsson, Sigurdur Örn 1994 Gottesmahl und Lebensspende: Eine literaturwissenschaftliche Unter­

suchung von Jesaja 24, 21-23. 25, 6-10a (ATAT, 43; St Ottilien: EOS Verlag).

Sweeney, Marvin 1988 'Textual Citations in Isaiah 24-27: Toward an Understanding of the

Redactional Function of Chapters 24-27 in the Book of Isaiah', JBL 107: 39-52.

1996 Isaiah 1-39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL, 16; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

Welten, Peter 1982 'Die Vernichtung des Todes und die Königsherrschaft Gottes: Eine

traditionsgeschichtliche Studie zu Jes 25,6-8; 24,21-23 und Ex 24,9-11', 7Z38: 129-46.

Wildberger, Hans 1978 Jesaja (BKAT, 10; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag).

Zimmerli, Walther 1979 Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters

1-24 (Hermeneia; trans. R. Clements; Philadelphia: Fortress Press).

POLASKI Reflections on a Mosaic Covenant 73

ABSTRACT

The so-called 'Isaiah Apocalypse' (Isa. 24-27) is typically understood, as is most proto-apocalyptic literature, to rely on previous texts. For example, scholars suggest several possible covenants to which the 'eternal covenant* (übw ΓΓΏ) in Isa. 24.5 refers. This reading of the eternal covenant adopts a different view, using the dis­cussions of intertextuality in literary theory. The discourse of a culture is thus a web of texts in which texts displace and decenter one another. An intertextual reading of the eternal covenant suggests that Isaiah 24 is an intertextual collision point which links the Mosaic covenant seen in Deuteronomy with priestly traditions concerning eternal covenants involving sabbath, circumcision and Temple activity, helping secure the authority of those texts and traditions. Far from being derivative from other authoritative texts, Isaiah 24 represents an active negotiation of power relations in and through texts which appears to privilege institutional continuity over discontinuity.

This publication is available in microform.

University Microfilms International reproduces this publication in microform: microfiche and 16mm or

35mm film. For information r about this publication or any of the more than 13.000 titles

we offer, complete and mail the coupon to: University Microfilms International, 300 N. Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Call us toll-free for an immediate response: 800-521-3044. Or call collect in Michigan. Alaska and Hawaii: 313-761-4700. O Please send information about these titles:

Company/Institution .

aty_

University/ Microfilms

International

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.