1

INSTITUTE OF BIBLICAL RESEARCH

EMERGING SCHOLARS SESSION: OLD TESTAMENT

2016

THE NEWNESS EFFECT: vdj IN ISAIAH 40-48 AND BEYOND

DEBORAH L. ENDEAN

ASBURY THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

SEPTEMBER 2016

2

THE NEWNESS EFFECT: vdj IN ISAIAH 40-48 AND BEYOND

The motif of the “new thing” (Heb. hvdj; pl. twvdj)1 is striking for its three-fold occurrence in

Second Isaiah (SI), and specifically in chs. 40-48.2 Yahweh proclaims: “Behold, the former

things have come to pass, and new things (twvdj) I now declare” (Isa 42:9a). A second boasts

Yahweh’s creative activity: “Remember not the former things, nor consider the things of old.

Behold, I am doing a new thing (hvdj); now it emerges, do you not perceive it?” (Isa 43:18-

19a). Yet a third time, Yahweh announces: “From this time forth I make you hear new things

(twvdj), hidden things which you have not known” (Isa 48:6).3 The theme of newness heralded

here in SI is often celebrated for its fresh infusion of hope amongst an exiled people who have

borne the burden of their iniquity and long for a word of salvation from Yahweh. Equally

compelling, however, is the enduring and profound after-life of these texts evidenced most

notably by their reuse in the New Testament (NT) but also in countless subsequent applications.4

From echo to allusion, hope to challenge, history to theology, prose to poetry, the expressions of

newness emerging from Israel’s ancient texts have not ceased to generate their impact and effect.

1 √vdj (ḥds); adjective v ∂dDj (ḥadaš). 2 Scholarly consensus accepts that chapters 40-55 comprise Second Isaiah (also referred to as Deutero-

Isaiah). I will use “Second Isaiah” (SI from here on) except when citing authors using alternative expressions. Moreover, the choice of this designation is not a statement of authorship, for which a much larger discussion would be required, but rather academic shorthand for current consensus.

3 v ∂dDj occurs also in 41:15 and 42:10, though as an attributive adjective (modifying a noun) rather than the substantival forms in 42:9, 43:19, and 48:6.

4 The most explicit echoes of these SI expressions in the NT are in 2 Cor 5:17 (cf. Gal 6:15) and Rev 21:5. The v ∂dDj ryIv (“new song;” Isa 42:10) is used in Rev 5:9 and 14:3.

3

My aim in this paper is to explore the terminology of v ∂dDj and the concept of

newness, specifically as it occurs in the recurrent expressions of Isaiah 40-48. Using a multi-

faceted approach, I hope to offer a fresh analysis: 1) of what it means historically and

contextually; 2) how it functions in its various temporal, qualitative and affective dimensions;

and 3) to what effect as it emerges from the OT texts. Moreover, I wish to take seriously the

extraordinary narrative of newness spawned by this rich, OT motif. In order to accomplish the

latter, my important aspect of my approach draws from the parlance of rhetorical criticism,

which maintains that a text whether written or spoken has effects.

One might argue that my concerns are those of Rezeptionsgeschichte or the

Wirkungsgeschichte of the OT texts, that is to say, the history of a text’s reception or its history

of use and interpretation.5 However, my investigation draws on the model of rhetorical critics

Davis Houck and Mihaela Nocasian, who demonstrate the process by which critics start with a

rhetorical document that has exerted profound effects and then attempt to answer both how and

why the “text did its work.”6 Similarly, I consider the effects of the newness motif, as evidenced

5 John F. A. Sawyer writes: “First, called Wirkungsgeschichte, then the history of interpretation, and now

most commonly reception history, this has now become a major element in Biblical Studies...” [“A Case Study in Reception History,” The Review of Rabbinic Judaism 16 (2013): 66-73, esp. 67]. See also Sawyer’s excellent treatment of the reception history of Isaiah [The Fifth Gospel: Isaiah in the History of Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).

6 Davis W. Houck and Mihaela Nocasian, “FDR’s First Inaugural Address: Text, Context, and Reception,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 5 (2002): 649-678; 674. The authors observed the many responses that evidenced the public’s perception of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s first inaugural address, and then aimed their investigation at how Roosevelt was able to effect such a perception in the course of a mere 20 minutes” (666). They maintain that “careful study of a speech’s reception can reveal the organic nature of text and context, and ... we can gain greater insight and understanding into how a text actually worked within a historical moment to influence an audience” (675).

4

by its use, reuse, and appropriation over the span of two millennia, to be the starting point and

rationale for an investigation of the source that engendered those effects.7

Biblical scholars have long observed the concentrated terminology of hvdj/twvdj

[“new thing(s)”] that occurs in Isa 40-48,8 particularly in relationship to the terms twønOvaîr

(“former/first things”), twvdj (“latter”), and twøaD;bAh (“coming things”). Many, such as Gerhard

von Rad, have employed the terminology to articulate larger themes from Hebrew Scripture like

7 My emphasis on rhetorical effects as espoused by Houck and Nocasian is not intended as an alternative to

the rhetorical methodology used in OT studies. Indeed, I am cognizant of the significant studies that have come out of SI, including the work of James Muilenburg, who is credited with the start of the rhetorical movement within OT studies [see especially his inaugural address to SBL in “Form Criticism and Beyond,” JBL 88(1969):1-18; and his commentary which was exemplifies his extraordinary literary/rhetorical sensitivities, “Isaiah 40-66,” IB 5:381-773]. After Muilenburg, the studies of Yehoshua Gitay and Richard Clifford, both based in SI, represent early exemplars of the more Aristotelian model of rhetoric: Yehoshua Gitay, Prophecy and Persuasion: A Study of Isaiah 40-48 (Bonn: Linguistica Biblica, 1981); Richard J. Clifford, Fair Spoken and Persuading: An Interpretation of Second Isaiah (New York: Paulist, 1984). See also: J. R. Lundbom, Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric (SBLDS 18; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975); T. E. Boomershine, “The Structure of Narrative Rhetoric in Genesis 2-3,” Semeia 18 (1980) 113-29; Michael V. Fox, “The Rhetoric of Ezekiel’s Vision of the Valley of the Bones,” HUCA 51 (1980): 1-15; Y. Gitay, “A Study of Amos’s Art of Speech: A Rhetorical Analysis of Amos 3:1-15,” CBQ 42 (1980) 293-309; M. Sternberg, “The Bible’s Art of Persuasion: Ideology, Rhetoric, and Poetics in Saul’s Fall,” HUCA 54 (1983): 45-82; E. D. Lewin, “Arguing for Authority: A Rhetorical Study of Jeremiah 1.4-19 and 20.7-18,” JSOT 32 (1985): 105-19.

8 General scholarly consensus maintains that chs. 40-48 function as one of two units within the larger unit of chs. 40-55. Claus Westermann, for example, cites the “deliberate, orderly arrangement” that characterizes Isa 40-55, and notes the prologue (40:1-11) and epilogue (55:6-11) that frame the larger unit, the Cyrus oracle positioned at the center of 40-55, and the two poems (both arising from disputations) that serve to open the two sections (40:12-31 and 49:14-26) [Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 28]. Commonly observed are particular themes that occur primarily in one of the two units, including: the Jacob/Israel motif in chs. 40-48 but not in 49-55; the Zion/Jerusalem theme prominent in 40-48, but mentioned only twice in 49-55; and, references to Cyrus and Babylon, polemic against the idols, and the recurrent lawsuit summons only in 40-48. Melugin suggests a division at the end of ch. 48, asserting that 49:1-6 “stands out from its context by form and content” [The Formation of Isaiah 40-55 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976), 143]. H.G.M. Williamson notes differences in the two smaller sections that might suggest the book’s provenance: a Babylonian SI characteristic of chs. 40-48 and chs. 49-55 perhaps reflective of the early returnees of a Judean community [“Recent Issues in the Study of Isaiah,” in Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and Approaches, ed. H. G. M. Williamson and D. G. Firth (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009): 21-39; 36-37]. A number of studies isolate chs. 40-48 for treatment: see for example, Gitay, Prophecy and Persuasion; R. P. Merendino, Der Erste und der Letzte: Eine Untersuchung von Jes 40-48 (VTSup 31; Leiden: Brill, 1981); and, Ulrich Berges, Jesaja 40-48 (HThKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2008).

5

that of a “new Exodus.”9 A number of scholars have offered studies focused primarily on

identifying the ostensible historical referents associated with the twønOvaîr, twvdj, and/or

twvdj.10 Others have capitalized on the language of newness in order to accent its rich,

theological dimensions. Walter Brueggemann, for example, asserts: “The oracles of promise are

originary utterances without antecedent, certainly not rooted in or derived from the data or

circumstances at hand, but rooted in Yahweh’s circumstance defying capacity to work

newness.”11 Still others, especially in recent decades, have observed these texts in the context of

9 The importance of the “new” (in word and concept) for Gerhard von Rad extends well beyond the phrase

“new exodus” as evidenced by his repeated use of the word to categorize other aspects of his theological understanding: “new creation,” “new David,” “new faith,” “new Israel,” “new man,” and “new obedience” [Old Testament Theology (trans. D. M. G. Stalker; 2 vols.; New York: Harper and Row, 1962-1965)]. As Henk Leene rightly summarizes: “Von Rad heard the expression of Israel’s salvation definitively and fundamentally transformed from a past orientation to a future perspective in the word ‘new’ [Newness in Old Testament Prophecy: An Intertextual Study (OtSt 64; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 1]. It should be noted that many OT scholars besides von Rad use the expression “new exodus” to refer to the Isaianic (esp. SI) prophecies of Israel’s return from the Babylonian Exile in terms reminiscent of the exodus from Egypt. NT scholars likewise have adopted the label: David W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000); Rikki E. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000). Alternatively, some scholars employ the phrase “second exodus.” See for example, William J. Webb, Returning Home: New Covenant and Second Exodus as the Context for 2 Corinthians 6.14 – 7.1 (JSNTSup 80; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). For an excellent treatment of the use and development of the “new exodus” terminology, see: Daniel Lynwood Smith, “The Uses of ‘New Exodus’ in New Testament Scholarship: Preparing a Way through the Wilderness,” Currents in Biblical Research 14/2 (2016): 207-243. Smith notes that the phrase is a modern creation, tracing its earliest use back to mid-nineteenth-century commentary on Isaiah (J. A. Alexander, The Later Prophecies of Isaiah (New York/London: Wiley and Putnam, 1847).

10 See, for example, C. R. North, “The ‘Former Things’ and the ‘New Things’ in Deutero-Isaiah,” Studies in Old Testament Prophecy Presented to Professor Theodore H. Robinson (ed. H. H. Rowley; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1957), 111-26; A. Schoors, “Les choses anterieures et les choses nouvelles dans les oracles deutéro-isaïens,” ETL 40 (1964): 19-47; ; Menahem Haran, Between Ri’shonot (Former Prophecies) and Ḥadashôt (New Prophecies): A Literary Historical Study in the Group of Prophecies Isaiah XL-XLVIII (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1963): 93-102 (Hebrew). An English review of Haran’s book is supplied by: H. L. Ginsberg, JBL 84 (1965): 88-90; and, an English summary of his thesis: “The Literary Structure and Chronological Framework of the Prophecies in Is. XL-XLVIII,” in International Organization of Old Testament Scholars, “Congress Volume, Bonn, 1962” (VTSup 9; Leiden: Brill, 1962): 127-55.

11 Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 646.

6

their subsequent reusage by NT writers.12 The vast majority of attention to newness has been in

the realm of NT scholarship,13 although this state of affairs is hardly surprising in light of the NT

12 In regard to the methodology of the use of the OT in the NT, see especially: Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989); and more generally, G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007). Important monographs that deal specifically with the usage of OT newness texts in the NT include: Jan Fekkes, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and their Development (JSNTSS 93; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994); Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul; Moyer V. Hubbard, New Creation in Paul’s Letters and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); T. Ryan Jackson, New Creation in Paul’s Letter (WUNT 2; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010); J. Richard Middleton, A New Heaven and a New Earth: Reclaiming Biblical Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014); Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken, Isaiah in the New Testament (New York: T & T Clark, 2005); J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans (Leiden: Brill, 2003).

13 Bible dictionaries are somewhat mixed in this respect. Some do not attend to the notion of newness in the OT at all, while others offer limited, and sometimes confusing, data. For example, the ABD entry for “new” completely bypasses OT usage and commences with “’new’ in the NT” (Raymond Collins, “New,” ABD: 4:1086-88). Another dictionary entry lists the Hebrew lexeme along with Greek terms for “new,” but neglects precise delineation between the uses and meanings of the Hebrew and Greek terms (OT/LXX/NT) and inaccurately posits Num 16:30 as an example of “God’s capacity to create what is truly new,” when in fact, no terms for “new” occur in the Hebrew or Greek texts of Num 16:30. Moreover, the author states inaccurately that, “Moon is by far the most common word in the OT to be qualified with new.” The single Hebrew noun rendered “new moon” (v®dOj) is indeed from the same root (vdj) as “new,” but the adjective (v ∂dDj) is never used to qualify the Hebrew noun for the moon (i.e., the lunar sphere; AjérÎy) [Ann Jervis, “NEW,” NIDB, 4:261-62]. The two most-cited monographs devoted to “newness” in the Bible (prior to the publication of Leene’s volume) include: Carl B. Hoch, Jr., All Things New: The Significance of Newness for Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995); and Roy A. Harrisville, The Concept of Newness in the New Testament (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1960). Harrisville’s exclusive NT concerns are specified in the volume’s title, and Hoch’s attention to OT precursors is limited. Despite the reference to “biblical theology” in the book’s title, Hoch introduces the topic with the statement, “Newness is a central them for New Testament theology” (11), and the book focuses almost exclusively on NT texts. For example, the chapters titled “The New Heaven and the New Earth,” (Ch. 10) and “All Things New” (Ch. 11) make no references to OT passages that the NT writers have reused. Hoch’s chapter on “New Creation” is considerably more complete in detailing textual precursors, seemingly due to Hoch’s access to the work of Ulrich Mell, Neue Schöpfung: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Studie zu einem soteriologischen Grundsatz paulinischer Theologie (BZNW 56; Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1989). Similarly, a lesser-known monograph considers newness only from a NT perspective (despite the title): Joseph Areeplackal, Being Human and Holy: Biblical Concept of Newness (Bangalore: Dharmaram, 1997). The outstanding exception to the dominance of NT studies on the subject is the recent volume, Newness in Old Testament Prophecy: An Intertextual Study by Henk Leene [(OtSt 64; Leiden: Brill, 2014)]. It represents a much-needed addition to OT scholarship and represents the only major OT monograph, to my knowledge, that focuses on the topic of newness from an OT perspective. As the title suggests, Leene’s main concern is an intertextual exploration of the “newness” texts found in SI, Trito-Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the “new song” occurrences in Psalms. Leene’s expertise is clearly manifest in the remarkable breadth and density of the volume’s contents, and my debt to his work will be apparent in the pages of this investigation. See

7

collocations of “new” and the profound theological trajectory of its eschatological dimensions—

not to mention the title conferred on the second part of the Christian canon!14

Making Sense of vdj

The occurrence of the lexeme v ∂dDj in Second Isaiah is significant in ways that have often

gone unnoticed in scholarship. First, v ∂dDj never occurs in the OT prophetic corpus until the

exilic and early post-exilic texts of SI, so-called Trito-Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel—and even

then, remains relatively uncommon. Westermann rightly observes, “Only during the time of the

exile was anything said in Israel about something new in its interaction with God—nowhere else

in its whole history.”15 Notably, the adjective occurs just six times in the Psalms and always in

the same phrase: “new song” (v ∂dDj ryIv).16 Prior to its use in exilic and post-exilic prophetic

texts, the term occurs rather infrequently and only in its most basic lexical sense—certainly

nothing akin to a more abstract or conceptualized understanding of newness such as one might

associate with ideas of modern notions of innovation and creativity. In light of these

also: Henk Leene, “History and Eschatology in Deutero-Isaiah,” in Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken, ed. J. Van Ruiten and M. Vervenne (Leuven: University Press, 1997), 223-249; F. Postma, K. Spronk, and E. Talstra, eds., The New Things: Eschatology in Old Testament Prophecy, Festschrift for Henk Leene (Maastricth: Uitgeverij Shaker, 2002).

14 Based on the occurrences of the Greek terms, καινός and νεός, the most prominent and explicit NT occurrences include: “new wineskins” (Matt 9:17); “new covenant” (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8, 9:15); “new commandment” (John 13:34; 1 John 2:7; 2 John 5); “new creation” (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15); “new man” (Eph 2:15); “new name” (Rev 2:17, 3:12); “new song” (Rev 5:9, 14:3); “new Jerusalem” (Rev 3:12, 21:2); “new heaven(s) and a new earth” (2 Pet 3:13; Rev 21:1); and, “all things new” (Rev 21:5).

15 C. R. North, “vdj,” TDOT 4:225-44, 244 (quote in English from C. Westermann, “vdj ḥādaš neu,” THAT, I, 524-530: 526. North concurs with Westermann’s observation and notes “how small a role the various kinds of newness play in the OT, especially before the exile, not only as religious values in comparison to the NT but as an overall cultural experience” (North, 244).

16 Ps 33:3; 40:4; 96:1; 98:1; 144:9; 149:1.

8

observations, I offer a closer look at some of the lexical and linguistic considerations important

for understanding v ∂dDj and its broader meaning.17

The adjectival form of the Hebrew root vdj occurs fifty-three times in the OT.18 The

adjective denotes “new,” and conveys a difference that is both temporal and qualitative relative

to a previous or existing state. Like its English equivalent, the semantic domain of v ∂dDj reflects a

range of meaning and occurs in the Old Testament to connote young, recent, fresh, unused,

and/or formerly unknown. The difference between a previous state or stage and that which is

signified as ‘new’ can be characterized by varying degrees of discontinuity or continuity, the

exact nature of which can only be properly determined by context, whether explicitly or

implicitly, and/or additional qualifiers.19 Importantly, use of the adjective v ∂dDj denotes that

17 The work of classics scholar Armand D’Angour is highly informative along these lines. His volume, The Greeks and the New: Novelty in Ancient Greek Imagination and Experience (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), explores the concept and terminology of newness in classical Greece and argues convincingly that the occurrences of the two Greek terms for new, neos and kainos, “traced in texts from Homer to the fifth century appear to demonstrate not only the evolution of lexical usage, but a changing understanding of novelty” (74). D’Angour’s comprehensive treatment of the topic of newness in ancient Greece intersects not infrequently with comparative literature of the ancient Near East and offers significant points of connections that I believe strongly suggest the plausibility of similar development in Israel’s context. I would also note that D’Angour’s study is very influential in the present study, as he has presented a comprehensive treatment from an ancient Greek perspective.

18 Adjectival occurrences of vdj (v ∂dDj; ḥādaš): Exod 1:8; Lev 23:16; 26:10; Num 28:26; Deut 20:5; 22:8; 24:5; 32:17; Josh 9:13; Judg 5:8; 15:13; 16:11, 12; 1 Sam 6:7; 2 Sam 6:3 (2x); 21:16; 1 Kgs 11:29, 30; 2 Kgs 2:20; Isa 41:15; 42:9, 10; 43:19; 48:6; 62:2; 65:17 (2x); 66:22 (2x); Jer 31:22, 31; 36:10; Ezek 11:19; 18:31 (2x); 36:26 (2x); Ps 33:3; 40:4; 96:1; 98:1; 144:9; 149:1; Job 29:20; 32:19; Song 7:14; Eccl 1:9, 10; Lam 3:23; 1 Chr 13:7; 2 Chr 20:5. In the majority of these occurrences the adjective is in the attributive position—that is, it stands in juxtaposition to the noun it modifies. The adjective appears as a substantive, (i.e., functions as a noun) in Isa 42:9, 43:19, 48:6, and Jer 31:22, and as a predicate adjective in Eccl 1:9, 1:10, and Jer 29:20. h$Dv ∂dSj h ∞DÚvIa (Deut 24:5), lit. “a new wife,” denotes “a bride” and has a cognate in Akkadian. The synonym list Malku I:173 equates ḫadaššu with kallatu (“bride”) [Hayim ben Yosef Tawil, An Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew (Jersey City, NJ: KTAV Publishing House, Inc.: 2009), 101]. Akk. ḫadaššu and ḫadaššatu are considered West Semitic loanwords. Cf. Ug. trḫ ḫdt for a newly married man (HALOT 1:294). The most frequent use of the root vdj is the noun, v®dOj, which denotes “new moon.” As noted earlier, the adjective is never used to qualify the Hebrew noun for the lunar orb ( AjérÎy).

19An illustration in English exemplifies the challenges inherent in the term and the necessity of contextual inquiry or assumptions. Given a simple statement, “I need a new house,” the phrase “new house” refers to a

9

which is distinctively “new” and not that which is “renewed” or “restored.” The latter

expressions signify a verbal notion, which is conveyed in Hebrew through the use of a verbal

form of the root vdj.20 While this distinction need not rule out continuity with what existed (or

did not exist) previously, it does suggest that use of the adjective emphasizes the quality of

newness and thereby a greater degree of discontinuity with a previous state than is the case when

the verbal form is employed.21

The majority of v ∂dDj occurrences in the OT can be grouped into three general categories.

The first, inclusive of “new” grain (i.e., grain offering, lit. h™Dv ∂dSj h¶Dj ◊nIm; Lev 23:16; Num 28:26)

and food (Lev 26:10; Song 7:14), utilizes v ∂dDj to mean ‘fresh’ or ‘recently harvested’—terms

constructed edifice somehow different from the one the speaker currently occupies, but the complexity is apparent in the attempt to parse that ‘differentness.’ The speaker may mean a house in a ‘different’ location—meaning ‘new’ in relationship to ownership or occupancy. Alternatively, he/she may also intend for the house to be ‘new’ in age—which raises a further question: how new? Must the construction be recently completed and the structure never-before occupied? Would a house a few years old still qualify as new? Moreover, if the speaker has become tired of living in a crumbling, two hundred year old house on the National Registry of Historic Homes, the scope of what counts as new might be considerably increased. I would add that the potential for ambiguity is precisely the challenge of interpreting theologically dense phrases such as “new covenant” or “new heavens” and “new earth.”

20Note that, whereas English can express the verbal notion of “renew” adjectivally as “renewed” (e.g., “with renewed vigor”), the Hebrew adjective by itself does not express what is conveyed by the English prefix “re-“. The root vdj occurs as a verb (ḥdš) ten times in the OT: nine times in the piel stem (1 Sam 11:14; 2 Chr 15:8; 24:4, 12; Job 10:17; Ps 51:12; 104:30; Lam 5:21; Isa 61:4), and once in the hithpael, meaning, “to renew oneself” (Ps 103:5). The objects of renewal vary: the kingdom under Samuel’s leadership (1 Sam 11:14); one’s youth (Ps 103:5); the ground (Ps 104:30); days “as of old” (Lam 5:21). Related to renewal is the notion of repair or restoration: ruined cities (Isa 61:4), the altar of the Lord (2 Chr 15:8), and the house of the LORD (2 Chr 24:4, 12). Similar usage is attested in Akkadian (edēšu): meaning “be or become new,” “renew,” occasionally the sense of “rejuvenate,” and most often the sense of “restore.” One notable example describes the monthly renewal practiced by Sîn, the moon-god: ina iteddušika (“when you [Sin] renew yourself....”). See North, TDOT 4:226. See also A. T. Clay, Miscellaneous Inscriptions in the Yale Babylonian Collection. ʼYOSBT, 1 (1915), 45 II 42. Examples similar to Hebrew/OT usage: “to restore a temple/shrine/sanctuary” (CAD E 31a 2; cf. 2 Chr 24:4, 12); the reign of a king “renewing itself” (CAD E 32b 3; cf. 1 Sam 11:14); and “a life that renews itself constantly every month like the moon (CAD E 32b 3; cf. Ps 193:5); Akk uddušu often used with ilu meaning “to restore/repair an image of a god” (Tawil, Akkadian, 101).

21 In order for the notion of “renewed” to be expressed adjectivally, the verb (e.g., “make” or “create”) would be modified adverbially with, for example, the word “again” (Heb. dwøo).

10

appropriate to organic, naturally produced items.22 Objects of human fashioning comprise a

second category: a house (Deut 20:5, 22:8); wineskins (Josh 9:13; Job 32:19); ropes (Judg 15:13,

16:11, 12); a cart (1 Sam 6:7; 2 Sam 6:3; 1 Chr 13:7); a garment (1 Kgs 11:29, 30); a bowl (2

Kgs 2:20), and a threshing sledge (Isa 41:15).23 In these occurrences, v ∂dDj connotes the

temporally recent construction of an article, although depending on the context might also

suggest unused, unworn, clean, or pure.24 In the third and largest category, v ∂dDj modifies or

expresses (i.e., when it occurs in substantival form) intangible entities: gods (Deut 32:17; Judg

5:8), new thing(s) (Isa 42:9, 43:19, 48:6; Jer 31:22, Eccl 1:9, 10; Lam 3:23),25 name (Isa 62:2),

song (Isa 42:10; Ps 33:3, 40:3, 96:1, 98:1, 144:9, 149:1), heavens and earth (Isa 65:17, 66:22),

spirit (Ezek 11:19, 18:31, 36:26), heart (Ezek 18:31, 36:36), covenant (Jer 31:31), and glory (Job

32:20).26

The usage of v ∂dDj in the third category is noteworthy on several counts. First, as

mentioned earlier, the SI, Trito-Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel occurrences represent the first

22 Lev 26:10 and Song 7:14 also employ the explicit term of contrast, NDvÎy (“old”). 23 Akkadian (eššu < *edšu; HALOT 1:294) attests examples of similar usage: a “new house” (CAD E

374b); and a “new garment” (CAD E 374b). A couple of other OT examples designate an object of human construction, but in context reflect what is likely a title of reference: ‘new gate of the house of Yahweh’ (Jer 26:10, 36:10); ‘new court’ (2 Chr 20:5).

24 See, for example, Mary Douglas who suggests that the command of Deut 20:3 regarding the one who has built a new house and has not dedicated it reflects the idea of holiness expressed as wholeness or completeness in a social context: “An important enterprise, once begun, must not be left incomplete” [Purity and Danger (NY: Routledge, 1966)]. Other comparative usage might also suggest such cultic/purity connotations. See in Akk: 2 TÚG labēru ša níqiāte I eššu I laberu (“2 garments for making sacrifices, 1 new, 1 old”) (CAD E 375b d; also, Tawil, Akkadian, 101].

25 The expression of Eccl 1:9 emphatically denies the existence of what is v ∂dDj, asserting, “there is nothing new under the sun.” The comprehensive scope is expressed by the use of the adverbial particle of nonexistence, NˆyAa, in combination with lO;k (“not anything” or “nothing”). See P. Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 2nd ed. (Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2009), 571.

26 To this category I would add “new king” (Exod 1:8) and “new wife” (Deut 24:5), as what is conveyed in each of these phrases is primarily the sense of a role or function—an intangible notion.

11

usage of v ∂dDj in the prophetic corpus. Second, almost all of these texts are arguably exilic or

post-exilic. Third, in contrast to the tangible, mundane objects modified in earlier texts, the

entities here qualified as ‘new’ are predominantly of divine provenance.27 It is certainly the case

that v ∂dDj assumes greater theological and even eschatological implications in later texts, but it

should also be noted that the term v ∂dDj reflects increased qualitative and abstract connotations as

compared to its usage in earlier texts. What accounts for this change? In the case of the “new

things” announced in SI, many interpreters simply suggest that a new era in Israel’s history

required a new act from Yahweh.28 While this may be true to an extent, this investigation will

explore whether it is enough to explain the use of v ∂dDj in these prophetic utterances. Moreover,

the Exile can hardly be underestimated as a watershed event, but it seems unlikely to alone

account for the relatively uncommon use of v ∂dDj prior to exilic texts, and then only to describe

concrete objects—never more abstract entities such as actions, knowledge, or experiences. Thus,

a further aim of this study is to offer a comprehensive treatment of the use of v ∂dDj in SI and

elsewhere that gives greater consideration to linguistic factors and development that may be

involved and, in so doing, also directs more attention to the ways in which ancient Israel

generally expressed and perceived “newness.” Several OT passages helpfully illustrate some

these issues.

27 Exceptions: the “new gate” (Jer 36:10); the expressions of Qohelet (Eccl 1:9, 10); the “new song” (Isa

42:10), though note that Ps 40:4 (40:3 Eng) attributes Yahweh as the source of the “new song;” and the “new heart and new spirit” which Israel is commanded to make for themselves [Ezek 18:31(h¡Dv ∂dSj Aj…wêr ◊w vä ∂dDj b¶El M¢RkDl …wñcSoÅw)], but which reoccur (Ezek 36:26; also Ezek 11:19) originating from Yahweh.

28 Richard Clifford, for example, writes: “In the Exile . . . the master story in its classic form ceased to be credible....A new interpretation was called for” [Fair Spoken and Persuading: An Interpretation of Second Isaiah (New York: Paulist, 1984), 43].

12

In contexts where an event, circumstances, or situation would qualify as ‘new’ or ‘novel’

from a modern day perspective, Hebrew expressions tend to be in terms of already existing

knowledge or previous experience, thus reflecting the dominant past-orientation of the ancient

worldview mentioned earlier. In other words, modern readers might have expected to find the

expression of “new” but do not. For example, when the Israelites awoke to discover manna

blanketing their wilderness landscape, the response, “What is it?” registers not the qualitative

newness of Yahweh’s provision, but rather its relationship to prior knowledge: “they did not

know what it was” (Exod 16:15, italics mine; Heb. a…wóh_hAm …wäo √dÎy añøl y¢I;k). Similarly, as the

Israelites prepared to cross the Jordan River and make their inaugural entrance into Canaan,

Joshua commanded them to maintain a distance behind the priests who were carrying the ark “in

order that you may know the way you shall go” (Josh 3:4). Whereas contemporary vernacular

might render the unknown character of the future path as a “way that is new,” Hebrew narrative

describes it in terms of the past: “... for you have not passed this way before” (Josh 3:4;

MwáøvVlIv lwñømV;tIm JK®rä®;dA;b M¢R;t √rAbSo a¬øl y ∞I;k).29

The Greek equivalents of v ∂dDj are primarily kaino/ß (kainos) and ne÷oß (neos).

Importantly, they represent the main terms used to render v ∂dDj in the Septuagint (LXX) and to

denote ‘new’ in the NT. The vast majority of the v ∂dDj occurrences in the Masoretic Text (MT)

appear as a form of kainos in the LXX. Nevertheless, the existence and use of alternatives sheds

light on the semantic range and connotations associated with v ∂dDj.

The older of the two terms, neos, occurs widely in Greek literature as early as the epics of

Homer. Evidence suggests that its meaning evolved over the centuries from a primarily temporal

29 The past orientation is underscored by the combination of two temporal adverbs, lwømV;t and MwøvVlIv.

13

understanding of ‘young’ or ‘recent’ to a more qualitative notion of ‘recently manufactured.’30

The word kainos is not unequivocally attested until the first half of the fifth century BCE.31 In its

earliest usage, the semantic domain of kainos appears somewhat differentiated from that of

neos—expressing a qualitative force Armand D’Angour describes as “allied to, and perhaps

arising from, the signification of humanly wrought newness.”32 However, as usage of kainos

increases, so does the challenge of drawing a rigid distinction between the meanings of kainos

and neos.33 Only in cases where both terms occur is it possible to discern what may be

considered the primary connotations of the two terms and suggest a general distinction.

D’Angour describes the distinction as follows:

Where what is new is essentially a young or recent variant of something, neos is generally found to be the appropriate signifier. In that the word primarily represents ‘young’, whether in terms of natural growth or development in time, it is less apt to suggest a sense of unfamiliarity or unpredictability ... By contrast, the notion of a quality of novelty or difference that arises from human intention or creation, for instance in objects that are ‘brand-new’ and ideas that appear ‘newfangled’, is more appropriately (though in practice not exclusively) expressed by kainos. Novelty of this kind partakes of an aspect of temporality insofar as it implies a deliberate break from the past; but the focus is not on newness in time but on newness in kind.34

30 D’Angour, The Greeks and the New, 80. 31 The earliest unequivocal use of kainos is found in the fifth Dithyramb of Bakkhylides dated to the first

half of the fifth century, possibly in the decade following the victory of the Athenians over the Persians at Salamis in 480 BCE (D’Angour, The Greeks and the New, 71-2). D’Angour cites the Histories of Herodotus as the earliest passage of Greek prose in which the adjective kainos is found—and the only place in all of the Histories (The Greeks and the New, 105).

32 D’Angour, The Greeks and the New, 72. 33 D’Angour states that the Greek lexical data “do not support rigidly determinate distinctions in the

meaning or status of expressions of newness” (The Greeks and the New, 22). 34 D’Angour, The Greeks and the New, 22-23. D’Angour also observes of the distinction that “kainos

cannot be readily replaced with neos, which would be felt to signify ‘of recent occurrence’ rather than a salient quality of created novelty” (The Greeks and the New, 73; see also, 80-81).

14

In the LXX, neos is used to render v ∂dDj in the five instances in which food items are

described (Lev 23:16, 26:10; Num 28:26; Song 7:14 Eng 7:13).35 Since these are the only

references to food among the v ∂dDj occurrences, it suggests that whatever degree of synonymous

usage was occurring by this time, neos appears to have retained the distinction of denoting

“recently harvested” or “fresh” of food items. In Exod 1:8, the Greek term, eºteroß, is used to

translate v ∂dDj in the phrase “new king.” Denoting the sense of “another,” eºteroß adequately

conveys the qualitative notion of difference inherent in v ∂dDj without sacrificing any meaning, as

a temporal aspect remains implicit in the context of royal succession.36 A different Greek term,

pro/sfatoß, is employed in the wearied expression of Qohelet, “there is nothing new under the

sun” (Eccl 1:9b).37 However, where v ∂dDj recurs in the subsequent verse (“See, this is new”), the

LXX uses kainos.38 By the first century of the Common Era, the two Greek lexemes, kainos and

neos, appear to be used interchangeably such that scholars agree they function as synonyms in

the Koine Greek of the NT.39

35 Lev 23:16 and Num 28:26 both refer to a food item in the context of the grain offering. 36 It is interesting to note that the use of v ∂dDj in this instance correlates with the idea of something “not

known.” See above discussion. 37 According to BDAG, pro/sfatoß denotes “new” or “recent” and can also have the sense of “not

previously existing” (“pro/sfatoß,” BDAG 886). 38 The LXX uses alternative expressions for a handful of the v ∂dDj occurrences in the MT. In Deut 24:5, the

MT speaks of a man who has taken a “new wife” (h$Dv ∂dSj h ∞DÚvIa). In the LXX, the notion of ‘new’ is still present but in the adverbial and purely temporal sense of “recently.” Instead of an adjective describing a man’s wife, the LXX employs the adverb of time, prosfa¿twß, to modify the verbal action (“If a man has recently taken a wife . . .”). The LXX renders the difficult phrase of 2 Sam 21:16 (h¡Dv ∂dSj r…wâgDj a…wäh ◊w) with an expression that lacks v ∂dDj: kai«

aujto\ß periezwsme÷noß koru/nhn. The MT text of Lam 3:23 does not occur in the LXX. 39 NT occurrences: kaino/ß (42 times); ne÷oß (23 times). The present state of agreement among scholars

regarding the synonymous use of the two terms in the NT was not always the case. R. A. Harrisville, in a 1955 article, purposed to “prove the synonymity of the primary words for ‘new,’” asserting that “modern lexicographers” continued to maintain a distinction between a “purely qualitative connotation” for kaino/ß and a “purely temporal one” for ne÷oß. Harrisville notes the exception of Moulton-Milligan who claim that papyrus usage does not support the rigid distinction and argue further, on the basis of its occurrence in the letter to the Hebrews, that ne÷oß was increasingly used synonymously with the more literary term, kaino/ß, in later koine [J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan,

15

v ∂dDj :A Temporal Dimension

In this section, I will explore the temporal dimension of v ∂dDj as it occurs and functions in

Isa 40-48 in several ways. The first, and most obvious, is the constellation of terms with which

the hvdj/twvdj terms interact: first/former, last/latter, and coming things. Secondly, I will

demonstrate how this dimension is in fact part of a larger emphasis on temporality that

characterizes chs. 40-48.

Isaiah 40:1 opens in extraordinary fashion: ……y¡I;mAo …wämSjÅn …wñmSjÅn (“Comfort! Comfort my

people!”). There is no temporal connotation inherent in this emotive utterance, but it surely

represents the initial signifier that change is on the horizon. Although the details have yet to be

announced, the weight of these words can suggest only one thing: there is yet a future. That faint

glimmer grows brighter as the particulars are outlined in v. 2: Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, ‹MÊ‹AlDv…wír ◊y b§El_lAo …wrV;bå;d and cry to her ‹Dhy$RlEa …wâa √rIq ◊w that her warfare is ended, ;h$DaDbVx ‹hDaVl`Dm y§I;k that her iniquity is pardoned, ;h¡DnOwSo h™Dx √rˆn y¶I;k that she has received from the hand hYÎwh ◊y d ∞A¥yIm ‹hDjVqDl y§I;k of Yahweh double for all her sins. :Dhy`RtaøÚfAj_lDkV;b Mˆy™AlVpI;k

The threefold use of yI;k to delineate the utterance and the perfective aspect of the three

verbs both underscore a sense of completion inherent in this a message of comfort. The

excruciating chapter of pain and judgment has ended for this people of Yahweh, but their story

has not.

The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (London: 1949), 314-15; Harrisville, “The Concept of Newness in the New Testament,” JBL 74/2 (1955): 69-79; 70]. The synonymous usage of the two adjectives in the NT is demonstrated by the interchangeability of the terms; for example, compare Mark 2:21-22 with Matt 9:16-17 and Luke 5:36-39; Heb 8:8, 13; 9:15; 12:24, and Eph 4:22-24 with Col 3:10. Raymond Collins, “New,” ABD 4: 1086-1088.

16

The hvdj/twvdj terms occur as follows in Isa 40-48:40

(42:9) The former things—behold, they have come, …wa¡Db_h´…nIh twäønOvaáîrDh and new things I now declare; dyYˆ…gAm y ∞InSa ‹twøv ∂dSj`Aw before they emerge I tell you (of them). :M`RkVtRa oy¶ImVvAa hÎnVj™AmVxI;t M®r¶RfV;b

(43:18-19) Do not remember the former things, twóønOvaáîr …wërV;k ◊zI;t_l`Aa and things of old—do not consider. :…wn`DnO;bVtI;t_lAa twäø¥yˆnOm √dåq ◊w Behold, I am doing a new thing! j$DmVxIt h ∞D;tAo ‹hDv ∂dSj h§RcOo y ∏ˆn ◊nIh Now it emerges—do you not perceive it? Dh…wóo ∂d`Et awäølSh j$DmVxIt h ∞D;tAo Indeed, I will make a way in the desert, JK®r$®;d ‹rD;b √dI;mA;b My§IcDa P ∞Aa rivers in the wilderness. :twíørDh ◊n NwäømIvy`I;b

(48:3, 6) The former things I have told you from of old; yI;t √dYÅ…gIh z ∞DaEm ‹twäønOvaáîrDh from my mouth they went forth, …wäaVxÎy y¶IÚpIm…w I made them heard. M¡EoyImVvAa ◊w Suddenly I did (them), yIty™IcDo MñOaVtIÚp and they came to pass. :hÎnaáøbD;tÅw You have heard; (now) see all this; ;h$D;lU;k ‹h´zSj `D;tVo§AmDv Will you not declare it? …wdy¡I…gAt awâølSh M™R;tAa ◊w I tell you new things from now on— hD;t$AoEm ‹twøv ∂dSj ÔKy§I;tVoAmVvIh hidden things you have not known. :M`D;tVoåd ◊y añøl ◊w twëørUx ◊n…w

40 In a number of instances, it will be noted that I have preserved the Hebrew syntax in my English

translation in an attempt to better convey the poetic character of the text.

17

In each of the three occurrences of hvdj/twvdj, the term appears in combination with

the contrasting substantive twønOvaîr (“former/first things).41 Similarly, wherever such

combinations occur in chs. 40-48, that is two or more terms from different temporal categories,

Nwøvaîr (or a cognate) is the common term. This characteristic led Henk Leene to categorize these

so-called “oppositions” according to their occurrence in combination with “first.” Thus, “first”

appears in opposition to “last” (41:4; 44:6; 46:10; 48:12), to “coming” (41:22-23; cf. 44:7; 46:9-

11), and to “new” (42:9; cf. 43:9; 43:18-19; 48:3-11).42 Leene suggests that these three

categories indicate “an adjustment in meaning of first depending on the opposition in which it is

placed. Where new stands opposite first, first includes what will come (or has come). Where

what will come or has come stands opposite first, first includes last.”43 Importantly, the need for

such an adjustment counters a tendency in scholarship to assign fixed meanings to the terms.

There is also a temporal progression of the hvdj/twvdj moving through the three

occurrences. In the first example (42:9), the “new things” Yahweh is declaring are infused with

their significance by the temporal preposition M®rRfV;b (“before”). In other words, the “new things”

are important because Yahweh announces them before they emerge. Moreover, the ability to

speak of anything, new or otherwise, before it appears substantiates Yahweh’s self-identification

41 To these primary recurrent substantives, one should also note the singular use of tw¥øyˆnOm √dåq (“things of

old”) in all of Isa (43:18; cf. Job 18:20), and a qal form of the root awb (48:3; occurs in substantive form in 41:22). 42 Leene, Newness, 46. 43 Leene, Newness, 46. While it is not in the scope of this paper to explain in detail, Leene has constructed a

cyclic scheme based on the manner in which he views the first-last-coming-new semantic field (along with additional factors) functioning. He observes a pattern that repeats with variations, according to which “a unit dealing with the relation between first and last is trailed by a unit about what is coming and/or a unit on the new. The composition thus contains a sequence of cycles, where each cycle appears to be organized, more or less, according to the pattern first-last-coming-new” (46). Leene maintains that an essential aspect of the arrangement is the continuous action that emerges in their sequencing, resulting in what he calls a “dramatic action.” As such, the action is not narrated but rather “presents itself to the reader...and seems to take place contemporaneously to the reading” (Leene, Newness, 46-47). While there are definitely merits to Leene’s dramatic approach, I am not wholly convinced in light of the complexity of the compositional planning his model requires.

18

in 42:8: “I am Yahweh, that is my name” (y¡ImVv a…wâh h™Dwh ◊y y¶InSa).44 Furthermore, the use of h´…nIh

suggests an additional temporal nuance to Yahweh’s claim. Linked to the verb with the maqqeph

( …wa¡Db_h´…nIh) the particle denotes a sense of immediacy with which the former things have come to

pass.45

In 43:19, the temporal emphasis of the hvdj has clearly shifted from the notion of

something spoken “before” to action unfolding in the present. The preceding verse functions to

prepare for this dramatic focal change: “Do not remember the former things! The things of old,

do not consider!”46 The dual negative commands effectively wipe the slate clean of past

recollection. Moreover, the use of lAa to denote commands of immediate prohibition highlights,

by way of contrast, the immediacy conveyed by the opening use of h´…nIh in v.19. The verb, hco,

further accentuates the present state by means of its participial form, but it also denotes the

action of “doing” a “new thing” rather than a spoken word. In the second clause, the same verb

(jmx) used in 42:9 to describe the emergence of the “new things” occurs again, governed not by

M®rRfV;b but by the temporal adverb hD;tAo (“now”).47 That the presence of the new thing is obvious

is reflected in the use of the rhetorical question: Dh…wóo ∂d`Et awäølSh (“Do you not perceive it?”).48

The occurrence of twvdj in 48:6 returns to the notion of things that are announced

(hiphil form of omv) as in 42:9. However, the temporal state has shifted yet again—this time to

44 See also 42:6. 45 English translations that place the particle at the beginning of the verse lose the sense of immediacy that

is more appropriately associated with the verb given the maqqeph conjoining the two. See for example, RSV, ESV, and NIV.

46 My translation reflects the chiastic structure of the Hebrew syntax. 47 hD;tAo occurs also in 43:1, 44:1, 47:8, 48:6, 48:16, adding to the temporally laden character of these

chapters. 48 The rhetorical question assumes an affirmative answer, thereby also emphasizing the immediacy of the

new thing.

19

the future, as denoted by hD;tAoEm (“from now on”). It is here that the new things are defined in

ways that diverge from the temporal.

There is much that could be said regarding the “effects”—that is, the continuing echoes

that reverberate in later texts, different contexts, and future times. It can hardly be overstated,

however, that the temporal dimension of newness with its host of images and terms inaugurates

the development of an eschatological future. One of the features of this future is the notion of

cosmic renewal. What is the nature of that renewal? Is it continuous or discontinuous with the

past? These are the questions that reflect the “differentness” that defines the qualitative

dimension of v ∂dDj to which I now turn.

v ∂dDj: A Qualitative Dimension

The qualitative dimension of newness refers to that aspect that qualifies the character of

newness. It is nature and degree of difference between what is ‘new’ and what is said to have

existed (or not) previously. If the terminology of former, latter, coming, and new formed a

framework that emphasized the temporal dimension of newness in SI, the qualitative dimension

finds its character in another set of vocabulary: arb,49 hco,

50 and rxy. These terms, along with

a vast array of terms and images, forms an immensely rich context in which to explore the

qualitative aspects of newness in SI.

49 arb occurs 14 times in SI, 12 of which are in chs. 40-48 (40:26, 40:28, 41:20, 42:5, 43:1, 43:7, 43:15,

45:7, 45:8, 45:12, 45:18, 48:7, 54:16, 54:19, 65:17, 65:18) 50 hco occurs 29 times in SI, 25 times in chs. 40-48 (Isa 40:23, 41:4, 41:20, 42:16, 43:7, 43:19, 44:2,

44:13, 44:15, 44:17, 44:19, 44:23, 44:24, 45:7, 45:9, 45:12, 45:18, 46:4, 46:6, 46:10, 46:11, 48:3, 48:5, 48:11, 48:14, 51:13, 53:9, 54:5, 55:11).

20

Second Isaiah, and especially chapters 40-48, “offers the most extensive and carefully

developed understanding of God as Creator and his relationship to his creation” anywhere in the

prophetic literature.51 Suggesting a link between the new things and the creation theme in SI,

Terence Fretheim asserts: “that long-ago action of God in the exodus was no longer capable of

speaking a clear word of God to the dispirited exilic community. Given the horror of recent

events, a new creation-based word from God was needed.”52

The theme(s) of creation and Yahweh as Creator are masterfully interwoven. They

function in a variety of ways—at times grounding Yahweh’s challenges to any other would-be

rivals of his sole position and power as Creator;53 at other places, Yahweh’s creative power

becomes a metaphor for the care and protection of his people;54 still other times, Yahweh’s role

and power as Creator needs no substantiating, but rather, functions as the substantiation itself of

Yahweh’s incomparability.55 The themes come to life in a constant stream of images of

transformation, light, growth, glory, amazement, wonder, and renewal.56

The themes of Creator/creation provide the basis for what are perhaps the most profound

effects upon a future beyond SI. In particular, two trajectories emerge from these texts: that of a

“new creation” as the apostle Paul would declare (2 Cor 5:17) and that of the “new heavens and

earth” (Rev 65:17; Isa 66:22; Rev 21:1). Of the first, Douglas Moo states:

51 H. F. Marlow, “Creation Theology,” Dictionary of the Old Testament Prophets, ed. Mark J. Boda and J.

Gordon McConville (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2012): 105-109, 108. 52 Fretheim, God and World, 193. 53 Examples include 54 See, for example: Isa 40:27-31, 41:14-20, 42:14-17, 44:2-5, 55 See, Isa 42:5, 43:1, 43:16; 43:7 (uses first person imperfect verbs), 43:15, 16-21(esp. vv. 16 and 21),

44:2. In Isa 40:12-26, the creation theme, manifested by the host of rhetorical questions, functions in this way, but also resembles sections that are more explicitly “trial” scenes in which Yahweh posits his powers against the would-be rivals of idols.

56 See especially the outstanding work of Armand D’Angour, The Greeks and the New. While his primary focus is on the ‘novelty’ in the 5th century BCE, his insights and material suggest much that is very plausibly common to the ancient world, including the ANE.

21

Following the trajectory initiated by Isaiah and continued in apocalyptic Judaism, Paul uses ‘new creation’ to describe the totally new state of affairs that marks the culmination of God’s plan. Conceptually parallel to ‘new age,’ ‘new creation’ semantically focuses on the universal extent of the new realm that God inaugurates in Christ.” ...The transformation of the universe that Isaiah and apocalyptic Judaism expected in the last day, Paul announces in dramatic style, is already here—with all its revolutionary implications.”57

The second trajectory echoes first in the texts of Trito-Isaiah. The vision of a new

heavens and a new earth recapitulates for a later time and a different context the creative hope

birthed in the Exile: “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things

shall not be remembered or come into mind” (Isa. 65:17). Similar to the announcements of “new

things” in SI, the use of h´…nIh lends its sense of exclamation and immediacy to the word of

Yahweh. The syntax and vocabulary resembles most closely that of 43:19 [“Behold, I am doing

(hco) a new thing (hvdj)”]. However, the verb in 65:17 is arb instead of hco, and although

the Yahweh is the subject of hco many times, it is the verb arb of which Yahweh is the

exclusive subject. The change seems to emphasize, at least in this instance, that this particular

creative endeavor--a “new heavens and a new earth” (no longer the less specific hvdj) belongs

to exclusive creative domain of Yahweh.58 The second half of 65:17 registers subtle differences

as well. Whereas in 43:18, it was commanded: “Do not remember the former things (twønOvaîr)

and do not consider the things of old,” in 65:17 the negative tone is replaced by welcome news

that reads almost like a response to 43:18: “the former things (twønOvaîr will not be remembered

nor come to mind (b`El_lAo; cf. 40:2).” When this formulation of newness appears in Rev 21:1, the

“new heavens and new earth” are not being announced or created but rather, they are seen in the

apocalyptic vision of John. However, in v. 5 we hear the clearest echo of Isa 43:19 in the words

57 Douglas J. Moo, “Creation and New Creation,” BBR 20.1 (2010): 39-60; 59. 58 The suggestion cannot be emphatic, as the verb used in Isa 66:22 is once again hco).

22

of the one sitting on the throne: “Behold, I am making all things new” (i˙dou\\ kaina» poiw ◊

pa¿nta). The promise of exile resounds, and the scope of the twvdj reaches its fullness—

pa¿nta.

As Brown has aptly expressed: “That Yahweh can create anew, even in unprecedented

ways, suggests that creatio continuata is ever potent with new possibilities, of new

configurations of relationships that in the end must enhance all honor and praise due Yahweh’s

sovereign name.”59

v ∂dDj: The Affective Dimension

Although it is true that the affective dimension of biblical texts has not received much

attention among the ranks of OT scholarship, it would hardly be fair to claim that OT scholars

have completely ignored the emotional nature of the texts altogether. For example, Claus

Westermann, whose work epitomizes form criticism, described SI as follows:

His language is from first to last evocative, arousing, even insistent—witness the way in which he piles imperative on imperative ... It was the way he adopted to speak to men whose faith was flagging, and who were at the point of letting themselves drift. At the same time, he used it to address men who kept clinging to the past, even when their observance of traditional usage had no power to lead them to expect any new thing from their God.60

I have already drawn attention to the memorable opening of Isaiah 40: ……y¡I;mAo …wämSjÅn …wñmSjÅn . I

suggested above that these words signaled change in a temporal sense, that is to say, from what

was past to what would be now and future for Israel. These words, however, are even more

59 Brown, The Ethos of the Cosmos, 268. See also, F. M. Cross, “The Redemption of Nature,” PSB 10

(1989): 94-104,102-3. 60 Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 6.

23

significant for their affective impact. The repetition of an imperative in immediate succession

occurs twenty-one times in the OT,61 but nowhere else does the rhetorical emphasis convey the

emotional sense and force that it does here.62 The subsequent command, “bEl_lAo …wrV;bå;d” (lit.

“Speak upon the heart;” usually rendered, “Speak tenderly”) further intensifies the rhetorical

pathos.63 Thus, while the opening is not explicitly associated with newness, it does establish an

emotive tone of comfort and hope that will permeate these chapters.

Much like the effect of temporality on the notion of an eschatological future, this hope

offered to an exilic community is likewise central to the development of an eschatological

tradition. It is here in SI and the other exilic prophets that we observe “the conceptual

foundations of ancestral and Sinaitic covenants combined with the Davidic ideal in a new

eschatological hope, in which everything lost will be restored.”64 Arnold summarizes the

development during the postexilic period stating: “a powerful convergence of Israel’s older

ideologies with the disappointments and deprivations of the restoration community, together with

61 Additional occurences of identical imperatives in immediate succession include: Judg 5:12 (2x; rwo;

“awake”); 2 Sam 16:7 (axy; “get out”); 2 Sam 20:16 (omv; “listen”); Isa 51:9 (rwo); Isa 51:17 (rwo; hithpolel); Isa 52:1 (rwo); Isa 52:11(rws; “turn aside”), cf. Lam 4:15; Isa 57:14 (lls; “build up”); Isa 62:10 (2x; rbo “pass through” and lls); Ezek 3:1 (lka; “eat;” though in succession the imperatives are separated syntactically); Ezek 33:11 (bwv;“turn back”); Nah 2:9 (dmo; “halt”); Ps 47:7 (rmz; “sing praise;” terms are in succession but syntactically function in separate colons); Ps 137:7 (hro; “lay bare”); Prov 30:15 (bhy; “give”); Song 7:1 [Eng 6:13] (2x; bwv ; “return”); Lam 4:15 (rws; “turn aside”), cf. Isa 52:11. Notably, SI/TI contains the greatest concentration of the device.

62 After this initial use, Mjn does not occur again until the latter half of SI (49:13, 51:3, 51:12, 51:19, 52:9, 54:11, and again in 61:2 and 66:13). Interestingly, 49:13 contains an exhortation to sing and exult, “for (yI;k) Yahweh has comforted (piel perfect of Mjn) his people...”

63 The tone of tenderness is echoed in the imagery of 40:11.Yahweh, like a shepherd, will feed his flock, gather the lambs in his arms, carry them in his bosom, and lead those that are with young (lit. “those who are nursing”). The preceding image (v.10) of Yahweh as a conquering warrior, returning victorious, with might and power and the rewards of his victory, presents a striking juxtaposition.

64 Bill T. Arnold, “Old Testament Eschatology and the Rise of Apocalypticism,” in The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology, ed. Jerry L. Walls (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 23-39; 28. Arnold notes that the envisioned eschatological restoration is summed up by “the recurring expression šûb šebût, ‘to restore the fortunes,’ a collocation already popular in the preexilic prophets for the general restoration of lost status, but which came now to denote, specifically, restoration from exile” (28).

24

the political upheavals surrounding the fall of Babylon and the new world order created by the

Persians resulted in a decisively new eschatological tradition.”65

While hope is undoubtedly paramount in the emotive character of SI, and thus intersects

with the notion of newness in various ways; however, there are several other ways in which the

affective impact might be considered.

At several points in this study I have drawn attention to the particle h´…nIh which occurs

nine times in chs. 40-48, four of which are places where v ∂dDj also occurs.66 Thus far, I have

emphasized the exclamatory sense and the immediacy it connotes. Dennis McCarthy suggests

there is also “something dramatic or emotionally telling about the cause or the time or the

condition or whatever it is expressing”67 and emphasizes the emotional overtones and feeling

conveyed by the expression. With that in mind, one might consider the emotional possibilities of

the v ∂dDj where h´…nIh is used. For example, one might consider Isa 40:15: “Behold (h´…nIh ) I will

make of you a threshing sledge, new (v ∂dDj), sharp and having teeth; you shall thresh the

mountains and crush them, and you shall make the hills like chaff.” At first glance, the emotive

tone seems angry and destructive, and yet in context, the immediately preceding message is

“Fear not...I will help you...h´…nIh. So perhaps the affect is one of encouragement as Yahweh

65 Bill T. Arnold, “Old Testament Eschatology and the Rise of Apocalypticism,” in The Oxford Handbook

of Eschatology, ed. Jerry L. Walls (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 23-39; 29. 66 40:9, 40:10, 41:15, 41:27, 42:9, 43:19, 47:14, 48:7, 48:10; in Isa 49-55: 49:12, 49:22, 51:22, 52:6, 52:13,

54:11, and 54:16. 67 Dennis J. McCarthy, “The Uses of wehinnēh in Biblical Hebrew,” Biblica 61 (1980): 330-42; 342.

McCarthy focuses his survey on wehinnēh, but notes that “a wide sampling indicates that the same nuances characterize the use of simple hinnēh,” citing the study by C. J. Labuschagne which finds no particular distinctions between the uses of hēn, hinnēh, and wehinnēh [330; Labuschagne, “The Particles hēn and hinnēh,” OTS 18 (1973):1-15]. McCarthy describes the challenge of identifying the nature of these emotional overtones by comparing them to trying to discern the tone of voice when we listen to a reader: “Without the tone of voice to indicate nuances to the listener or the mass of literature which provides analogous signals for the discerning reader, neither of which we can have here [biblical Hebrew], it is hard to choose among the possibilities. The reader must depend on intuition” (335).

25

describes the means by which he will help them. Or, consider the following verse (41:16b): “And

you shall rejoice in Yahweh; in the Holy One of Israel you shall glory.” Thus, the power and

help of Yahweh given exclamation by the introductory h´…nIh will be cause for an affect of joy.

Joy is conveyed in a number of places in SI, most often demonstrated in acts of praise,

glory, and singing to Yahweh. Singing and rejoicing intersect with v ∂dDj in the exhortation: “Sing

to Yahweh a new song, his praise from the end of the earth!” The use of v ∂dDj in the previous

verse and immediately again in the next verse suggest the likelihood that it exemplifies the use of

catch-words to connect literary units. Most scholars would agree that 42:9 is the end of a unit and

that 42:10 the beginning of another. However, the fact remains that the reader/listener

automatically picks up the connection, and it does not seem unreasonable that singing a “new

song” to Yahweh is an appropriate response to the “new things” he announces. As for the phrase,

v ∂dDj ryv, it was earlier noted that it occurs seven times in the OT. The other occurrences are all

in the Psalms, and in fact, represent the only use of the adjective v ∂dDj in the Psalms.

Most biblical scholars associate the “new song” with the Psalms and a specific hymn-

form. Westermann explains: “the prophet thus took a form well-known to his people from their

worship and so altered it as to give the call to praise its substantiation in a unique act of

God...The reason for striking up the ‘new song’ is a new act on God’s part...”68 This explanation

is reasonable and likely, in my opinion. However, it does not fully answer the question, “What is

the new song?” One might justifiably ask, what exactly is ‘new’ about the song? The words? A

new melody?

68 Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 102-103.

26

Based on the research of D’Angour I would like to suggest some additional options for

consideration. First, the phrase is not unique to the OT. It appears in the first book of Homer’s

Odyssey,69 in the context of the bard Phemios who is providing the entertainment with his songs.

It is said, “People give greater acclaim to the newest (neōtatē) song that attends their ears.”70

D’Angour argues that music (mousikē): provides the most explicit and enduring examples of innovationist discourse in any sphere of Greek cultural activity...The mass of verbal indications of innovationism in Greek musico-poetic texts, combined with the ubiquity and popularity of Greek musical activity, leaves little room for doubt that the idea of the new played a vital role.71

The use of neos to describe the song, it is possible that the sense is ‘young’ or its narratives,

themes, and characters are still relatively unfamiliar to an audience. The song might present

recent events in novel form. Significantly, D’Angour underscores the idea that,

novelty is not simply a formal attribute of poetry. Not only may the reworking of a familiar theme to embrace relatively recent and unsung events exhibit novel focus and structure, it can arouse new kinds of emotional response in its listeners, as well as responses that feel ‘new’ because they are largely indefinable.72

I am conscious that one must be cautious in comparing ancient Greek culture with that of

ancient Israel. However, I would suggest that the importance and wealth of song and poetry in

the OT, the emphasis on singing and dancing and instruments, as well as the examples of notable

songs such as that of Deborah or of Miriam and the women of Israel in the exodus narrative,

suggest the high likelihood that musical-poetic novelty occurred in Israel as it did in ancient

Greece. If this is indeed the case, I would add that singing a “new song” as the biblical text

exhorts affords humanity to participate in the creative newness of Yahweh.

69 Od. I. 337-44. 70 Od. 350-2; cited by D’Angour, Newness, 185. 71 D’Angour, Newness, 184. 72 D’Angour, Newness, 189.

27

Conclusion

In this paper I have attempted to give fresh perspective to the terminology and concept of

v ∂dDj especially as it emerges from Isa 40-48. Starting with texts that have had profound effects,

my goal was to investigate the effectual evidence and the sources in order to better understand

the nature and power of the impact. The analysis entailed aspects of the linguistic, historical, and

cultural contexts that inform the notion of newness. Furthermore, by means of a close reading of

the text, I sought to illumine the meaning and function of the ‘new things’ in SI in their temporal,

qualitative, and affective dimensions. Much that has been left out and much has yet to be

discovered, but I hope my efforts have brought a greater measure of understanding and

appreciation to the new things of Isaiah.

In closing, I would suggest that the time is ripe for more sustained and meaningful

interaction with the biblical concept of v ∂dDj. In contemporary Western culture, the notion of

newness is celebrated in the realm of innovation;73 it is calculated and commercialized in the

economic realm;74 and, it fuels the rallying cry for change in the political arena. Buzzwords such

as innovation, creativity, novelty, change, and imagination are ubiquitous in twenty-first century

culture, reflecting a concept whose numerous refractions have permeated the social fabric. It

seems only fitting that the notion of “newness” begs for an intentional intersection of biblical

scholarship and contemporary context and discourse.75

73 Perhaps the most notable, recent example is the late Steve Jobs, whose role as a technological innovator in the information age was lauded at his untimely death, and subsequently in print and film; see for example, Walter Isaacson, Steve Jobs (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011).

74 See, for example: Aimee Dinnin, “The Appeal of Our New Stuff: How Newness Creates Value,” Advances in Consumer Research 36 (2009): 261-265; Sean Nixon, “The Pursuit of Newness: Advertising, Creativity and the ‘Narcissism of Minor Differences,’” Cultural Studies 20 (2006): 89-106.

75 I say “intentional” because I make the assumption that biblical interpreters and readers are themselves products of their historical and social context—thus making the intersection already inherent to the investigation,

28

even if not explicit. Reader-response criticism has convincingly shown this to be the case. Additionally, the intersection I am advocating is an important dimension of the history of interpretation and, as John Sawyer asserts, “must be considered an integral part of Biblical Studies” [The Fifth Gospel: Isaiah in the History of Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 245]. Sawyer notes that within the broader context of interdisciplinary religious studies, students are now raising “searching ethical, socio-political and economic questions about the meaning of the texts studied ... as a matter of course” (245). He continues, “Students of the Bible must be constantly reminded, at all levels, that the texts they are working on are not just ancient documents like the lawcode of Hammurabi or the Dead Sea Scrolls, but sacred texts which can be, and have been used in many ways and in all manner of contexts to influence, down to the present day, the lives of real people” (245-46).