Repozitórium index

This article argues that Isaiah's so-called ‘refrain poem’ (Kehrvergedicht) in Isa. 9.7–20 is a composite text, going back to two early prophecies with different concerns. Isaiah 9.7–17* focused originally on the arrogant refusal of the divine word, while Isa. 9.18–20* reflected on the chaotic social circumstances in Samaria in the eighth century. The refrains in vv. 9,11cd, 16ef and 20cd were added to these two already connected prophecies at a later stage. The theological summary in v. 12 is yet another addition, closely affiliated with 5.24–25. Unlike v. 12, the refrains do not have the repentance of Israel in view, nor its final destruction, but the fall of Assyria in Isa. 10.5–15, 24–27. The refrains support the theory that the Isaianic collection was formed by means of reusing, restructuring and reinterpreting earlier material. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0309089216690385

In Jeremiah 28, there is a dispute between the prophets Jeremiah and Hananiah over the (il)legitimacy of prophecies of salvation concerning Judah and prophecies of judgement regarding Babylon. On the eve of Jerusalem’s fall to the Babylonians, the prophet Jeremiah, who proclaims judgement on Judah at the hands of Babylon, appears to be the true, genuine, canonical voice of God. While this text does not preclude the eventual authenticity of prophecies of salvation in the event that they are proven valid by being fulfilled, it nevertheless is rather strange that the book of Jeremiah ends with a collection of prophecies against the Chaldaeans. The anti-Babylonian statements in Jeremiah 50-51 are ascribed to the very same prophet who had once dismissed Hananiah for uttering similarly worded – and presumably uninspired – invectives before the people of Jerusalem.

The erudition, precision and commitment guiding this study is admirable. Nonetheless, while linguistic analysis may entice the reader with the promise of a higher degree of objectivity, preconceptions regarding the base text, its structuring, the construction of reading, and the interpretation of linguistic data involve a fair amount of subjective and debatable factors that confine Systemic Functional Linguistics within the methods to be tamed by responsible scholarship.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jss/fgab006