Downloaded from Brill.Com09/23/2021 10:44:16AM Via Free Access 644 Sumner

Vetus Testamentum 68 (2018) 643-659 Vetus Testamentum brill.com/vt

The Genealogy and Theology of Isaiah 11:1

Stephen T. Sumner University of Chicago [email protected]

Abstract

Isaiah 11:1 traces the genealogy of ideal king back to Jesse and not a Davidic king in order to portray him as a new, or second, David. This depiction was motivated by the religious decline of the Davidides, and it allowed for a sense of disjuncture, or distance, from the Davidic line in order to claim royal legitimacy on theological grounds.

Keywords

Messiah – Isaiah 11 – Isaiah 7 – Isaiah 8 – Assyrian and Levantine royal genealogy – Isaiah’s theology – David

Introduction

The genealogy in Isa 11:1 was central to Isaiah’s vision of the ideal king and foun- dational to his unique, theological perspective of royal legitimacy (vv. 1-5).1

1 As it stands, the textual unit actually extends to v. 9, but vv. 1-5 are more pertinent to this discussion because they focus on the ideal king himself, while vv. 6-9 describe the outcomes of his administration. Verses 1-5 are also more easily ascribed to Isaiah ben Amoz, but vv. 6-9 often find less support in this regard, see Hans Wildberger, Jesaja, 1. Teilband: Jesaja 1-12 (BKAT 10/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1972), pp. 442-44. On the genre of vv. 1-9, see Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1-39: With Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL 16; Grand Rapids, 1996), p. 203. For ancient near eastern parallels, see Richard J. Clifford, “The Roots of Apocalypticism in Near Eastern Myth”, in The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism: Volume 1: The Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity, ed. John J. Collins (New York, 1998), pp. 12-14; Martti Nissinen, “Neither Prophecies nor Apocalypses: The Akkadian Literary Predictive Texts”, in Knowing the End from the Beginning: The Prophetic, the Apocalyptic, and Their Relationships, ed. Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D.

Then a shoot will emerge from the root-collar2 of Jesse.

Haak (JSPsup 46; London, 2003), pp. 134-48; Jonathan Stökl, Prophecy in the Ancient Near East: A Philological and Sociological Comparison (CHANE 56; Leiden, 2012), pp. 14-16; Wildberger, Jesaja, 1, pp. 440-41. 2 The exact denotation of gēzaʿ is difficult in light of the biblical evidence. It occurs just three times in the Hebrew Bible, but every time in connection with šōreš/šrš. It is twice used in parallel with šōreš (Isa 11:1, Job 14:8) and once as the subject of a denominative verb from that root (Isa 40:24). It, therefore, appears to be related to, but somehow distinct from, the root system itself. Isaiah 11:1 suggests that gēzaʿ does not mean ‘cutting’, because ḥōṭer and nēṣer, when cut, would serve in that capacity (cf. Niels Stokholm and Søren Rønn Willesen, “Gezaʿ”, SJOT 18 [2004], pp. 153-55. DOI: s10.1080/09018320410007852). Gēzaʿ also does not mean ‘stump’, because in Isa 40:24 it denotes a recent planting of some kind (cf. maṣṣebet “stump” 6:13). The “stump” translation of gēzaʿ in 11:1 appears to have derived from the interpretation of 10:33-34, as it should, since 10:33-34 and 11:1 are syntactically and thematically inseparable (Wildberger, Jesaja 1, pp. 428, 442-43). One must consider, though, if the judgment described in 10:33-34 was intended for Jesse (an implication of the translation “stump”), and, if so, why? Regardless, felling is not a prerequisite for fruit trees to produce new shoots. The intent of the imagery in 11:1 was to indicate that the ideal king would be a replica of David, not that there was still life in the decimated tree of Jesse. These arguments against gēzaʿ as a ‘cutting’ and ‘stump’ find support from Arabic and Syriac. Arabic jiḏʿ means ‘trunk (of a palm-tree)’ and Syriac guzʿā means ‘rod, trunk’, which is used in the Peshiṭta of 11:1 to translate gēzaʿ (Lane, s.v. jiḏʿ; Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon [Winona Lake, 2009], s.v. guzʿā). Syriac guzā could be used of a tree without reference to cuttings or felling: whydyn sbrʾ ʾyk gwzʿʾ mtrbʾ lʿly wslq ʿdmʾ lrwmʾ “then hope, like a guzʿā, grows upward and ascends to the heights” (Paulus Bedjan, S. Martyrii qui est Sahdona quae supersunt omnia [Leipzig, 1902], p. 180 lines 1-2). Hebrew gēzaʿ seems to have had a similar semantic range. For Biblical Hebrew, gēzaʿ is best associated with the tissue near the root collar, or root crown, of a fruit tree. The root collar of a tree is immediately superior to, yet contiguous with, the root system (Isa 11:1 shows that the root system does not have to be entirely sub- terranean). For various reasons, I am inclined to see 11:1 as a reference to an olive tree (see Marvin A. Sweeney, “Jesse’s New Shoot in Isaiah 11: A Josianic Reading of the Prophet Isaiah,” in Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders [JSOTSup 225; Sheffield, 1996], pp. 107-08 and the royal connection in Jud 9:8-9), and olive trees produce ovular knobs on or near the root collar. These knobs can produce shoots that are used for vegetative propagation, and the knobs themselves are even used for this purpose. The basal portion of the trunk, rightly conceived of as nexus of the root collar and root system, was, thus, associated with the production of new life. As a result, the gēzaʿ “root collar” and the šōreš “root” became meaningful poetic pairs. On olive tree propagation, see Shahal Abbo, Avi Gopher, and Simha Lev-Yadun, “Fruit Domestication in the Near East,” in Plant Breeding Reviews 39, ed. Jules Janick (Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, 2015), pp. 330-32; Andrea Fabbri, Giorgio Bartolini, and Maurizio Lambardi, Olive Propagation Manual (Collingwood, 2004), pp. 30-33; Arthur Tappan Marvin, The Olive: Its Culture in Theory and Practice (San Francisco, 1888), pp. 71-72; Ioannis Therios, Olives (Crop Production Science in Horticulture 18;

Vetus TestamentumDownloaded from 68 Brill.com09/23/2021(2018) 643-659 10:44:16AM via free access The Genealogy and Theology of Isaiah 11:1 645

An offshoot will branch out from his roots.3

Cambridge, 2009), pp. 125, 128-38; Daniel Zohary, Maria Hopf, and Ehud Weiss, Domestication of Plants in the Old World: The Origin and Spread of Domesticated Plants in South-West Asia, Europe, and the Mediterranean Basin, 4th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 114- 21; Daniel Zohary and Pinhas Spiegel-Roy, “Beginnings of Fruit Growing in the Old World”, Science 187 (1975), p. 325. Applying this to 11:1, the metaphor depicts a shoot (hōṭer/nēṣer) sprouting from the basal portion of the trunk (gēzaʿ/šōreš) that would be used to propagate a new tree, a new David (see Ernst Haag, “Der neue David und die Offenbarung der Lebensfülle Gottes nach Jesaja 11:1-9,” in Im Gespräch mit dem dreieinen Gott: Elemente einer trinitarischen Theologie: Festschrift Wilhelm Breuning [Düsseldorf, 1985], pp. 103-04; Robb Andrew Young, Hezekiah in History and Tradition [VTSup 155; Leiden, 2012], pp. 170-75). Similar imagery is found in Ps 128:3 (DCH 8, s.v. šātîl; Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalmen 101-150 [HThKAT; Freiburg, 2008], pp. 22, 403, 536, 542-43; Kirsten Nielsen, There Is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah, trans. Christine Crowley and Frederick Crowley [JSOTSup 65; Sheffield, 1989], p. 76). Semantically, the gēzaʿ should then mean ‘that which is cut’ (passive actant noun) and not ‘that which is cut off’ (a noun of result). It should also not refer to a physical state (e.g., ‘stump’) but an anatomical component present regardless of the condition of the plant (e.g., Job 14:8 and Isa 40:24) (see Fox, Semitic Noun Patterns [Cambridge, 2003], pp. 27-29, 141-48; Wolf Leslau, Comparative Dictionary of Geʿez [Classical Ethiopic]: Geʿez-English / English-Geʿez with an Index of the Semitic Roots [Wiesbaden, 1991], s.v. gazʿa). 3 Reading yprh with the MT. For various reasons, many emend yprh to yrpḥ, see Joachim Becker, “Wurzel und Wurzelsproß: Ein Beitrag zur hebräischen Lexikographie”, BZ 20 (1976), p. 26; Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia (HKAT; Göttingen, 1902), p. 78; Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12: A Commentary, trans. John Bowden, 2nd ed. (OTL 17; Philadelphia, 1983), p. 252 fn. 1; August Knobel, Der Prophet Jesaia (EHAT; Leipzig, 1843), p. 82; Wildberger, Jesaja 1, p. 437. The ancient translations are frequently cited as support. The Targum (ûmšiḥā … yitrabbe “and the Anointed One will grow up”), however, does not bolster the emendation because it is clearly interpretive (see Stenning, The Targum of Isaiah [Oxford, 1949], pp. 40-41; Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature [London, 1902], s.v. rby). The Peshiṭta (wnapraʿ nurbā “and branch will shoot forth”) and LXX (anthos … anabēsetai “a flower will shoot forth”), on the other hand, are better wit- nesses. They show that the Vorlage was not understood as a reference to ‘fruit-bearing’, as yprh might suggest, but the growth of a new shoot (see Gillian et al., The Syriac Peshiṭta Bible with English Translation: Isaiah [Piscataway, 2012], 56; Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon, s.v. prʿ #2 Af. 1a. For the LXX, see Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes, rev. ed. [Stuttgart, 2006], p. 581; T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint [Louvain, 2009], s.v. anabainō). The emendation, however, is still unnecessary for two reasons: (i) 1QIsaa supports the consonantal text of the MT and (ii) the meaning of prh in Biblical Hebrew has a semantic range broader than just ‘bearing fruit’; it can also mean ‘to branch out’ (DCH 6, s.v. prh I 4, prh II; Israel Eitan, “A Contribution to Isaiah Exegesis [Notes and Short Studies in Biblical

Vetus Testamentum 68 (2018) 643-659 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 10:44:16AM via free access 646 Sumner

Most royal genealogies from the Levant and Assyria showcased and, even, man- ufactured dynastic continuity in order to foster a sense of royal legitimacy.4 This ubiquitous royal paradigm, however, was adjusted in Isa 11:1. The genealogy presented there not only deviated from the trend but sought legitimacy through a certain measure of discontinuity from the Davidic line. It accom- plished this sense of disjuncture by tracing the descent of the ideal king to Jesse, not to a Davidide. This subtle but significant maneuver enabled the au- thor to avoid a genealogy tied directly to a Davidic king, while still maintain- ing his Davidic descent. The peculiarity of this depiction has not precluded its meaning, for it has long been understood as an announcement of a new, or second, David.5 While this much is clear, the rhetorical strategies that this verse implemented would benefit from few additional remarks concerning royal typology and Isaian theology.

Philology]”, HUCA 12 [1937], p. 59; H. L. Ginsberg, “‘Roots Below and Fruit Above’ and Related Matters,” in Hebrew and Semitic Studies Presented to Godfrey Rolles Driver in Celebration of His 70 Birthday, ed. D. Winton Thomas and W. D. McHardy [Oxford, 1963], pp. 72-76). 4 On Assyria, see Tomoo Ishida, The Royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel: A Study on the Formation and Development of Royal-Dynastic Ideology (BZAW 142; Berlin, 1977), pp. 6-14; René Labat, Le caractère religieux de la royauté assyro-babylonienne (Paris, 1939), pp. 40-44; Beate Pongratz-Leisten, “Genealogien als Kulturtechnik zur Begründung des Herrschaftsanspruchs in Assyrien und Babylonien”, SAAB 11 (1997), pp. 76, 82-84, 87; Karen Radner, “Assyrian and Non-Assyrian Kingship in the First Millennium BC”, in Concepts of Kingship in Antiquity: Proceedings of the European Science Foundation Exploratory Workshop: Held in Padova, November 28th-December 1st, 2007, ed. Giovanni B. Lanfranchi and Robert Rollinger (HANE/M 11; Padova, 2010), pp. 25-27; Hayim Tadmor, “History and Ideology in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions”, in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: New Horizons in Literary, Ideological, and Historical Analysis. Papers of Symposium Held in Cetona (Siena) June 26-28, 1980, ed. F. Mario Fales (Roma, 1981), p. 25; Robert R. Wilson, “Between ‘Azel’ and ‘Azel’ Interpreting the Biblical Genealogies”, BA 42 (1979), p. 13. Cf. A. Leo Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization, rev. ed. (Chicago, 1977), p. 101. On the Levant, see Gösta W. Ahlström, “Administration of the State in Canaan and Ancient Israel”, in CANE, ed. Jack Sasson, vol. 1 (New York, 1995), pp. 590-93. 5 Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah (OTL; Louisville, 2001), p. 102; Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, p. 78; Kissane, The Book of Isaiah, vol. 1 (Dublin, 1941), p. 142; Knobel, Der Prophet Jesaia, p. 82; Nielsen, There Is Hope for a Tree, p. 133; H. G. M. Williamson, “The Messianic Texts in Isaiah 1-39”, in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Day (JSOTSup 270; Sheffield, 1998), pp. 263, 269.

Vetus TestamentumDownloaded from 68 Brill.com09/23/2021(2018) 643-659 10:44:16AM via free access The Genealogy and Theology of Isaiah 11:1 647

Royal Typology: The Royal Genealogies from Assyria, the Levant, and Isaiah 11:1

The most common genealogical formula in the Assyrian royal inscriptions was a linear, two-ancestor genealogy:6 PN, son of PN, (grand)son of PN.7 Assyrian royal genealogies occasionally included more than two ancestors, and in these instances, they often reverted to the presentation of telescoped relationships.8 These demonstrate a proclivity for botanic terms (e.g., “offshoot of PN”) in contrast with the familial ones used for contiguous generations (“son/grand- son of PN”).9 The three-ancestor genealogy in Esarhaddon’s Monument A is illustrative of this dialectic: Esarhaddon is called the “son” (DUMU [mār]) of Sennacherib, the “(grand)son” (DUMU [mār]) of Sargon II, but the “seed” (NUMUN [zēr]) of Bel-Bani’s (c. 1700 BCE) kingship.10 Likewise, Levantine states placed a similar stock in hereditary succession and used linear genealogies as verification. In contrast to Assyria, single-ancestor royal genealogies were the dominant form (PN, son of PN),11 though

6 “X-ancestor genealogy”, though cumbersome, is preferred over “X-generation genealogy” because the latter without qualification implies numeric accuracy, which is not the case in telescoped genealogies. The three-ancestor (= four-generation) genealogy of Esarhaddon, for example, represents far more than four successive generations of the family tree. The others are simply gapped. 7 Tadmor, “History and Ideology”, p. 25; Wilson, “Between ‘Azel’”, p. 13. For example, see RIMA 3, Šamšī-Adad V no. 1 i lines 26-36. See also CAD P, s.v. pirʾu 2b; A. Kirk Grayson, “Königslisten und Chroniken”, in RlA, vol. 6 (1980-83), p. 114; Mattias Karlsson, Relations of Power in Early Neo-Assyrian State Ideology (SANER 10; Berlin, 2016), p. 215. 8 For example, RIMA 3, Shalmaneser III no. 1 line 10. See also Robert R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (YNER 7; New Haven, 1977), pp. 59, 64. 9 Wilson makes this suggestion for liblibbu specifically (Genealogy and History, pp. 68-69) but zēru ‘seed’ and perʾu ‘shoot’ should also be included. 10 RINAP 4, Esarhaddon no. 98 rev. lines 15-18. The sui generis seven-ancestor genealogy of Adad-nerari III also follows this paradigm (RIMA 3, Adad-nārārī III no. 1 lines 9b- 27). See also CAD D, s.v. durgu b; Michael Brennan Dick, “Royal Dynasticism as Divine Legitimization”, in Enigmas and Images: Studies in Honor of Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, ed. Göran Eidevall and Blaženka Scheuer (Winona Lake, 2011), pp. 180, 183; Grayson, “Königslisten und Chroniken”, pp. 104-05, 110, 114; Pongratz-Leisten, “Genealogien”, pp. 80- 84; John Malcolm Russell, The Writing on the Wall: Studies in the Architectural Context of Late Assyrian Palace Inscriptions (Winona Lake, 1999), pp. 84-87; Wilson, “Between ‘Azel’”, pp. 13-14. 11 The Ahirom Inscription (KAI 1 line 1), Tabnit Inscription (KAI 13 lines 1-2), Eshmunazor Inscription (KAI 14 lines 1-2); Kulamuwa Inscription (KAI 24 lines 1-2), Mesha Inscription (KAI 181 line 1), Melqart Stela (Wayne T. Pitard, “The Identity of the Bir-Hadad of the

Vetus Testamentum 68 (2018) 643-659 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 10:44:16AM via free access 648 Sumner two-ancestor genealogies are proportionately well-attested.12 Royal genealogies were not always intended for legitimizing purposes, however, and in these cases, it sufficed to identify just immediate paternal descent (PN, son of PN).13 This is the form and function of most genealogies in 1-2 Kgs and 1-2 Chr.14 Considering the regularity and formulaic consistency of royal genealogies, omissions or deviations from the paradigm betray intentionality. Within the corpus of Assyrian royal inscriptions, only those of Tiglath-pileser III, Sargon II, and Sennacherib fail to provide a genealogy.15 For Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II, the reason is moderately transparent. Their missing genealogy was a derivative of their usurpation.16 Essentially, no genealogy was better than citing the one they had. Their inscriptions, however, contain what appears to be a genealogical substitute. On several occasions, Tiglath-pileser III was called “the shoot (perʾi) of Baltil (= Assur)”, and Sargon II once claimed to be “the seed (zēr) of Baltil”.17 These were unique titles, attested

Melqart Stela”, BASOR 272 [1988], p. 4 lines 1-2), Hadad Inscription (KAI 214 line 1), Panamuwa Inscription (KAI 215 line 1), and Bar-Rakib Inscription (KAI 216 lines 1-3). Outside the Levant, the Tell Fekheriye Inscription (KAI 309 lines 6-7) has a single-ancestor royal genealogy. 12 The Yehawmilk Inscription (KAI 10 line 1), Eshmunazor Inscription, with the distaff lineage given as well (KAI 14 lines 13-14), and Tell Siran Bottle Inscription (KAI 308). A four-ancestor genealogy is found in the Ekron Inscription of Akhayus (Seymour Gitin, Trude Dothan, and Joseph Naveh, “A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron”, KAI 47 [1997], p. 9 lines 1-2). See also Wilson, Genealogy and History, pp. 119-25. 13 E.g., the Tell Dan Stele (KAI 310 lines 7-8) and juridical texts from Ugarit, where the king is the donor or witness (e.g., KTU3 3.2 [among others]; Sylvie Lackenbacher, Textes akkadi- ens d’Ugarit: Textes provenant des vingt-cinq premieres campagnes, [LAPO 20; Paris, 2002], p. 219ff.). 14 Sometimes accompanied by the distaff lineage. 15 Ishida, The Royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel, p. 10; Pongratz-Leisten, “Genealogien”, p. 85; Tadmor, “History and Ideology”, p. 26. 16 On Tiglath-pileser III’s usurpation, see Grayson, “Assyria: Tiglath-pileser III to Sargon II (744-705 BC)”, in CAH2 III/2 (1991), p. 73. For Sargon II, see Eckart Frahm, “Family Matters: Psychohistorical Reflections on Sennacherib and His Times”, in Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem: Story, History and Historiography, ed. Isaac Kalimi and Seth Richardson (CHANE 71; Leiden, 2014), pp. 176-77; Andreas Fuchs, “Sargon II”, in RlA, vol. 12 (2009), p. 53; Amélie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East: C. 3000-330 BC, 2 vols. (New York, 1995), pp. 496-97. 17 Tiglath-pileser III = NUNUZ (perʾi) bal-tilki šu-qu-ru “the precious shoot of Baltil” (RINAP 1, Tiglath-pileser III no. 1 line 1; no. 35 i line 23). Sargon II = NUMUN (zēr) bal-tilki “the seed of Baltil” (CAD Z, s.v. zēru 4b; François Thureau-Dangin, Une relation de la huitième campagne de Sargon [714 av. J.-C.] [TCL 3; Paris, 1912], plate VI ln. 113).

Vetus TestamentumDownloaded from 68 Brill.com09/23/2021(2018) 643-659 10:44:16AM via free access The Genealogy and Theology of Isaiah 11:1 649 for the first time during the reign of Tiglath-pileser III, that intertwined gen- tilic (GN = “Baltil”) and genealogical (botanic terms = “shoot/seed”) formulae.18 While they employed different botanic terms (“shoot” and “seed”), the titles were roughly synonymous, because they cited two forms of fruit tree propagation, asexual (“shoot”) and sexual (“seed”).19 The intent was to highlight a connection to Bel-bani, a native of “Baltil”, who founded the legitimate Assyrian dynasty after a period of seven illegitimate rulers (“sons of nobody”).20 By as- sociating with “Baltil”, they were casting themselves as Bel-bani types in order to highlight their legitimacy without recourse to the dynastic line.21 In the Levant, it was similarly uncommon for royal inscriptions to lack genealogies. Of the few inscriptions without them, the possibility that their pro- tagonists were usurpers has been claimed and hinted at, but these deductions are based upon the internal textual evidence (primarily the absence of a genealogy) with little external data available for corroboration.22 This is not to deny

Esarhaddon frequently emulates Tiglath-pileser III’s title (RINAP 4, Esarhaddon no. 48 line 35, no. 50 line 4’, no. 127 line 17’, no. 128 line 14, no. 133 line 29), though sometimes with modifications (RINAP 4, Esarhaddon no. 48 line 48, no. 113 lines 7-8, no. 128 line 14, no. 133 line 28). 18 Tadmor, “History and Ideology”, p. 27. 19 Abbo, Gopher, and Lev-Yadun, “Fruit Domestication in the Near East”, pp. 329-46; Zohary and Spiegel-Roy, “Beginnings of Fruit Growing”, p. 325. 20 John A. Brinkman, “Bēl-Bāni”, in The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, ed. Karen Radner, vol. 1/II (Helsinki, 1999), p. 288; Dick, “Royal Dynasticism”, p. 180; Jean- Jacques Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, ed. Benjamin R. Foster (WAW 19; Atlanta, 2004), p. 138 ii lines 6-13; Grayson, “Königslisten und Chroniken”, p. 106; Ishida, The Royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel, p. 8; Julius Lewy, “The Late Assyro-Babylonian Cult of the Moon and Its Culmination at the Time of Nabonidus”, HUCA 19 (1945-46), pp. 467- 69; RINAP 4, Esarhaddon no. 48 lines 35, 48-49, no. 98 rev. lines 16-18, no 100 lines 7-8, no. 113 lines 7-8; H. W. F. Saggs, “Historical Texts and Fragments of Sargon II of Assyria: I. The ‘Aššur Charter,’” Iraq 37 (1975), p. 14 line 29; Luis Robert Siddall, “The Genealogy of Adad-Nirari III, the Identity of the Ila-Kabkabis of the Assyrian King List and the Status of the ‘Legitimization’ Hypothesis”, Or 76 (2007), p. 377; Tadmor, “History and Ideology”, pp. 27-28; Klaas R. Veenhof, “The Old Assyrian Period”, in Mesopotamia: The Old Assyrian Period, ed. Markus Wäfler (OBO 160:5; Fribourg/Göttigen, 2008), p. 24; Shigeo Yamada, “Notes on the Genealogical Data of the Assyrian King List”, EI 27 (2003), p. 271*. 21 Tadmor, “History and Ideology”, p. 27. 22 The two that come to mind are the Yahimilk Inscription (KAI 4) and the Zakkur Inscription (KAI 214). Others have voiced a similar hesitancy to press the available evidence for both Yahimilk (Karen Engelken, “Baʿalšamen: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit der Monographie von H. Niehr,” ZAW 108 [1999], p. 393 fn. 14) and Zakkur (Andrew Knapp, Royal Apologetic in the Ancient Near East [WAWSup 4; Atlanta, 2015], p. 61).

Vetus Testamentum 68 (2018) 643-659 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 10:44:16AM via free access 650 Sumner the possibility, but the Assyrian evidence, in particular, that of Sennacherib (see below), provides a precedent for seeing ulterior motives behind genealogical anomalies. With respect to Isa 11:1, the genealogy of the ideal king exhibits features of both Levantine and Assyrian royal genealogies. Most of its commonali- ties, however, are found in the Assyrian inscriptions.23 In fact, Isa 11:1 accords with the Levantine tradition in just one respect, as a linear, single-ancestor genealogy. This may be a true conformity or just a superficial agreement resulting from the strictures of its intent.24 Its similarities with Assyrian royal genealogies are more apparent.25 (i) Its use of a telescoped genealogy (ii) couched in botanic imagery26 is most reminiscent of Assyrian genealogies like Esarhaddon’s, where he claimed to be “the seed of Bel-bani’s kingship”. It also not far removed from the titles of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II: “the shoot/ seed of Baltil”. (iii) These latter designations make a typological claim that is also mirrored in 11:1. The ideal king as the “shoot of Jesse” depicted him as a type of David, a new David, just as the connection to “Baltil” portrayed Tiglath- pileser III and Sargon II as Bel-bani types. Though superficially different, the typological claim from a toponym versus a genealogy had roughly the same import, and this is borne out biblically in Micah 5:2. There, it states that the ideal king would come from Bethlehem, the birthplace of David (1 Sam 16:1-13)27 and, thus, presents a typological formula noticeably closer to that of Tiglath- pileser III and Sargon II.28 Both Isa 11:1 and Mic 5:2 asserted that the ideal king would be a type of David, and hence Davidic, the former using a genealogy and

23 While possibly the result of Assyrian influence (e.g., Peter Machinist, “Assyria and Its Image in First Isaiah”, JAOS 103 [1983], pp. 719-37), it is more probable that these features represent a shared tradition. 24 The only way to distance the ideal king from the Davidic line and still prove the legitimacy of his Davidic descent was through a single-ancestor genealogy traced back to Jesse. 25 Moshe Weinfeld has used some of the same Assyrian evidence, with additions from Sumerian and Babylonian texts, to highlight the rhetorical similarities between Mesopotamian royal inscriptions that describe the king as a shoot or branch and Isa 11:1. Weinfeld specifically highlights the association of this imagery with claims of social justice (Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East [Jerusalem, 1995], pp. 65-67). 26 Telescoping occurs in biblical genealogies, but the observation here is limited to royal genealogies. In addition, botanic imagery is itself not unique to Assyrian royal inscriptions (e.g., Dan 11:7), just its calculated use in telescoped genealogies. 27 John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1-33 (WBC; Waco, 1985), p. 171. 28 Philip Peter Jenson, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah: A Theological Commentary (LHBOTS 496; New York, 2008), pp. 155-58.

Vetus TestamentumDownloaded from 68 Brill.com09/23/2021(2018) 643-659 10:44:16AM via free access The Genealogy and Theology of Isaiah 11:1 651 the latter a toponym.29 Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II, on the other hand, could only claim geographic continuity with the royal line because they were usurpers. All of these typological formulae implemented the same strategy. They made a typological claim by going one step past the king to be emulated, in which the type had to originate from either the same place or parentage as the prototype.

Distancing and Isaiah’s Theology of Kingship

Isaiah 11:1 is part of a larger metaphor (10:33-11:1) that depicts the felling of the proud (10:33-34),30 those who subverted the preeminence of Yahweh (6:1),31 as a precursor to the emergence of the ideal king. This picture of judgment against those in opposition to Yahweh shows that the primary intent of the whole epi- sode was theological, with the political dimension secondary and consequen- tial to it. As such, every component of the metaphor need not be pressed for historical meaning.32 Portraying the ideal king as a type of David (see above)

29 Even though they make the same typological claim, they were later understood as two independent prerequisites for identifying the Messiah. The gospel of Matthew highlights Jesus’ fulfillment of both to validate his legitimacy (Matt 1:1-17, 2:1-6). 30 Commentators are, however, divided over its referent: Assyria or Judah. For Assyria, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39 (AB 19; New York, 2000), pp. 261-62; Beuken, Jesaja 1-12 (HThKAT; Freiburg, 2003), p. 296; Childs, Isaiah, p. 97; Georg Fohrer, Das Buch Jasaja. Kapitel 1-23, vol. 1, (ZBK; Zürich, 1960), pp. 149-50. For Judah, see Hermann Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung (WMANT 48; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1977), pp. 70-72; Ulrich Berges, Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt (Herders biblische Studien 16; Freiburg, 1998), p. 128; Franz Delitzsch, The Prophecies of Isaiah, vol. 1 (New York, n.d.), pp. 243-44; Jesper Høgenhaven, Gott und Volk bei Jesaja: Eine Untersuchung zur biblischen Theologie (ATDan 24; Leiden, 1988), pp. 120-23, esp. 122; Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12, p. 251; Wildberger, Jesaja 1, p. 433; see also Beuken, Jesaja 1-12, p. 296 fn. 27. A compelling case can, and has, been made for both interpretations, and it is perhaps intentionally ambiguous for that very reason. For an overview of the issues involved, see Nielsen, There Is Hope for a Tree, pp. 123-44. 31 On the proper order of things in Isaian theology, see H. G. M. Williamson, Variations on a Theme: King, Messiah and Servant in the Book of Isaiah (The Didsbury Lecture Series; Carlisle, 1998), pp. 1-29. 32 For example, to suppose the termination of the Davidic monarchy (Berges, Das Buch Jesaja, pp. 128-31; Gray, The Book of Isaiah 2 vols. [ICC 20; New York, 1912], pp. 214-15; Kaiser,

Vetus Testamentum 68 (2018) 643-659 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 10:44:16AM via free access 652 Sumner sought to affirm the legitimacy of the Davidic line but, more importantly, to depict the proper orientation of the ideal king vis-à-vis Yahweh. The genealogy was demonstrating that the priorities of the ideal king would be like that of the first David, whose dynasty, according to Isaiah, could still produce a kingdom properly beneficial for all when ruled according to Yahweh’s standards (9:7). In this way, the position of the king in relation to Yahweh corresponded directly to the successful function of his kingdom (11:2-9).33 In 11:1, the positive image of the ideal king, however, was rendered at the expense of the Davidic line. What is most striking about the genealogical formula there is the absence of a Davidide. In view of the importance of genealogies for royal legitimacy, it is apparent that this absence was significant and admonitory. As we will see, the genealogy of the ideal king had to be traced back to Jesse, because a Davidic king in that slot would have aligned him with the religious and, thus, political failures of the Davidic line.34 The motivation, then, for the genealogical formula in 11:1 was nothing other than a negative evaluation of the religious trajectory of the Davidic dynasty. This critical as- sessment was especially problematic in terms of Isaian theology, for the religious condition of the royal line and its leadership umbrella was not, and could not, be restricted to those spheres alone. The reason being, Isaiah correlated the theological commitment of Judean leadership to Yahweh, including the king (though often without explicit men- tion), with the success or failure of the state and its people.35 Isaiah 32:1-5 is clearest in this regard, showing that the installation of sound leadership, the king and his officials, would reverse the hardening of the people portended in 6:9-10.36 Isaiah 11:1-5 and 9:1-7 (MT 8:23-9:6) affirm this connection by claiming

Isaiah 1-12, p. 254; cf. Wildberger, Jesaja 1, pp. 434-35) or that, according to the traditional interpretation, that “Jesse” must be seen as a dynastic founder and the “shoot” as the elec- tion of a different son of Jesse (so the criticisms of this view by Stokholm and Willesen, “Gezaʿ”, p. 154). 33 Williamson, Variations on a Theme, pp. 30-56. 34 For more on the negative depiction of Judean leadership in general, see Ulrich Berges, “Die Armen im Buch Jesaja: Ein Beitrag zur Literaturgeschichte des AT”, Biblica 80 (1999), p. 163; Erhard Blum, “Jesajas prophetisches Testament: Beobachtungen zu Jes 1-11”, ZAW 108 (1996), pp. 562-63; H. G. M. Williamson, Isaiah 1-5: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary (ICC; London, 2006), pp. 138-39, 353, 392-93. 35 Williamson, Variations on a Theme, pp. 1-72. 36 Wildberger, Jesaja, 3. Teilband: Jesaja 28-39 (BKAT 10/3; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1982), p. 1257; Williamson, Variations on a Theme, pp. 62-72. The textual unit continues to v. 8 (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39, p. 429; Childs, Isaiah, pp. 236-239; Mark W Hamilton, “Isaiah 32 as Literature and Political Meditation,” JBL 131 [2012], pp. 668-70; Sweeney, Isaiah 1-39,

Vetus TestamentumDownloaded from 68 Brill.com09/23/2021(2018) 643-659 10:44:16AM via free access The Genealogy and Theology of Isaiah 11:1 653 that the ideal king would radically alter his society through a commitment to Yahweh.37 The inverse is also noted in 8:5-8,38 where all of Judah (“this people”39), and the royal house no doubt, was to be subjected to the Assyrian deluge for “rejecting” Yahweh (“the Waters of Shiloah”40) during the period of the Syro- Ephramite crisis.41 This “rejection” has occasionally been tied to Ahaz’s appeal

p. 410), but vv. 6-8 focuses more on definitions of societal characters than the character- istics and effects of leadership (Childs, Isaiah, p. 240; Wildberger, Jesaja 3, p. 1251). Others see vv. 3-5 as descriptions of the leaders themselves and not the effects of their leadership on the people (Beuken, Isaiah 28-39 [2001], p. 193; Sweeney, Isaiah 1-39, p. 410). The referent of rōʾîm and šōməʿîm is unspecified, which leaves open the possibility of a broader application. More importantly, the vocabulary suggests it was a response to 6:9-10, which has a similarly broad scope (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39, pp. 430-31; Childs, Isaiah, p. 240; Williamson, “Messianic Texts”, pp. 266-68). 37 See Williamson, Variations on a Theme, pp. 30-56. Isaiah 11:6-16 validates this interpretation. 38 For a convincing reanalysis of this unit, see H. G. M. Williamson, “The Waters of Shiloah (Isaiah 8:5-8)”, in The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin, ed. Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na’aman (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), pp. 331-43. 39 On this interpretation, see Beuken, Jesaja 1-12, pp. 217, 221; Gray, The Book of Isaiah, p. 145; Wildberger, Jesaja 1, p. 323; Williamson, “The Waters of Shiloah”, p. 339. Others inter- pret “this people” as either (i) an anti-Assyrian faction (Jörg Barthel, Prophetenwort und Geschichte: die Jesajaüberlieferung in Jes 6-8 und 28-31 [FAT 19; Tübingen, 1997], pp. 203; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39, p. 240; Stuart A. Irvine, “Isaiah’s She’ar-Yashub and the Davidic House”, BZ 37 [1993], pp. 86-88; Knobel, Der Prophet Jesaia, p. 58; J. Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 2nd ed. [Louisville, 2006], pp. 380, 396- 97; see also Charles S. Shaw, “Micah 1:10-16 Reconsidered”, JBL 106 [1987], pp. 223-29 but cf. Nadav Na’aman, “‘The House-of-No-Shade Shall Take Away Its Tax from You’ [Micah i 11]”, VT 45 [1995], p. 525 fn. 23), (ii) Judah and Ephraim together (Delitzsch, The Prophecies of Isaiah, pp. 192-93) or, (iii) more narrowly, the inhabitants of Jerusalem (Fohrer, Das Buch Jesaja, pp. 113-14). The interpretation is tied to the meaning of “the Waters of the Shiloah” and how one deals with wmśwś ʾt rzn. 40 The following commentators hold this position with some degree of variation: Beuken, Jesaja 1-12, pp. 221, 224; Fohrer, Das Buch Jesaja, pp. 113-114; Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12, p. 185; Williamson, “The Waters of Shiloah”, p. 341. The parallelism with v. 7 suggests mśwś should be taken adverbially with lʾṭ “(flowing) slowly and joyfully [= causing joy]”, which requires a slight alteration of the MT interpretation of the consonantal text (MT məśôś to māśôś) (Williamson, “The Waters of Shiloah”, pp. 332, 334). 41 The consonantal text of the MT, though difficult, is retained, following the support of the ancient translations (Marvin A. Sweeney, “On ûmeśôś in Isaiah 8.6”, in Among the Prophets: Language, Image and Structure in the Prophetic Writings, ed. Philip R. Davies and David J. A. Clines [JSOTSup 144; Sheffield, 1993], pp. 46-48).

Vetus Testamentum 68 (2018) 643-659 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 10:44:16AM via free access 654 Sumner to Assyria, known only from 2 Kgs 16:5-9,42 but ch. 8 (and ch. 7, for that matter) does not explicitly condone such a limited perspective.43 While reliance on Assyria as a potential catalyst for judgment must ultimately remain opaque, circumstantial evidence for its defense is perhaps found in the punishment itself (7:17-25, 8:7-8).44 Since Isaiah was keen on his own version of contrapasso judgment,45 best summarized as “what one does will be done to him” (3:11b),46

The final ʾt particles in vv. 6 and 7 appear to mark adverbial accusatives of limitation (IBHS §10.3c; JM §125j) and are not taken to be appositional to what precedes. This syntax is clearer in v. 6 than v. 7, but the structural similarities suggest the same layout in both verses (see Williamson, “The Waters of Shiloah”, p. 338). These clauses, then, specify the limits of both the “rejection” (mʾs v. 6) and the “bringing up” (mʿlh v. 7). 42 Herbert Donner, Israel unter den Völkern: Die Stellung der klassischen Propheten des 8. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. zur Außenpolitik der Könige von Israel und Juda (VTSup 11; Leiden, 1964), p. 24; Friedrich Huber, Jahwe, Juda und die anderen Völker beim Propheten Jesaja (BZAW 137; Berlin, 1976), pp. 86-87; Wildberger, Jesaja 1, p. 325. Fohrer sees this as a pre- emptive warning not to appeal to Assyria while Judah was in the midst of contemplating its decision (Das Buch Jesaja, p. 113). 43 Uwe Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch (FRLANT 178; Göttingen, 1997), pp. 105- 06; Wildberger, Jesaja 1, p. 325; Williamson, “The Waters of Shiloah”, p. 337. 44 It seems likely that Assyrian wrath was believed to have been fulfilled in the events of either 701 BCE (Beuken, Jesaja 1-12, p. 207) or 720 BCE, the campaign by Sargon II, and not Tiglath-pileser III, even in light of 2 Chr 28:16-21. Tiglath-pileser III did not attack Judah during his three campaigns to the southern Levant (Nadav Na’aman and Israel Finkelstein, “The Judahite Shephelah in the Late 8th and Early 7th Centuries BCE”, TA 31 [2004], pp. 60-61; RINAP 1, p. 13), and 2 Chr 28:16-21 refers, rather, to unresolved ten- sions with the Philistines and Edomites (Anson F. Rainey and R. Steven Notley, The Sacred Bride: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World [Jerusalem, 2006], p. 230; Luis Robert Siddall, “Tiglath-Pileser III’s Aid to Ahaz: A New Look at the Problems of the Biblical Accounts in Light of the Assyrian Sources”, ANES 46 [2009], p. 103). 45 The proud are humbled (2:12-17, echoed in 5:15), should-be followers lead (3:1-7), vanity is sullied (3:16-17, 24), many houses have few residents, large fields yield little produce (5:8- 10), and most fittingly, refusing a sign of salvation prompts eventual defeat (7:11-17) and rejecting gentle waters welcomes a raging river (8:6-8). On the possibility that these are genuine Isaian oracles, see Williamson, Isaiah 1-5, pp. 212-13, 240, 242, 288, 350, 366. John Barton has advocated for a similar idea, which he calls “poetic justice” (“Natural Law and Poetic Justice in the Old Testament,” JTS 30 [1979], pp. 5-14; see also Williamson, Isaiah 1-5, p. 290. Cf. Klaus Koch, who argues for fate-determining deeds as opposed to divine retribution (“Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogma im Alten Testament?” ZThK 52 [1955], pp. 1-42, esp. 7, 9-10, 12, 19, 26, 29, 31-32, 37, 41-42). Contrapasso judgment is not unique to Isaiah, however, curses from extrabiblical inscriptions are similarly ironic, e.g., Sefire I (KAI 222), face C lines 16b-25. 46 If 3:11b was indeed an exilic addition (Williamson, Isaiah 1-5, p. 259), it would prove that a similar impression was made upon the redactor responsible for its inclusion.

Vetus TestamentumDownloaded from 68 Brill.com09/23/2021(2018) 643-659 10:44:16AM via free access The Genealogy and Theology of Isaiah 11:1 655 the instrument of punishment, Assyria, may suggest that dependence upon Assyria was the context of the indictment.47 Regardless of what the “rejection” was specifically, the implication, in view of Isaiah’s theology, was a systemic leadership problem, of which the king was the head. This is precisely the claim made in 7:1-17,48 which highlights the role of the king and the “House of David” (v. 2, 13, 17) in eschewing the plans of Yahweh. Its canonical position before 8:5-8 leads naturally to the deduction that the rejection of Yahweh by the House of David (the plural address in v. 13) voiced by Ahaz (v. 12)49 was in some sense a precursor and causal mechanism for the situation described in 8:5-8. Since the resulting punishment (7:17) of the refusal (v. 11) was directed at the king, his dynastic house, and his people, without mentioning the culpability of the latter, it already alluded to this top-down relationship. Moreover, Ahaz not only confirmed the veracity of the aphorism in 7:9b,50 but the canonical position of 7:1-17 depicted him as the first fulfillment of the divine hardening (6:10), to the effect that his condition foreshad- owed that of “this people” (8:6). Whoever was responsible for the sequence of chs. 6-8 seems to have been thinking along similar lines and was defending the reality of a trickle-down theology.

47 If there is validity working backward from the judgment to the indictment. 48 Isaiah 7 no longer appears to have been of one piece with chs. 6 and 8 on account of the criticisms of the Denkschrift (“memoir”) hypothesis made by, among others, Stuart A. Irvine, “The Isaianic Denkschrift: Reconsidering an Old Hypothesis”, ZAW 104 [1992], pp. 216-31; Reventlow, “Das Ende der sog. ‘Denkschrift’ Jesajas”, BN 38/39 [1987], pp. 65-67; Williamson, Variations on a theme, pp. 73-112, esp. 78-95. The theory was origi- nally formulated by Karl Budde, see, for example, “Über das Siebente Kapitel des Buches Jesaja”, in Études archéologiques, linguistiques et historiques, dédiées à mr. le dr. C. Leemans, à l’occasion du cinquantième anniversaire de sa nomination aux fonctions de directeur du Musée archéologique des Pays-Bas (Leiden, 1885), p. 125; idem, “Über die Schranken, die Jesajas prophetischer Botschaft zu setzen sind”, ZAW 41 (1923), pp. 165-66. It is still likely, however, that 8:5-8 was composed early in Isaiah’s career (Beuken, Jesaja 1-12, pp. 217-18; Williamson, “The Waters of Shiloah”, pp. 335-37). 49 Wildberger, Jesaja 1, p. 287. Ahaz declines to participate in this sign-giving, claiming that he will not ‘test’ (nsh) Yahweh (v. 12). Much has been made of this response, but ‘testing’ is nothing more than observing the response to a stimulus. It carries no inherent negative connotation. The error in ‘testing’ Yahweh, as indicated by the Torah, was when it originated from disbelief (lʾ ʾmn) or failed to produce trust in Yahweh when he had proven himself reliable, e.g., Ex 17:2-7, Num 14:11-22; Yahweh also tests Israel: Ex 15:25b-26, 16:4 (all references have been pulled from what is traditionally considered J material). 50 Beuken, Jesaja 1-12, pp. 199-200; Odil Hannes Steck, “Beiträge zum Verständnis von Jesaja 7,10-17 und 8,1-4”, TZ 29 (1973), pp. 162-163, 165. Cf. Stuart A. Irvine, Isaiah, Ahaz, and the Syro-Ephraimitic Crisis (Atlanta, 1990), pp. 15-18, 297-301.

Vetus Testamentum 68 (2018) 643-659 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 10:44:16AM via free access 656 Sumner

From this Isaian perspective, another element of overlap with the Assyrian royal inscriptions, presents itself, though more loosely than the typological pattern. As noted above, Sennacherib was one of the three Assyrian kings whose royal inscriptions do not contain a genealogy. For Sennacherib, the absence of his genealogy should be seen as a reaction to the death of his father, Sargon II, who was killed in battle by Gurdi, a Kulummean. Far worse than his defeat, however, was the subsequent loss of his corpse, which consequently went without a proper burial.51 The text known as “The Sin of Sargon” inter- preted his death as a product of divine wrath for his transgressions, which was a perspective shared by his son, Sennacherib. Sennacherib’s disdain for Sargon II was made apparent in the measures he took to distance himself from his father.52 He recalibrated the Assyrian stance toward Babylon in distinction from Sargon II.53 He abandoned Sargon II’s palace at Dur-Sharrukin. He quick- ly completed the Assur temple, in the process concealing Sargon II’s previous work, and most noticeably, he forsook all reference to the dynastic line, not just his immediate parentage.54 Since Sargon II was believed to have instigated divine wrath, Sennacherib’s presentation of distance from the royal line was theologically advantageous in an apotropaic sense and politically appealing to Assyrian nationalists.55 As the designated heir to the throne, Sennacherib had

51 Eckart Frahm, “Nabû-zuqup-kēnu, das Gilgameš-Epos und der Tod Sargons II”, JCS 51 (1999), pp. 75-76; idem, “Sīn-aḫḫē-erība”, in The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, ed. Heather D. Baker, vol. 3/I (Helsinki, 2002), p. 1118; Fuchs, “Sargon II”, p. 59; Tadmor, “History and Ideology”, p. 26; Hayim Tadmor, Benno Landsberger, and Simo Parpola, “The Sin of Sargon and Sennacherib’s Last Will”, SAAB 3 (1989), pp. 28-29. 52 Tadmor, Landsberger, and Parpola, “The Sin of Sargon”, pp. 48-49; Ann M. Weaver, “The ‘Sin of Sargon’ and Esarhaddon’s Reconception of Sennacherib: A Study in Divine Will, Human Politics and Royal Ideology”, Iraq 66 (2004), pp. 63-65. Cf. Tadmor, Landsberger, and Parpola, “The Sin of Sargon”, pp. 33-34. 53 Peter Machinist, “The Assyrians and Their Babylonian Problem: Some Reflections”, Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin Jahrbuch (1983/84), pp. 354-61; Weaver, “The ‘Sin of Sargon’”, pp. 61-62. 54 Frahm, Nabû-zuqup-kēnu”, p. 82; Fuchs, “Sargon II”, pp. 59-60; JoAnn Scurlock, “Death and Afterlife in Ancient Mesopotamian Thought”, in CANE, ed. Jack Sasson, vol. 3 (New York, 1995), pp. 1889-92; Tadmor, “History and Ideology”, p. 26; Tadmor, Landsberger, and Parpola, “The Sin of Sargon”, p. 29. Cf. RINAP 3.2, Sennacherib no. 135 line 2. See also Frahm, “Family Matters”, p. 175 fn. 38. 55 Hayim Tadmor, “Propaganda, Literature, Historiography: Cracking the Code of the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions”, in Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki, September 7-11, 1995, ed. Simo Parpola and Robert M. Whiting (Helsinki, 1997), pp. 330-32; Tadmor, Landsberger, and

Vetus TestamentumDownloaded from 68 Brill.com09/23/2021(2018) 643-659 10:44:16AM via free access The Genealogy and Theology of Isaiah 11:1 657 no other reason to reject such an important legitimizing royal motif other than to illustrate a disjuncture from the royal line for religious and political reasons. It may be suggested, then, that the aversion to the Davidic line evinced by the genealogy in 11:1 was a product of this broader rhetorical strategy of distancing. Dynastic continuity in some cases, it seems, actually hampered royal legitimacy when decisive shifts in religious and political policy had to be proven. The shift that Isaiah advocated for was primarily theological. Isaiah sought to differentiate the ideal king from the Davidic line because of its religious condition, and this shift would have beneficial political consequences. Instead of Assyrian invasions, which former kings provoked, proper orthodoxy and praxis would translate to hegemony and peace. For these reasons, the ideal king had to be cast in different terms. A traditional genealogy just would not suffice. To be truly legitimate, the ideal king had to be conceived of as a second David, which signaled a theological and, thus, political reboot, rather than an extension of the Davidic line and its theology.

On the Date of Isaiah 11:1 and the Epicenter of Genealogical Distancing

While opinions will vary over the date of the various texts cited here, the veracity of this claim holds under any compositional or redactional date, because it is not anchored to the original intent of the announcement but the negative perception of the Davidic line.56 Whether this negative outlook finds it source in Ahaz, Manasseh, or Amon, they all perpetuated theological dynastic antagonism during their tenure and after, which the Deuteronomic historian memorializes (2 Kgs 16:1-20, 21:1-18, 19-26). For example, numerous negative images were collected to depict the syncretistic practices of Ahaz (16:1-20).57

Parpola, “The Sin of Sargon”, p. 29; Wolfram von Soden, “Der Aufstieg des Assyrerreichs als geschitliches Problem”, AO 37 (1937), pp. 28-30. 56 Various dates have been the proposed for Isa 11:1, e.g., the Isaian period (Barth, Die Jesaja- Worte in der Josiazeit, pp. 62-63, 73; Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, p. 77; Wildberger, Jesaja 1, pp. 442-43; Williamson, “The Messianic Texts”, pp. 262-64), the Josianic period (Beuken, Jesaja 1-12, p. 306; Marvin A. Sweeney, “Dating Prophetic Texts”, HS 48 [2007], pp. 56-60), after 586 BCE (Gray, The Book of Isaiah, p. 214; Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12, p. 254), and the post-exilic period (R. E. Clements, Isaiah 1-39 [NCBC; Grand Rapids, 1980], pp. 121-122). 57 Perhaps drawn from several pre-exilic and exilic sources (Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 11; New York, 1988], pp. 186, 192-93).

Vetus Testamentum 68 (2018) 643-659 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 10:44:16AM via free access 658 Sumner

Manasseh was remembered as the wicked king par excellence and carried the responsibility of the destruction of Jerusalem (23:26, 24:3),58 and Amon’s char- acterization resembles that of Manasseh in its negativity (21:21, 26) but is, of course, more concise.59 In short, the unique depiction of the ideal king could have been a contem- poraneous or subsequent response to the religious failures of any of these monarchs, and the need for dynastic distancing would have been paramount during any proposed compositional period.

Conclusions

The genealogy of Isa 11:1 contains a number of features in common with extrabiblical royal inscriptions from the Levant and Assyria (i.e., a telescoped genealogy cast in botanic terms that reaches past the intended prototype). When viewed as a product of its milieu, the purpose of the genealogy becomes clearer. It, above all, deviated from the standard of dynastic continuity, which, in the Levant, was typically done by citing one or two previous generations. Instead of highlighting continuity with the Davidic line, Isaiah 11:1 bypasses it, and traces descent from Jesse instead of a Davidic king. The motivation for this presentation was twofold. (i) It depicted the ideal king as a type of David, using a typological structure evident in Micah 5:2, as well as the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II. (ii) The genealogy also created a sense of disjuncture, or distance, from the negatively perceived religious trajectory of

58 These theological reflections are generally ascribed to exilic additions (Dtr2) (Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, pp. 270-71, 300; Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel [Cambridge, 1973], pp. 285-86, 287 fn. 49; John Gray, I & II Kings: A Commentary, 2nd ed. [OTL; Philadelphia, 1970], pp. 704-05; Richard D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History [JSOTSup 18; Sheffield, 1981], pp. 67, 84, 89-90). 59 The reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8, 23:1-25), the heirs of Ahaz and Amon respectively, marked a significant departure from the theology of their fathers, which is perhaps illuminated by the reaction of Sennacherib to Sargon II. In terms of foreign policy, Hezekiah is noted for reversing Ahaz’s pro-Assyrian stance (2 Kgs 18:7), but, as for Amon, virtually nothing is said about his political views. It has been suggested that his assassination was the result of his loyalty to Assyria inherited from his father, Manasseh (Abraham Malamat, “The Historical Background of the Assassination of Amon, King of Judah”, IEJ 3 [1953], pp. 26-29; Miller and Hayes, A History, p. 437). If this was the case, then his position on Assyria would have contrasted with that of Josiah and would bear a further resemblance to the Assyrian parallel.

Vetus TestamentumDownloaded from 68 Brill.com09/23/2021(2018) 643-659 10:44:16AM via free access The Genealogy and Theology of Isaiah 11:1 659 the Davidic line. This was used to indicate a significant change in the theological and political policies of the monarchy through a renewed commitment to Yahweh. This bears some resemblance to Sennacherib’s attempts to distance himself from his father, Sargon II. In this way, Isaiah 11:1 sought to legitimize the rule of the ideal king by claiming his accord with the theology of David but discord with the religious condition of his dynastic line.

Vetus Testamentum 68 (2018) 643-659 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 10:44:16AM via free access