Who is the holy seed?: Purity and identity in the Restoration Community

Abstract

Interpreters often note the way in which the phrase ‘holy seed’ links Isa. 6.13 and Ezra 9.2. However, few explore how these texts apply the phrase to different communities/groups of people in ancient Judah. In Isaiah, the holy seed is the remnant in the land following the exile, whereas in Ezra, those returning from Babylon take the mantel for themselves. This essay, then, proceeds in three phases: first, it considers the function of Isa. 6.13 within the context of Isaiah’s call narrative, which helps situate Isaiah’s reference to the holy seed. Second, the study turns to Ezra 9.2 and examines how its reference to the holy seed operates in the Restoration narrative. Finally, the essay explores how this analysis of Isa. 6 and Ezra 9 clarifies our understanding of how these texts may have engaged each other in the early Restoration period.

Keywords

Isaiah Ezra holy seed Restoration Community

1. Introduction

Interpreters of the Hebrew Bible (HB) have long noted an apparent link between Isa. 6.13 and Ezra 9.2, specifically where both verses refer to a ‘holy seed’ (זרע קדשׁ/ זרע הקדשׁ‎) among the people (Cohen, 1996, 50; Blenkinsopp, 2000, 226; Williamson, 1985, 132). However, it is when we try to understand this connection that we discover the many interpretive problems related to these texts, which, in turn, have obscured a key insight: the texts attribute the phrase to different groups of people.¹ In Isaiah, Yhwh explains that, despite the coming destruction, a remnant will remain in the land and that this remnant is the holy seed.² Alternatively, when Ezra’s supporters come to him in Ezra 9, they complain that the return community – whom they equate with the people of Israel– have intermingled with the peoples of the lands and have thereby corrupted the holy seed. They designate themselves as the holy seed. This essay, then, will proceed in three parts: first, I will consider the function of Isa. 6.13 within the context of Isaiah’s call narrative, which will help clarify Isaiah’s reference to the holy seed. Second, I will turn to Ezra 9.2 and will examine how its reference to the holy seed operates in the Restoration narrative. Third, having established grounds for comparison, I will attempt to determine which text may be borrowing from the other. I will then conclude with preliminary remarks on the significance of this insight for our understanding of Judean identity formation in the Restoration Period.

2. Holy Seed in Isaiah

ועוד בה עשׂריה ושׁבה והיתה לבער כאלה וכאלון אשׁר בשׁלכת מצבת בם זרע קדשׁ מצבתה‎

And yet, there is a tenth in it [the land] – it will be for burning. Like the terebinth and like the oak that when casting off, there is a stump in them – the holy seed is its stump.

Isa. 6.13 (author translation)

If we are to understand the holy seed in Isa. 6.13, two primary problems confront us. On the one hand, we must situate the verse within Yhwh’s interaction with Isaiah and his charge to deafen the people against Yhwh’s word. This is the easier of our tasks. On the other hand, any person who has interacted with Isa. 6.13 knows it is fraught with textual and interpretive difficulties. We may sidestep some of these issues, but there are at least two that decisively influence the trajectory of its interpretation.

2.1. Isaiah’s call

The thrust of Yhwh’s statement in Isa. 6.13 becomes clear if we set it in the context of his charge to the prophet Isaiah earlier in the chapter. Though Yhwh pardons Isaiah’s sins in v. 7, he then instructs Isaiah to prevent the people from turning to him (v. 9), which, in turn, will preclude the possibility of their own healing (v. 10). Having just volunteered to be Yhwh’s prophet (v. 8), these instructions come as a surprise to Isaiah, so he immediately asks how long he will have to perform this task (v. 11a).³ If he had hoped for relief from his assignment, or at least for a narrowly bounded period in which to do it, he finds no such reprieve. Yhwh replies that it – the prophetic word – must continue until the land is desolate (שׁממה‎) and he has removed the people from it (רחק יהוה את האדם‎) (vv. 11-12). Joseph Blenkinsopp (2000, 226) suggests this reference to removing people could look to Sennacherib’s devastation in 701 BCE, but the following reference to abandoned places (עז״ב‎ Qal passive participle, feminine singular) finds parallel constructions in Isa. 60.15; 62.4 where Yhwh addresses a post-exilic Jerusalem as the city that was abandoned (עז״ב‎ Qal passive participle, feminine singular). Isaiah must preach his hardening message until the people leave the land in exile. Finally, Yhwh concludes his response in v. 13, with a statement (v. 13a), a comparison (v. 13bα), and an explanatory aside (v. 13bβ).⁴ Verse 13a appears to fortify Yhwh’s statement of destruction, saying that, if a small portion remains after the destruction in v. 12, then a second wave will come for them too. Yet, v. 13bα follows with an obscure comparison that seems to soften the tone. Though the remnant of v. 13a is meant for burning (לבער‎), this remnant will be like a terebinth or an oak that, once it has cast off its trunk/leaves/seed, will have a מצבת‎ remaining.⁵ This מצבת‎, says v. 13bβ, is the holy seed.⁶ Thus, as a coda, v. 13 makes clear that the holy seed is the final, fractional portion of the population that would remain in the land after the exile. Whether this reference to the holy seed brings hope or sounds a note of criticism, though, remains for consideration.

2.2. Isaiah’s ‘holy seed’

Considering Isa. 6.13 proper, two problems remain to address regarding the holy seed. A) the Old Greek (OG) appears to lack v. 13bβ as we have it in the MT (Ziegler, 1939, 144; van der Kooij, 2012, 70). B) Even if we allow v. 13bβ to stand, scholars do not agree on how we should understand the מצבת‎, which, in turn, influences our understanding of the holy seed.

2.2.1. Isaiah 6.13bβ and the manuscript tradition

The apparent lack of v. 13bβ in the OG led earlier interpreters to disregard the comment when dealing with the passage (Brownlee, 1951, 296), but we can discount this impulse on two fronts. First, most scholars today see the absence as a case of scribal error (van der Vorm-Croughs, 2014, 482). Second, even if we were to accept the phrase as a late gloss, this would not negate its relevance in a comparison with Ezra 9.2. Whether the Septuagintal translator had the phrase in his Vorlage or not, its presence at Qumran indicates it was a part of the Isaiah tradition in at least some circles (Ulrich, Flint, Abegg Jr., 2010, 12), which validates the need to compare the passages.

2.2.2. מצבת‎ and the holy seed

The meaning of מצבת‎ in the passage is a much knottier problem. To facilitate our discussion, I give the following translation of Isa. 6.13:

And yet, there is a tenth in it [the land] – it will be for burning. Like the terebinth and like the oak that when casting off, there is a מצבת‎ in them – the holy seed is its מצבה‎.

The term מצבת/מצבה‎ occurs 40 times in the HB and most frequently appears in connection to pagan worship.⁷ This has led a number of interpreters (Brownlee, 1951, 296-98; Hvidberg, 1954, 97-99; Albright, 1957, 254-55; Iwry, 1957, 226-27; Driver, 1968, 38; Herring, 2013, 188-89; and cf. the NET’s rendering of the verse) to see the verse as comparing the small remnant to an idolatrous artifact, which would transform the closing phrase from a reference to future hope – a holy remnant would survive Yhwh’s judgment – into a blatant criticism.⁸ The holy seed actually becomes the growth of idolatry (cf. Isa. 1.4, זרע מרעים‎). Gregory Beale (1991, 266-69) is a more recent advocate of this position, arguing: A) all cases of מצבת‎ outside of Isa. 6.13 refer to a stone rather than a wooden stela, so we could not be speaking of the fallen trees in the verse, and B) such pillars serve as ‘commemorative pillar[s]’, typically used in pagan shrines.⁹ While Beale’s article offers a number of insightful ideas, I must disagree with him on these points particularly. The HB does describe a מצבת/מצבה‎ as stone in Gen. 28, 31, and 35, but in the majority of cases, 24 in total, it does not identify the substance of the item.¹⁰ Thus, Mic. 5.12[EV 13] and 2 Kgs 10.26 are instructive when they refer, respectively, to cutting down (כר״ת‎) and burning (שׂר״ף‎) מצבות‎.¹¹ These terms are appropriate for wooden objects (cf. Deut. 19.5; 20.19-20; Isa. 44.19) and validate the plain sense reading of Isa. 6.13. As a denuded terebinth or oak has a מצבת‎, its remaining trunk, so the holy seed is a comparable מצבה‎.¹²

Further, while there is a strong connection between מצבות‎ and idolatry in the HB, this is not a necessary connotation of the object.¹³ In its basic sense, a מצבת/מצבה‎ simply serves as a reminder of the thing to which it is dedicated. Often, a מצבת/מצבה‎ represents a foreign god, but there are also passages where this is not the case. Jacob builds a boundary מצבה‎ memorializing the covenant between himself and Laban (Gen. 31.44, 52), and later he constructs a מצבה/מצבת‎ marking Rachel’s grave (Gen. 35.20). Moses builds twelve memorial מצבות‎ for the twelve tribes of Israel (Exod. 24.4). Absalom, anticipating his death without an heir, erects a מצבת‎ for his own name (2 Sam 18.18), and there will even be a מצבה‎ to point people [exiles] in Egypt to Yhwh at some point in the future (Isa. 19.19).¹⁴ Thus, though an association between מצבות‎ and idolatry may be common, it is certainly not an essential quality to the object, nor is it a necessary connotation in Isa. 6.13. Rather, as Kirsten Nielsen (1989, 150-51) has argued, we should take the מצבה‎ as what is left of a tree after its destruction, a memorial to a once flourishing nation, and the holy seed reflects the hope that such a stump can grow again in the future (cf. Job 14.7-9).¹⁵ The arboreal comparison encourages us to see that there will be a holy community in the land, even if it is only a nub with the potential to grow following Yhwh’s judgment.¹⁶

2.3. Summary

To summarize this discussion of Isa. 6, three things should be clear by this point. First, v. 13 functions as a fitting, if unexpected, conclusion to a surprising commission. Unlike other prophets in the HB, Yhwh sends Isaiah to prevent Israel from returning to him. His task is to seal Israel’s fate. However, the passage is not without hope. Though judgment will come, a holy seed can remain after Yhwh’s destruction. Second, within the imagery of the passage, v. 13b intentionally introduces an agricultural element into the discussion. The memorial to a formerly full and vibrant Israel is a burned-over stump. The nub of the nation left after its departure into exile is the land’s מצבה‎. Yet, this is a source of hope. As the holy seed remaining after judgment is the memorial stump, a possibility of godly growth rises within the passage. It is an essential characteristic of the plant-based comparison. Last, and this is the most important observation for the purposes of this essay, according to Isa. 6, the glimmer of hope for Israel is the people who remain in the land during the exile. It is those who persist in the land that will be the holy seed.

3. Holy seed in Ezra

וככלות אלה נגשׁו אלי השׂרים לאמר לא נבדלו העם ישׂראל והכהנים והלוים מעמי הארצות כתועבתיהם‎

לכנעני החתי הפרזי היבוסי העמני המאבי המצרי והאמרי כי נשׂאו מבנתיהם להם ולבניהם והתערבו זרע‎

הקדשׁ בעמי הארצות ויד השׂרים והסגנים היתה במעל הזה ראשׁינה‎

And when these things had ended, the chiefs came to me saying, ‘the people of Israel, and the priests and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, according to the abominations of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians and the Amorites. For, they have taken from their daughters for themselves and for their sons, and they have mingled the holy seed with the peoples of the lands – and the hand of the chiefs and the leaders has been first in this treacherous act.

Ezra 9.1-2 (author translation)

Turning to the Ezra narrative, I will first consider whom the text identifies as the holy seed. Second, inasmuch as the text claims the holy seed is mixing with a foreign element, I will try to determine the makeup of this group as well.¹⁷ Establishing both of these points will allow us to compare how the Ezra narrative views the holy seed in relation to the perspective in Isaiah.

3.1. Ezra’s ‘holy seed’

The first key in determining the character of the holy seed in Ezra 9.2 is to identify the players around Ezra in the passage: the chiefs (השׂרים‎) and the people of Israel (העם ישׂראל‎). In vv. 1-2, the chiefs complain to Ezra that the people of Israel have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, but technically, either of these groups could stem from any one of three identifiable populations in the story. The chiefs on the one hand and the people of Israel on the other could be Judeans who had remained (i.e., Judeans who did not go into exile), they could be exiled Judeans who returned before Ezra, or they could be exiled Judeans who returned in Ezra’s party. Clearly, fixing the identity of these characters is necessary to coordinate the ascription of the holy seed title in the text.

3.1.1. The chiefs

The chiefs are the more difficult group to define in Ezra 9, so I will begin there. 2 Kings 25.23, 26 suggest certain men held the title of שׂר‎ following the Babylonian conquest, and inasmuch as the term is a general one for an official, we can assume others bore this title in Judah through the exile and perhaps into the Restoration Period.¹⁸ It is possible, then, that remainee Judeans come to Ezra to complain in vv. 1-2.¹⁹ Yet, the Ezra narrative typically uses the term שׂר‎ for members of the exiled community, so this possibility seems unlikely.²⁰ In Ezra 8.24, Ezra appoints שׂרים‎ from within his own party before leaving Babylon, and in v. 29, he refers to שׂרים‎ they would encounter in Jerusalem. Verse 33 lists these chiefs as Meremoth, Jozabad, and Noadiah, all of whom bear some connection to early exilic returnees in Ezra 2-3.²¹ Our textual evidence ends at this point, so it is impossible to be certain whether the שׂרים‎ in Ezra 9.1 come from the early return group, as suggested by Ezra 8.33, or if they traveled with Ezra to Jerusalem, as suggested by Ezra 8.24, but it is interesting to note that the chiefs who complain to Ezra in v. 1 further explain that the preeminent offenders are the chiefs (השׂרים‎) and the leaders (הסגנים‎) (v. 2). Nothing in the text helps us determine whether these offending parties are early returnees or if they had come with Ezra, but considering Ezra’s use of the term שׂר‎, we can assume they did return from the exile. This, then, frames the marriage crisis in Ezra 9, including the ideas about the holy seed, as a crisis for the exile community.²² Whatever the remainee population may have thought about their own status or about the status and behavior of the exilic community, this is not in view in Ezra 9.

3.1.2. The ‘People of Israel’

Considering the second group in Ezra 9.1, the ‘people of Israel’, we have similar possibilities to investigate. The individuals who had entered into mixed marriages – those beyond the chiefs and the leaders (השׂרים והסגנים‎) – could potentially have come from the remainee population, from the pre-Ezran returnees, and/or from persons in the Ezra group. Fortunately, there is greater textual clarity on this question. Verse 4 explains that a group of sympathizers approached Ezra on account of the treachery (מעל‎) of the exiles, which looks back to the chiefs’ comment in v. 2: the act of intermarrying is an act of treachery (מעל‎).²³ This repetition of the term from v. 2 indicates that Ezra and his party are, in fact, concerned with returnees intermarrying with the peoples of the lands. This does not rule out the possibility that remainee Judeans had intermarried as well, but simply that the return group sees the apostasy as a matter of returnees intermarrying.

For further clarity on those who had intermarried, we can turn to the list of guilty parties in Ezra 10, but this evidence can only take us so far.²⁴ The chapter ties many of the offenders – returnees who had intermarried – to an ancestral head among the pre-Ezran return group, but the majority of Ezra’s party also came from families who had sent members back to Judah in the early return (Ezra 2) (cf. Blenkinsopp, 1988, 161; Williamson, 1985, 108-11). When Ezra 10.20 lists Hanani and Zebadiah, sons of Immer, among the guilty, we can observe that ch. 8 does not list any descendants of Immer with Ezra. They are likely pre-Ezran returnees who had taken foreign wives in the intervening period. However, Ezra 2.11 and 8.11 indicate that the family of Bevai returned in installments, some in the early return and some under Ezra. Thus, his four descendants identified in Ezra 10.28 could come either from the pre-Ezran group or from Ezra’s party. We cannot be certain. There are, though, four men among those guilty of intermarriage that we can place in Ezra’s group with greater confidence. Ezra 10.18, 29, 39 list Eliezer and Jarib, Meshullam, and Nathan, respectively, as men who married foreign women. All four of these names also appear in a list in Ezra 8.16 where Ezra sends them on a mission to Iddo while still in Babylon (v. 17). They appear to be part of Ezra’s inner circle, and yet they decide to enter into mixed marriages upon coming to Jerusalem. Some have questioned whether or not men could find wives as quickly as the narrative seems to suggest, but Eliezer and Jarib come from the family of Jeshua the high priest, which would give them considerable access to social networks in Jerusalem, and Ezra acknowledges Meshullam as a leader (ראשׁ‎), which could explain both his ease in finding a partner and his willingness to oppose Ezra’s divorce program in Ezra 10.15.²⁵

The key insight for this paper is that, again, this is an intra-returnee conflict for control of the returnee community. It is also possible that, while there are apparent fault lines within the exilic group in the narrative (cf. Ezra 10.15), those characters associated with the Ezra camp continue to see the returnees as a whole. The complainants in Ezra 9.1-2 do not differentiate between early and late returnees as they call out the mixed marriages. Rather, they hold that all such relations are mixing the holy seed, which implies all returnees belong to the holy seed group in their eyes. At the very least, this attribution provides an alternative view of the holy seed from what we see in Isa. 6.13. Whereas Yhwh sees the remainee community as the holy seed in distinction from those who go into exile, here the return community has taken the mantel to themselves. The final task, then, is to determine whether this designation is a rejection of the remainee community, or if it is simply silent in regard to it.

3.2. Ezra’s ‘people of the lands’

When considering the ‘peoples of the lands’ (העמי הארצות‎) in Ezra 9.1, a simplistic reading might assume that when the complainants in the verse refer to this group, they are referencing the ‘Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perezzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites’ – that is, non-Israelite/Judean peoples. This would be a mistake for two reasons. First, scholars widely recognize that a number of these people groups had ceased to exist by the Restoration Period. The list is styled on lists from the Pentateuch and serves to indicate that which is foreign (cf. Breneman, 1993, 148; Levavi Feinstein, 2014, 143-44). Second, and in concert with the previous point, Williamson (1985, 130) has drawn attention to the comparative nature of the clause beginning in v. 1b. Whoever the peoples of the land are, their actions are merely like those abominations of the nations in the following list. The exact makeup of the group as well as the nature of their behaviors remain obscure. Thus, we have to turn to other passages in Ezra to try to understand how the narrative might define this group.

On the one hand, there is no doubt that the returnee community encountered non-Israelite/Judean peoples in Judah during the Restoration Period. Ezra 4.2 claims that the first group to engage with the returnees self-identified as immigrants brought to Samaria by Esarhaddon. Further, Neh. 2.19; 3.34[EV 4.2]; 13.23 recount Nehemiah’s frequent interactions with Ammonites, Arabs, Ashdodites, and Moabites during his service in Jerusalem. On the other hand, Ezra 3.3; 4.4; 6.21 indicate that the phrase ‘peoples of the lands’ in Ezra 9.2 could also include Judeans from the remainee group. Ezra 3.3 states that before the early return community had encountered any other group(s) in Jerusalem, they feared the peoples of the lands (עמי הארצות‎). It is reasonable to assume they feared those persons of non-Israelite/Judean origin in the locale, but the broad description opens the door to the idea that they might also fear any and all occupants of Judah – including their traditional relatives.²⁶ Ezra 4.4 appears to confirm this fear as the returnees begin to face opposition from their adversaries. However, at this point the narrative names the opposition group as ‘the people of the land’ (עם הארץ‎) – both in singular form. If the text can agglomerate the various peoples into one group associated with the land, this would certainly include Judeans who had remained in the land. Ezra 6.21 furthers this perception. Having completed the temple early in ch. 6, the narrator explains that the sons of Israel, defined as the return community, celebrated the Passover with whoever had separated themselves from the peoples of the land (גוי הארץ‎). Unlike Ezra 3.3, which has in mind peoples from the surrounding lands, or Ezra 4.4, which sees all the peoples as one group, v. 21 considers the peoples that are within Judah/Israel in a discriminating manner. This designation could include persons from non-Israelite/Judean groups living in Judah, but it must also include historic Judeans who had remained in the land through the exile. They are a people in the land. Yet, if individuals from this group did not cut ties with their current foreign relations, the return community viewed them as non-Israelites/Judeans.²⁷

3.3. Summary

In summary, we can distill the following points from the Ezra narrative as we find it: A) the complainants from Ezra 9.1 are members of the exiled Judean community. Further, it is possible these characters made their return under Ezra and were not part of the early return, but the text is ambiguous here. B) As it appears in the narrative, the matter of intermarriage is solely a question for the return community. The text is clear that both early and late returning men have intermarried, but the complainants are silent on those Judeans who had remained in Judah through the exile. C) While the exiled community allowed remainee Judeans to join their group if they would separate from the peoples of the land(s), they also seem to regard those who do not make the break as a distinct group among the peoples of the land(s). Thus, the Ezra narrative evidences a competing perception of who holds the title of holy seed than we see in Isaiah. The chiefs in Ezra’s camp complain that the exiled Judeans, the true Israel in their view, dilute the holy seed by mixing it with the peoples of the lands, among which they include Judeans who have remained through the exile.²⁸

4. The holy seed and direction of dependence

At this point in my argument, having clarified the differing ways in which Isaiah and Ezra employ the holy seed title, we are ready to move to the question of priority and dependence between the texts. By establishing an order, even if only tentatively at this point, we will finally come to a place where we can begin to appreciate the significance of the connection between these texts.²⁹

4.1. Dating Isaiah 6.13bβ

When considering the direction of dependence between Isaiah and Ezra in the case at hand, our first difficulty is assigning a date to Isa. 6.13bβ. Many scholars accept vv. 1-11 of ch. 6 as original to Isaiah ben Amoz, but there is far less consensus regarding the origin and integrity of vv. 12-13. Interpreters note that A) vv. 12-13bα shift to address Yhwh in the third person and seem to picture his judgment coming through progressive attacks and/or waves of deportation (cf. Williamson, 1994, 35-36). Then, B) Isa. 6.13bβ turns the focus of the passage from destruction and exile to a sense of hope for the future. Thus, theories differ on the origins of the passage. Christopher Seitz (1993, 57-60) and Alexander Prokhorov (2015, 30-31) each list integral links between vv. 12-13 and vv. 1-11 and conclude the whole passage comes from Isaiah. Ronald Clements (1980, 78) and Williamson (1994, 35-37) suggest the references to exile (v. 12) likely come from after the Babylonian destruction, with v. 13bβ entering in the post-exilic period. As a mediating position, Otto Kaiser (1972, 84-85) has argued it was Isaiah who expanded his own report in vv. 1-11 with vv. 12-13bα, and that an unknown glossator added v. 13bβ during the exile.³⁰ With such a wide range of possibilities for dating v. 13bβ in Isaiah, it is understandable how the reference to the זרע הקדשׁ‎ in Ezra 9.2 exerts an attractive influence. The phrases are nearly identical, and the passages share a hope for the future of a restored Israel. Yet, the difference that we have observed between the designees in each text should caution against coordinating the dating too hastily.

If we consider Isa. 6.13bβ independently of Ezra and the return movement, there are good reasons to remain agnostic about the date of this small fragment of a verse. First, we must note that mechanically, such a short explanatory phrase – a mere three words – could enter the text at any point in its development with relative ease. Second, while it is clear v. 13bβ presupposes the existence of vv. 12-13bα in the passage, it is not hard to believe this portion could have been added to Isaiah’s call narrative at some point before 586 BCE, whether by a later expansion from Isaiah or through an addition by one of his followers (cf. Wildberger, 1965, 240-41). Thus, even if Isa. 6 expanded over time to include vv. 12-13bα and subsequently v. 13bβ, accepting this does not necessarily help shrink our window for dating v. 13bβ. Finally, we cannot doubt there were prophetic voices before the exile that spoke of divine deliverance from military threat or merely of a short-term exilic experience should defeat come to the nation (cf. Jer. 28.1-4[EV 1-5]; Ezek. 13.10-16). The canonical prophets may label these actors as false prophets, but they evidence a milieu from which a person could easily hear a warning of exile (i.e., vv. 12-13bα) and still hope for future restoration. If such an optimistic adherent to the Isaianic tradition felt the need to lighten Yhwh’s response to Isaiah in ch. 6, he could easily have found a linguistic model for his phrasing in what scholars (Williamson, 1997, 270-71) believe to be authentic Isaianic material. Isaiah 1.4 refers to the nation as ‘seed of evil doers’ (זרע מרעים‎), which, though opposite in effect, is conceptually similar to the holy seed in v. 13bβ. The earlier passage generalizes Israel’s wickedness across the nation – they are a seed of evildoers – which helps to underpin their sorry state (Isa. 1.2-4). Conversely, Isa. 6.13bβ affords hope for the future because the stump is the seed of holiness. Therefore, even if the positive tone in v. 13bβ is evidence of its secondary status, there is not much we can conclude from this observation. It may suggest growth within Isa. 6, but it does not provide a definitive argument by which we can date v. 13bβ. A person can make a legitimate argument for placing the phrase at any time following Isaiah’s call, which means we cannot assume a shared context for the production of the ‘holy seed’ in both Isaiah and Ezra. Further, even if one does date v. 13bβ to the post-exilic period, a possibility I actually find attractive, we must still admit it could have come into existence before Ezra’s return to Jerusalem in the mid-fifth century BCE. Thus, we will have to consider the direction of dependence between these texts in both ways to see if one possibility commends itself over the other.

4.2. Isaian Dependence

Among those seeing Isa. 6 as dependent on Ezra 9, Williamson and Jacob Stromberg are perhaps the most well known in recent times. For his part, Williamson (1994, 35-36) argues that Isaiah’s reference to the holy seed is additive to ch. 6, whereas Ezra’s use is integral to the point the characters are making in the narrative. In his view, a late redactor of Isaiah encountered the phrase in the post-exilic period and appended it to Isa. 6 (Williamson, 1994, 35-37; 1985, 132). At this point, Williamson ceases dealing with the phrase, but Stromberg, his student, has taken up the observation and considers it in light of his work on Trito-Isaiah’s post-exilic redaction of the book. Stromberg (2011, 165-68) argues that Trito-Isaiah added v. 13bβ to tie ch. 6 to themes that he develops in Isa. 57 and 65. Chapter 57 holds that Yhwh’s judgment will be discriminating when it comes and that the righteous will flourish after its completion, thereby expressing a belief in a finite period of judgment (cf. vv. 15-16, 21). The similarity between this idea and what v. 13 does for Isa. 6 is obvious. Isaiah 65.8-9 also recalls Isa. 6.13bβ, as it has the only other passage in Isaiah referring to a seed (זרע‎) that will survive after God’s judgment falls on the wicked (2011, 166). Further, Stromberg (2011, 166, 168) argues that chs. 57 and 65 are also linked to each other with their references to inheriting Yhwh’s holy mountain(s) (ויירשׁ הר קדשׁי‎; יורשׁ הרי‎), and so he claims Isa. 6.13bβ is most likely part of a complex of passages that stem from Trito-Isaiah’s major redaction of the book of Isaiah. In a master stroke, according to Stromberg, the short gloss in ch. 6 orients Yhwh’s initial threat of judgment toward the wicked and allows for a following time when a purified group can become the true righteous community, both of which are key interests for Trito-Isaiah.

If one accepts this argument, our observation that Isa. 6 equates the holy seed with the remainee population in Judah could fit nicely into Stromberg’s perspective.³¹ As Third Isaiah seeks to counter what it considers a corrupt community, it borrows the language of a potential opposition – Ezra and his followers – but transforms the content of the phrase to elevate those whom the dominant group sought to exclude (cf. Ezra 9-10).³²

4.3. Ezran Dependence

On the other hand, Jeffery Leonard’s (2008) work on inner-biblical allusions provides grounds for seeing Ezra 9 as dependent on Isa. 6. In his list of criteria for establishing direction of dependence between apparently linked texts, he states that a text ‘show[ing] a general pattern of dependence on other texts’ (2008, 262) may well be the borrowing text in the case at hand. In light of this dictum, I would highlight two sets of evidence related to Ezra 9.

First, scholars broadly recognize how Ezra and his followers borrow from other texts in the HB, thereby raising the likelihood they have also borrowed from Isa. 6. We could multiply examples on this point, but Juha Pakkala’s work on Ezra 9 and Deuteronomy is sufficient to make the case. Pakkala (2011, 195-97, 206-8) has shown that in Ezra 9.1-2, 10-12 alone, Ezra and the chiefs combine fragments of Deut. 7.1-4; 11.8; 18.9-12; 23.3-7.³³ This includes reference to the ‘abominations’ of the peoples (Deut. 18.9-12), the gentilic list of ‘Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, and Jebusites,’ (Deut. 7.1), to which they add ‘Ammonites, Moabites, and Egyptians’ (Deut. 23.3-7), the commandments against taking/giving sons/daughters in marriage (Deut. 7.3), the linkage between keeping Yhwh’s commandments and being strong in the land (Deut. 11.8), taking possession of the land (Deut. 7.1), and the injunction not to seek the peace of enemies (Deut. 23.7[EV 6]). This clearly demonstrates a pattern of dependence operant in the chapter, per Leonard’s criterion, and raises the probability that Ezra 9 reuses other passages, Isa. 6 potentially among them. Further, it provides a sense for the way in which the characters in Ezra 9 reuse biblical material. While their language is thoroughly Deuteronomic, they borrow in a piecemeal fashion from across Deuteronomy to compose their own material. They appear as synthetic readers, drawing together strands from across their source as they articulate their thoughts.

Second, with this in mind, there is another verbal correspondence between Ezra 9 and Isaiah that should factor into our discussion. In addition to the holy seed linking Ezra 9 and Isa. 6, Ezra 9.4; 10.3 also refer to certain of Ezra’s followers as those who tremble before God’s words/command (כל חרד בדברי אלהי ישׂראל, החרדים במצות אלהינו‎). These are the people who align with Ezra’s reform efforts in Jerusalem. This is significant, as Isa. 66.2, 5 are the only other verses in the HB that include such phraseology (חרד על דברי, שׁמעו דבר יהוה החרדים אל דברו‎).³⁴ However, while the Ezra narrative associates the efforts of its חרדים with a purified reconstructed temple (Ezra 4.3; 9.5, 9; 10.1-6), Isaiah’s references distance its חרדים‎ from the temple (Isa. 66.1) and the apparently unacceptable Torah piety of its adherents (Isa. 66.3).³⁵ This observation is helpful in our investigation on various levels. It gives additional warrant to our belief in a connection between Isaiah and Ezra. Further, as both texts appear to employ זרע‎ קודשׁ‎(ה‎) and חר״ד‎ in opposing ways, it points toward a sustained divergence between the texts. The זרע (ה)קודשׁ‎ are either those who remained in the land, or they are those who went through the exile. The חרדים‎ are those who reject the temple, or they are those who accept it. Most importantly, though, the appearance of these locutions – holy seed and tremblers – together in Ezra 9 despite their separation in Isaiah seems to mimic the rhetorical strategy we observed vis-à-vis Ezra 9 and its use of Deuteronomy. Apparently unrelated locutions in Isaiah come together in Ezra 9 in a manner that serves the interests of the characters as they seek to reform the restoration community. According to the Ezra account, the true holy seed emerges when the חרדים‎ join with Ezra’s program.

4.4. Isaian Priority

On balance, therefore, I believe it is better to take Ezra 9 as dependent on Isa. 6 than to hold the opposite scenario. Ezra 9 is highly allusive, presenting multiple locutions drawn from various sections of Deuteronomy and Isaiah.³⁶ This clearly meets Leonard’s criterion as a borrowing text. Furthermore, while Isaiah’s reference to the holy seed in ch. 6 is removed by a great distance from its reference to the tremblers in ch. 66, both appear in close proximity in Ezra 9. This juxtaposition mirrors the way Ezra 9 pulls together deuteronomic material to make its point, while presenting it in a smooth discourse in its own narrative. The only difference in this case is that while the Ezra group can claim a trajectory toward separation from Deuteronomy, its use of Isaiah is in opposition to its source.³⁷

This interpretation of the data is also preferable, as it answers potential concerns from those who argue that Isaiah borrows from Ezra. If we take Williamson as representative, two objections come to the fore. First, Williamson (1994, 35-36) has argued that Ezra’s use of זרע הקדשׁ‎ sits neatly in the narrative and that this indicates its priority vis-à-vis Isa. 6.13. However, our observation of the deuteronomic material in Ezra 9 suggests otherwise. Each of the reuses of Deuteronomy fits naturally in the passage, but this does not indicate that Ezra is the antecedent text.³⁸ This point, though, need not undermine Williamson’s belief that ‘holy seed’ is a late addition in Isa. 6.13. This may still be the case, even if Ezra borrows the phrase from Isaiah.

Second, Williamson (1994, 35) might also object that, in his view, Isa. 6.13bβ must borrow from Ezra 9.2 because the latter displays an advanced exegetical procedure that would not have been in practice before the post-exilic period. To use Williamson’s (1985, 130-31) language regarding Ezra 9, A) the characters interpret and update laws related to the ancient occupants of the land by taking caution of their current neighbors, B) the characters appreciate the spirit of those laws in their concern that inter-marriage could lead to illicit religious practices, and C) they are able to articulate their list of proscribed marital partners by combining certain ethnic groups with whom Yhwh restricts engagement more generally in Torah. Yet, despite the clarity of each of these points, Williamson still has to account for the transformation of the phrase עם קדושׁ‎, a recurrent expression in Deuteronomy (cf. Deut. 7.6; 14.2, 21; 26.19; 28.9), into זרע הקדשׁ‎ as we have it in Ezra. He writes, ‘It may have been coined by a mental combination of the frequent use of the phrase “the seed of Abraham,” the use of the cognate verb, “(sow) seed,” in Lev. 19.19, and the term “holy people”’ (Williamson, 1985, 132). Again, the sense of his observation seems correct – the Ezra group does transfer attention from religious holiness to the continuity of their racial separateness (Williamson, 1985, 130-32) – but we must consider whether this is the best possible solution for the change in Ezra.³⁹ Seed (זרע‎) does appear in conjunction with the name Abraham in Deut. 1.8; 34.4, but neither of these are in close proximity to the occurrences of עם קדושׁ‎. Further, while the phrase עם קדושׁ‎ does appear in Deut. 7.6, a chapter upon which Ezra 9 draws, there is no reference to זרע‎ nearby. The best we have is Deut. 11.9, another chapter that has influenced Ezra 9, where the text references the seed (זרע‎) of the אבות‎ (see also Deut. 4.37; 10.15). Abraham is implied in the reference, but it does not seem like a strong reason to see the conflation of זרע אברהם‎ with עם קדושׁ‎.⁴⁰ Nor is it helpful to turn to זרע אברהם‎ in Genesis, where it is much more frequent, for the book never uses קד״שׁ‎ in either the nominal or the adjectival form.⁴¹ Further, while the laws against mixing in Lev. 19.19 are suggestive, there is no other indication that Ezra 9 is drawing on the passage. Thus, Williamson’s explanation of the characters’ logic in Ezra seems sound, but the particular phrasing in זרע הקדשׁ‎ remains unexplained.

However, if we allow Isa. 6.13bβ to inform Ezra 9.2, even if it is still a post-exilic gloss, we have a simpler path forward. In this scenario, there is no need for a mental leap on the part of Ezra’s followers because it is a direct borrowing. Rather, the true innovation is to detach the phrase from its association with the remainee community and to reapply it to the return community. The impetus comes from the return community’s desire to be the true people of God, and the justification for such a reattribution comes from the exegetical maneuvering as outlined by Williamson. At the same time, we are not without an explanation for the phrase’s appearance in Isa. 6.13bβ. If the Isaiah hand, assuming that the phrase is an addition, already has precedent for such a construction in Isa. 1.4 (זרע מרעים‎), then there is no need for advanced exegetical technique. The reference to seed (זרע‎) merely takes advantage of the tree metaphor in the passage as pregnant with the hope of future growth, and the attribution of holiness draws on the seraph’s cry קדושׁ קדושׁ קדושׁ יהוה צבאות‎ from earlier in the chapter (v. 3).⁴²

5. Conclusions

At the beginning of this essay, I noted how few interpreters have focused on the differing ways in which Isa. 6 and Ezra 9 employ the holy seed title. In seeking to remedy this, I have only laid out a preliminary case, which, I hope, may spark further inquiry. I would, though, draw two conclusions from this study as it relates to our grasp of the social dynamics within the Restoration Community in ancient Judah.

First, recognizing alternate conceptualizations of the holy seed throws into even greater relief Isaiah’s open posture regarding who can participate in the community of God. For its part, Isa. 6.13bβ counts the remainee population as acceptable. They are the purified rump of Judah that can spring forth with new growth.⁴³ Yet, this perspective does not seem to exclude of those who experienced exile in Babylon. Having suffered their own version of judgment, this group has paid the debt of their sins (Isa. 40.1-2), and thus, Isa. 48.2 calls out, ‘Go forth from Babylon, flee from the Chaldeans,’ for ‘Yhwh has redeemed his servant Jacob.’ The exiles also belong to the people of God. If we add to this Isa. 56.3-7 and its acceptance of foreigners and eunuchs, we come to see a common theme of openness across the three major sections of Isaiah.⁴⁴ Isaiah welcomes the remainee, the returnee, and the traditional outsider in its vision of the restored community.

Such a posture obviously runs counter to the stance of the Ezra group as seen in Ezra 9-10, which brings me to my second point. Assuming Ezra and his group are borrowing their idea of a holy seed from Isaiah, and assuming they have reassigned the title to the return community, we can add one more point of light to our understanding of a community debate that the Ezra narrative can otherwise obscure. Though the text largely ignores remainee Judeans, the fact that Ezra and his followers co-opt Isaiah’s language related to this group – the זרע קדשׁ‎ and perhaps even the חרדים‎ – in an effort to legitimate their own group suggests that the Isaiah text and its adherents enjoyed a certain standing. This Isaian group may or may not have actually threatened Ezra’s authority with his Persian backing, but the comparison of Isa. 6 and Ezra 9 gives evidence of a genuinely perceived crisis on the part of the Ezran group over the identity of the people. Would the shared trauma of exile and a particular version of Torah piety determine the restored community? Ezra’s group felt they should.⁴⁵ Yet, Isaiah suggests some felt the community could be more inclusive. Torah piety would still be paramount, but, at least according to Isa. 6.13bβ, hope would center on the belief in regeneration after judgment, regardless of one’s experience of exile in Babylon.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

An early version of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in November 2016. I wish to express my gratitude for the feedback I received at that time, and I also give my thanks to Professors Hugh Williamson, Tamara Cohn Eskenazi, and Ehud Ben Zvi who have graciously given of their time to discuss the ideas herein. Their kindness is matched by their erudition.

ORCID iD

E Allen Jones III

1.

See , 88) discussion of Isaiah and Ezra in relation to the Persian imperial context.

2.

For the sake of clarity, I offer two translational remarks at the outset: 1) while a wooden rendering of זרע (ה)קדשׁ‎ would give us ‘a seed of holiness/the seed of holiness’, interpreters consistently take the construct chain as a genitive of quality (cf. Joüon §129f). 2) Though Isa. 6.13bβ is technically anarthrous, again, the commentaries are consistent in supplying the English article.

3.

Franz Delitzsch (1889, 131) associates Isaiah’s intercession with Moses’ activity in Exod. 32, but , 133) rightly notes the similarity between Isaiah’s question and queries in various lament psalms.

4.

I am aware there are many difficulties related to v. 13, the majority of which are: the term עשׂריה‎ is ordinal not fractional; the piel infinitive לבער‎ may mean either burn or graze; the DSS have משׁלכת‎ rather than בשׁלכת‎; the DSS have במה‎ rather than בם‎; and the OG does not include v. 13bβ. See , 27-32) and my comments where relevant below.

5.

I am persuaded by Williamson’s (1997, 121-22) work on בער‎ as ‘burning’, but even if one takes it to mean grazing, it can still suggest judgment and destruction (cf. Worschech, [1974, 129-30]). As for what the tree(s) cast off, I can be sure only that there is a reduction in some sense. See Emerton (1982, 88-91) and , 17-26) for how the versions have treated the text.

6.

I address the phrase’s absence in the OG in the following paragraph.

7.

Cf. Exod. 23.34; Lev. 26.1; Deut. 7.5; 2 Kgs 18.4; Jer. 43.13; Hos. 10.2. See also , 28-39), though she only deals with stone structures.

8.

However, we should note , 236-40) moderation of this earlier position.

9.

10.

The following passages suggest the pillar is made of stone either directly or by inference: Gen. 28.18, 22; 31.13, 45, 51, 52; 35.14. The remaining cases do not specify of what it is made.: Gen. 35.20; Exod. 23.24; 24.4; 34.13; Lev. 26.1; Deut. 7.5; 12.3; 16.22; 2 Sam. 18.18; 1 Kgs 14.23; 2 Kgs 3.2; 10.26, 27; 17.10; 18.4; 23.14; 2 Chron. 14.3; 31.1; Isa. 19.19; Jer. 43.13; Ezek. 26.11; Hos. 3.4; 10.1, 2; Mic. 5.12[EV 13]. The following two cases may be corrupt texts: 1 Sam. 14.12; Zech. 9.8.

11.

The verbs most frequently used in association with מצבת/מצבה‎ are שׁבר‎ and נתץ‎, but these terms can take stone or wood as an object (cf. Exod. 9.25; Job 24.20; Ps. 105.33). There are textual difficulties in 2 Kgs 10.26 surrounding the מצבות‎ and what is burnt, but see Keil (1865, 262) and , 558) for why the verb שׂר״ף‎ probably refers to the מצבות‎ and not the house of Baal.

12.

The antecedent of the 3fs suffix on מצבה‎ is ambiguous but mostly likely accords with the 3fs suffix on the ב preposition earlier in the verse, both of which look back to הארץ‎ in v. 12.

13.

, 268) does make note of this.

14.

, 110) holds a more involved view of the מצבת‎, but she concedes that in Isa. 6.13 the artifact is a memorial.

15.

To be clear, Nielsen does hold that the מצבת‎ refers to shoots that come up from the stump subsequent to the tree’s felling.

16.

Independent of the potential connection between מצבות‎ and idolatry, Williamson (1997, 122-23) and Beale (1991, 259-61) have further argued for a sense of judgment in Isa. 6.13 based on its similarities to Isa. 1.29-31, which discusses אלה/אילים‎, employs the verb בע״ר‎, and refers to a denuded tree as a symbol of Israel in its destruction by fire. I do not share this view for two reasons: 1) while there are identifiable links between the passages, Isa. 1.29-31 is much more overt about its interest in Israel’s idolatrous activities (cf. Isa. 57.5; 65.3; 66.17), and 2) Isa. 1.31 describes the burning judgment as unrelenting (בערו…ואין מכבה‎), whereas Isa. 6.13bβ suggests that, even when the fires of judgment come, a מצבת/מצבה‎ can still remain to be the holy seed. It is not too much to concede, though, that where Isa. 6.13 adds a note of hope to an otherwise dark call, the passage certainly employs multiple terms that typically relate to Israel’s idolatrous practices. There is hope, but it is associated with negative terms that evoke negative imagery. Such tension within the passage may account for Williamson’s broad discussion of Isa. 6.13 as a statement of judgment, while apparently moderating his position when commenting specifically on v. 13bβ (Williamson, 2014, 161). This irony may be an intentional part of the rhetoric of the passage.

17.

In dealing with Ezra, I do not intend to enter into the debate over the extent to which the narrative is historical. This question remains open (cf. Becking, 2011, 28-29) and, fortunately, its resolution is not necessary for the purposes of this study. Rather, it is enough if we can assume there was a figure named Ezra in Jerusalem during the Restoration Period and that he dealt with inter-communal relations. Beyond this minimal point, my primary interest is in the Ezra text as a witness to a particular view of community identity, presumably aligned in some way with those who produced the text and which existed sometime around the early Second Temple Period.

18.

Admittedly, Kings suggests the שׂרים‎ in 2 Kgs 25 did leave Judah for Egypt following the assassination of Gedaliah.

19.

As a matter of conjecture, we might suggest a number of reasons why such characters would do this. They may be seeking to ingratiate themselves to Ezra, a new power broker in the community, and/or they may be trying to harm those they see as opponents. It is also possible they could be devoutly religious and, now that Ezra has come with the power to bring change, they are acting out of a real concern for what they feel is a problem in the community.

20.

In three places, the term refers to non-exiled persons: Ezra 7.28; 8.20, 25. The remaining cases, setting aside Ezra 9.1-2, either refer to exiles in the Ezra group – Ezra 8.24, or to an undifferentiated group of leaders who are associated with the returned exiles: Ezra 8.29; 10.5, 8, 14. The term also appears in Nehemiah, but it is difficult to determine the place of origin for the character in most of these cases.

21.

Meremoth is the son of Uriah, son of Hakkoz (cf. Ezra 2.61). Jozabad is the son of Pashhur (cf. Ezra 2.38; 10.22). Noadiah is the son of Binnui, son of Henadad (cf. Ezra 3.9; Neh. 3.24). Eleazar, son of Phinehas, also appears in Ezra 8.33, but he seems to be one of Ezra’s party (cf. Ezra 8.2).

22.

Williamson (1985, 130) and , 69) doubt that either set of שׂרים‎, those approaching Ezra (v. 1) or those who had intermarried (v. 2), could come from Ezra’s return group, suggesting there is not enough time in the story for these characters to find wives and/or to take on authoritative voices in the community. The point is well taken, but need not be decisive. The narrative presents Ezra as an authoritative character with the backing and financing of the Persian emperor, both of which lend influence to his group. As to the question of their having taken wives, I address this point below. Last, we might again speculate about the motives of such characters in the narrative. If they were early returners, they may have been motivated by power or piety, as described in n. 20. If they were with Ezra’s party, it could be zeal for an idealized community.

23.

The term appears again in Ezra 10.2, 6, 10.

24.

Pakkala (2004, 83-89) argues that Ezra 9 and 10 may represent different layers of the Ezra story, but, as suggested above (n. 18), this insight need not prevent us from considering ch. 10. The chapters both present events, purportedly, taking place in the early-mid Persian period, and, even if the book of Ezra was assembled as late as the Hellenistic period (cf. Becking, 2011, 29), in this form, chs. 9-10 reflect that community’s view of their shared identity, particularly as it relates to the idea of holiness. Thus, working with the final form of the story can serve our interests for now.

25.

See n. 23. Further, opinions differ on how much time ensues between the end of Ezra 8 and the beginning of ch. 9 (Keil, 1870, 471; Myers, 1965, 76), but how one decides the matter does not significantly affect my study.

26.

For a discussion of the socio-cultural dynamics of exile and return in repatriated peoples, see Southwood (2012, 41-56, 204-6) and , 167-70).

27.

For a fuller articulation of the matter, the reader may consult: Fensham (1982, 96); Glover (2009, 308); Williamson (1985, 85); Eskenazi and Judd (1994, 269); Rom-Shiloni (2013), 41-45; Leuchter (2015, 65-72); , 108-15).

28.

Though the commentaries do not discuss it, Professor Ben Zvi has suggested to me that the further determination of קדשׁ‎ in Ezra 9.2 with the article (זרע הקדשׁ‎; cf. n. 3) indicates the characters’ attempt to restrict the perception of what is truly holy. This observation clearly merits further investigation and, if it proves true, should strengthen the case I make here.

29.

At the outset, we should address two possible objections. First, some might suggest זרע (ה)קדשׁ‎ to have been a common phrase and that Isaiah and Ezra may simply have picked it up as an idiom. In this case, any apparent connection between the texts is only coincidental. This does not seem likely, though, for if it were a common idiom, we would expect it to appear more often and in other texts. This objection is an argument from silence and begs its own evidence. Second, one might also object, if Isaiah and Ezra apply the phrase in contradictory ways, then this is evidence against a connection between the texts. However, we must remember a citation/allusion made by one text to another does not necessarily indicate its author’s agreement with the source text. Rather, it is possible an author has recalled the original text in order to contradict or reappropriate it.

30.

We should note, though, that , 134) does appear to move away from this view in his fifth edition.

31.

However, we must recognize that while Stromberg’s links between Isa. 6, 57, and 65 may be sound, it is still not necessary that Isa. 6 draws on Ezra 9. Verse 13bβ can be a later addition to ch. 6, but still pre-date Ezra, and even Trito-Isaiah for that matter. If Trito-Isaiah found it in place already, whether coming from Isaiah ben Amoz or from another hand, it could call forth his thoughts as expressed in Isa. 57 and 65. The core of Stromberg’s argument may stand, even without his historical development in place.

32.

In his discussion, , 168-74) seeks to locate Isa. 6.13bβ in the socio-cultural context of the Restoration Period, but he does not discuss why Trito-Isaiah might want to borrow the phrase.

33.

Though she does not treat all the same passages, see also , 552-57).

34.

See Blenkinsopp (1988, 178-79) and , 174, 179) for further discussion of the correspondence.

35.

In Isa. 66.1, Yhwh questions the capacity of the rebuilt temple to act as his dwelling. Then, in v. 3, he says its worshipers are like those who strike men, offer dogs as sacrifices, lift up pig’s blood, bless idols, choose their own paths, and delight in detestable things.

36.

Beyond the links noted in this essay, Professor Eskenazi has mentioned in conversation a connection through פל״ט‎ that she believes also ties Isaiah and Ezra, but we will have to wait for her commentary on Ezra-Nehemiah in the Anchor Bible series to grasp this point. Further, we should consider Michael Fishbane’s (1985, 115-21) argument for Ezra 9’s dependence upon Lev. 18 in combination with Deut. 7, 23, and McConville’s (1986, 205-24) case for Ezra’s broader use of both Isaiah and Jeremiah in a number of passages. Last, we should not forget , 76-80) claim that the exegetical impulse of Ezra 9-10, specifically, shows the influence of Jeremiah and its followers.

37.

, 123) holds a similar view, putting Ezra in opposition to Trito-Isaiah, though still accepting Ezra’s dependence on Isa. 6.13.

38.

To use Pakkala’s words, ‘without the source text it would be difficult to recognize that these verses are a patchwork of different passages’ (, 195).

39.

In Isaiah, זרע‎ can refer to biological descendants (cf. Isa. 41.8; 43.5; 65.23) or to the character of the persons in reference (Isa. 1.4; 14.20; 57.3, 4). In Ezra-Nehemiah, זרע‎ refers exclusively to biological descendants (Ezra 2.59//Neh. 7.61; Neh. 9.2, 8). For a helpful discussion of זרע‎ in Ezra, see , 127-28).

40.

The remaining uses of זרע‎ in Deuteronomy either refer to sowing/plowing, to actual seed, or to the descendants of the wilderness generation; cf. 11.10; 14.22; 21.4; 22.9; 28.38, 46, 59; 29.22; 30.6, 19; 31.21.

41.

Cf. Gen. 2.3, where it appears in a verbal form; Gen. 14.7; 16.14; 20.1, where it references Kadesh as a location; and Gen. 38.21-22, where Judah mistakes Tamar for a קדשׁה‎, which is likely a technical term.

42.

Though it is less compelling as evidence, it is worthwhile to ask if Trito-Isaiah would even have had cause to borrow from Ezra. By the Restoration Period, the Isaiah text had real authority within at least some circles, but the book of Ezra does not come to its canonical form until much later. Surely, it does not need to be canonical to be authoritative – nor would that term even be appropriate in the period – and there is good evidence that some sort of Ezra memoir existed early on in the Restoration Period, but for Isaiah to borrow from it that early seems out of place. The Ezra memoir would not have broad cultural authority at this point, so why would an Isaiah group that has an authoritative text feel the need to borrow a phrase from the diary of its opponent to try to draw his authority to their side? It is hard to see what would motivate Trito-Isaiah in this model.

43.

Isaiah 4.2-6 and 7.22 also speak of a remnant growing and thriving in the land post-judgment, which demonstrates that Isa. 6.13 is not an outlier on this issue.

44.

For a consideration of the sociological dynamics that might have created such an outlook, see , 153-76).

45.

Both Blenkinsopp (1988, 178-79) and , 58) suggest the חרדים‎ in Ezra and Isaiah must be the same, as both texts associate these persons with Torah piety. However, my own work (2016, 187-88) on Ruth suggests that one need not be a part of Ezra’s group in the Restoration Period to be an advocate for faithfulness to Torah.

References

Albright

W.F.

1957. ‘The High Place in Ancient Palestine’. In Volume du Congres Strasbourg, edited by Anderson et al., 242-58. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 4. Leiden: Brill.

Beale

G.K.

1991. ‘Isaiah VI 9-13: A Retributive Taunt against Idolatry’. Vetus Testamentum 41 (3): 257-78.

Becking

Bob

. 2011. Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Construction of Early Jewish Identity. Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 80. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Berges

Ulrich

. 2017. ‘Trito-Isaiah and the Reforms of Ezra/Nehemiah: Consent or Conflict?’. Biblica 98 (2): 173-90.

Blenkinsopp

Joseph

. 1988. Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

Blenkinsopp

Joseph

. 2000. Isaiah 1-39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible, 19. New York: Doubleday.

Bloch-Smith

Elizabeth

. 2005. ‘MAṢṢĒBÔT in the Israelite Cult: An Argument for Rendering Implicit Cultic Criteria Explicit’. In Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, edited by Day

John

, 28-39. Library of Hebrew Bible and Old Testament Studies, 422. London: T&T Clark International.

Bloch-Smith

Elizabeth

. 2015. ‘Massebot Standing for Yhwh: The Fall of a Yhwistic Cult Symbol’. In Worship, Women, and War: Essays in Honor of Susan Niditch, edited by Collins

John J.

Lemos

T. M.

Olyan

Saul M.

, 99-115. Brown Judaic Studies, 357. Providence: Brown University.

Breneman

Mervin

. 1993. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. New American Commentary, 10. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group.

10.

Brett

Mark G.

2019. Locations of God: Political Theology in the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

11.

Brownlee

Wm H.

1951. ‘The Text of Isaiah VI 13 in the Light of DSIa’. Vetus Testamentum 1: 296-98.

12.

Brownlee

William Hugh

. 1964. The Meaning of the Qumrân Scrolls for the Bible: With Special Attention to the Book Isaiah. New York: Oxford University Press.

13.

Cohen

Menachem

, ed. 1996. Mikra’ot Gedolot ‘Haketer’: A Revised and Augmented Scientific Edition of ‘Mikra’ot Gedolot’ Based on the Aleppo Codex and Early medieval MSS: Isaiah. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University.

14.

Clements

R.E.

1980. Isaiah 1-39. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

15.

Delitzsch

Fraz

. 1889. Commentar über Das Buch Jesaia. 4. durchaus neubearbeitete Auflage. Leipzig: Dörffling & Franke.

16.

Driver

G. R.

1968. ‘Isaiah I-XXXIX: Textual and Linguistic Problems’. Journal of Semitic Studies 13 (1): 36-57.

17.

Emerton

J.A.

1982. ‘The Translation and Interpretation of Isaiah vi. 13’. In Interpreting the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honour of E.I.J. Rosenthal, edited by Emerton

J.A.

Reif

Stefan C.

, 85-118. University of Cambridge Oriental Publications, 32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Eskenazi

Tamara C.

Judd

Eleanore P.

1994. ‘Marriage to a Stranger in Ezra 9-10’. In Second Temple Studies: 2. Temple Community in the Persian Period, edited by Eskenazi

Tamara C.

Richards

Kent H.

, 266-85. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 175. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

19.

Fensham

F. Charles

. 1982. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

20.

Fishbane

Michael

. 1985. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

21.

Gray

John

. 1976. 1 & II Kings: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. 2d, fully revised, ed. Philadelphia: Westminster.

22.

Glover

Neil

. 2009. ‘Your People, My People: An Exploration of Ethnicity in Ruth’. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33 (3): 293-313.

23.

Herring

Stephen L.

2013. Divine Substitution: Humanity as the Manifestation of Deity in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. Forschungen zur Religion und Literature des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 247. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

24.

Hvidberg

Fleming

. 1955. ‘The Masseba and the Holy Seed’. In Interpretationes ad Vetus Testamentum Pertinentes Sigmundo Mowinckel: Septuagenario Missae, edited by Dahl

Nils Alstrup

Kaprlrud

Arvid S.

, 97-99. Oslo: Forlaget Land og Kirke.

25.

Iwry

Samuel

. 1957. ‘MAṢṢĒBĀH and BĀMĀH in 1Q ISAIAH^a 6 13’. Journal of Biblical Literature 76 (3): 225-32.

26.

Japhet

Sara

. 2006. ‘People and Land in the Restoration Period’. In From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

27.

Japhet

Sara

. 2016. ‘What May Be Learned from Ezra-Nehemiah about the Composition of the Pentateuch?’. In The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America, edited by Gertz

Jan C.

et al., 543-61. Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 111. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

28.

Jones

Edward Allen

III . 2016. Reading Ruth in the Restoration Period: A Call for Inclusion. Library of Hebrew Bible and Old Testament Studies, 604. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark.

29.

Kaiser

Otto

. 1972. Isaiah 1-12: A Commentary. Translated by Wilson

R.A.

Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster.

30.

Kaiser

Otto

. 1981. Das Buch des Propheten Jesaia, Kapitel 1-12: Übersetzt und erklärt. 5. Völlig neubearbeitete Auflage. Alte Testament Deutsch, 17. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

31.

Keil

Carl Friedrich

. 1865. Biblicher Commentar über die Prophetischen Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments: Die Bücher der Könige. 3. Band. Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke.

32.

Keil

Carl Friedrich

. 1870. Biblischer Commentar über die Nachexilischen Geschichtsbücher: Chronik, Esra, Nehemiah und Esther. Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke.

33.

Leonard

Jeffery M.

2008. ‘Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case’. Journal of Biblical Literature 127 (2): 241-65.

34.

Leuchter

Mark

. 2015. ‘The Exegesis of Jeremiah in and Beyond Ezra 9-10’. Vetus Testamentum 65: 62-80.

35.

Levavi

Feinstein Eve

. 2014. Sexual Pollution in the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

36.

McConville

J. G.

1986. ‘Ezra-Nehemiah and the Fulfilment of Prophecy’. Vetus Testamentum 36 (2): 205-24.

37.

Moffat

Donald

. 2013. Ezra’s Social Drama: Identity Formation, Marriage and Social Conflict in Ezra 9 and 10. Library of Hebrew Bible and Old Testament Studies, 579. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark.

38.

Myers

Jacob M.

1965. Ezra, Nehemiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible, 16. New York: Doubleday. Reprinted 2010, New Haven: Yale University Press.

39.

The New English Translation. 2005. Biblical Studies Press.

40.

Nielsen

Kirsten

. 1989. There is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah. Translated by Christien and Frederick Crowley. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 65. Sheffield: JSOT Press.

41.

Pakkala

Juha

. 2004. Ezra the Scribe: The Development of Ezra 7-10 and Nehemia 8. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 347. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

42.

Pakkala

Juha

. 2011. ‘The Quotations and References of the Pentateuchal Laws in Ezra-Nehemiah’. In Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period, edited by von Weissenberg

Hanne

Pakkala

Juha

Marttila

Marko

, 193-222. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 419. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

43.

Prokhorov

Alexander V.

2015. The Isaianic Denkschrift and a Socio-Cultural Crisis in Yehud: A Rereading of Isaiah 6:1-9:6[7]. Forschungen zur Religion und Literature des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 261. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

44.

Rom-Shiloni

Dalit

. 2013. Exclusive Inclusivity: Identity Conflicts Between the Exiles and the People Who Remained (6^th-5th Centuries BCE). Library of Hebrew Bible and Old Testament Studies, 543. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark.

45.

Seitz

Christopher R.

1993. Isaiah 1-39. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox.

46.

Southwood

Katherine E.

2012. Ethnicity and the Mixed Marriage Crisis in Ezra 9-10: An Anthropological Approach. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

47.

Stromberg

Jacob

. 2011. Isaiah After Exile: The Author of Third Isaiah as Reader and Redactor of the Book. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

48.

Sweeney

Marvin

. 1996. ‘The Book of Isaiah as Prophetic Torah’. In New Visions of Isaiah, edited by Melugin

Roy F.

Sweeney

Marvin A.

, 50-67. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 214. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

49.

Ulrich

Eugene

Flint

Peter W.

Abegg

Martin G.

Jr . 2010. Qumran Cave 1: II: The Isaiah Scrolls: Part 1: Plates and Transcriptions. Discoveries in the Judean Desert, 32. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

50.

van der Kooij

Arie

. 2012. ‘The Septuagint of Isaiah and Priesthood’. In Let Us Go Up to Zion: Essays in Honour of H. G. M. Williamson on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, edited by Provan

Ian

Boda

Mark J.

, 69-78. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 153. Leiden: Brill.

51.

van der Kooij

Arie

. 2014. ‘Stump or Stalk: Isaiah 6:13 in the Light of the Ancient Versions’. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 40 (2): 17-26.

52.

van der Vorm-Croughs

Mirjam

. 2014. The Old Greek of Isaiah: An Analysis of Its Pluses and Minuses. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 61. Atlanta: SBL Press.

53.

Wildberger

Hans

. 1965. Jesaja. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament. 1. Teilband: Jesaja 1-12; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener.

54.

Williamson

H.G.M.

1985. Ezra, Nehemiah. Word Biblical Commentary, 16. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

55.

Williamson

H.G.M.

1994. The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

56.

Williamson

H.G.M.

1997. ‘Isaiah 6,13 and 1,29-31’. In Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A.M. Beuken, edited by van Ruiten

Vervenne

, 119-28. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 132. Leuven: Leuven Press.

57.

Williamson

Hugh G. M.

1997. ‘Relocating Isaiah 1:2-9’. In Writing & Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, edited by Broyles

Craig C.

Evans

Craig A.

, 263-77. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 70. vol. 1; Leiden: Brill.

58.

Williamson

H.G.M.

2014. Isaiah 1-5. International Critical Commentary. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark.

59.

Williamson

H.G.M.

2018. Isaiah 6-12. International Critical Commentary. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark.

60.

Worschech

Udo F. Ch

. 1974. ‘The Problem of Isaiah 6:13’. Andrews University Seminary Studies 12 (2): 126-38.

61.

Ziegler

Joseph

. 1939. Isaias. Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum, Auctoritate Academiae Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum, 14. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.