“The Haughtiness of the Priesthood” (Isa 65,5) Several scholars detect critique of the priesthood in Isa 56–66 (1). Most noteworthy is Paul Hanson who argues that most of the oracles in Isa 56–66 are aimed at what he labels “the theocratic party” (2). Others, for example Geiger (3) and Rofé, limit the prophetic critique of the priests to the first verses in Isa 66 (4). Based on his careful exegesis of 66,3, Rofé argues that the legitimate rituals mentioned in the first statement of each couplet can only be identified with those taking place in the temple in Jerusalem. Furthermore, the performance of these rites was the exclusive prerogative of the priests. In view of this, he concludes that Isa 66,3 is an oracle against the Jerusalem priesthood (5). Rofé’s article has received a variety of scholarly responses. Blenkinsopp adopts his identification of the people in 66,3 with the priests in the Jerusalem temple, and he regards them as being “addicted to syncretistic cult” (6). In contrast, Smith, in view of his claim that Isa 65,1–66,4 form one literary unit, argues that Isa 65,1-7 and 66,3 refer to the same activities and have the same target audience. Assuming a wider scope of the latter verses, he draws the conclusion that the prophet’s criticism goes beyond the priesthood’s participation in syncretistic rituals (7). (1) The present article builds on a small part of my doctoral thesis “Priestly Rites and Prophetic Rage. Early Post-Exilic Prophetic Critique of the Priesthood”, University of Oxford, 2002. In this article, I have extended my discussion of the different aspects of Isa 65,5, in particular of the perceived contradiction between 65,3-4 and 66,3. I have also added several issues, e.g. the discussion whether ˚ytçdq should be understood comparably or as introducing a dative, and the understanding of the Sitz-im-Leben of Isa 65,5. I wish to thank first and foremost Prof. H.G.M. Williamson who supervised my thesis. Further, I am indebted to Ina J. Hartmann who proof-read the final draft of this article. (2) P.D. HANSON, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia 1975). (3) A. GEIGER, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums (Breslau 1857) 56. He is to my knowledge the first scholar who identifies the people accused in Isa 66,1-5 with those serving as priests in the temple. (4) There is no consensus among scholars concerning the extent of the oracle in the beginning of Isa 66. There is, however, convincing evidence supporting the textual unity of Isa 66,1-6. See especially E.C. WEBSTER, “A Rhetorical Study of Isaiah 66”, JSOT 34 (1986) 93-108. He is followed by W.A.M. BEUKEN, “Does Trito-Isaiah Reject the Temple? An Intertexual Inquiry into Isa. 66.1-6”, Intertextuality in Biblical Writings. Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel (ed. S. DRAISMA) (Kampen 1989) 60. Most recently, J. GOLDENSTEIN, Das Gebet der Gottesknechte. Jesaja 63,7–64,11 im Jesajabuch (WBANT 92; Neukirchen-Vluyn 2001) 216-217, and B.S. CHILDS, Isaiah (OTL; Louisville, KY 2001) 539-541, both relate to 66,1-6 as a literary unity. (5) A. ROFÉ, “Isaiah 66,1-4: Judean Sects in the Persian Period as Viewed by Trito- Isaiah”, Biblical and Related Studies Presented To Samuel Iwry (eds. A. KORT – S. MORSCHAUER) (Winona Lake 1985) 209-212. (6) J. BLENKINSOPP, “A Jewish Sect of the Persian Period”, CBQ 52 (1990) 10, 17. (7) P.A. SMITH, Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito-Isaiah. The Structure, Growth and Authorship of Isaiah 56–66 (VTSup 62; Leiden 1996) 158.