S.W. Flynn, «Where Is YHWH in Isaiah 57,14-15?», Vol. 87 (2006) 358-370
This study suggests a reading of Isaiah 57, 14-15 in the Hebrew Bible which goes
against the theological Tendenz of some Versions and the interpretation of some
contemporary scholars. It explores how both the Versions and contemporary
scholarship have interpreted the passage, draws a parallel between the two
interpretations, and suggests that their either/or distinction of what the passage
means may not reflect the complex nature of sacred space and Divine Presence in
the BH. This study suggests that the text holds two meanings that are
complementary. Yet these meanings are placed in a respective foreground and
background which reveals their levels of emphasis intended by the
author/redactor of Trito-Isaiah.
362 S.W. Flynn
also the less certain 4Q381 Frgs. 76-77.7 which reads çwdq t[d[ (9), but
besides these and perhaps some other examples, the term is seldom
used to describe a sanctuary. Thus it seems that the reading in 1QIsaa is
inconclusive.
Therefore, there is a common trend in the Versions. They seem to
ask, how can the Deity dwell with the people and still be transcendent?
The translational decisions of the Versions reveal a tendency —
possibly with the exception of 1QIsaa but this is unclear — to support
a transcendent understanding of Divine Presence rather than a more
immanent one. It is difficult to describe a Tendenz in different Versions
from a single passage, yet we can see what is occurring. Instead of
leaving the ambiguity of the MT or its Vorlage, the Versions attempt to
show how they understood the passage. While we do not claim that
this is how the faith communities which fostered these Versions
thought, we can say in this one, limited case, their preference for a
transcendent YHWH in Isa 57,15 is evident at the expense of an
immanent reading. Their decisions function on an either/or level;
either YHWH dwells in the earthly temple or elsewhere. But it is clear
that the BH is not limited in its representation of Divine Presence,
especially in a post-exilic text that likely had exposure to varying
theologies of where YHWH dwells.
Let us look now at how contemporary scholarship approaches the
text and see how it shares in the attempt to answer these interpretive
questions (10).
b) Contemporary Scholars Answering the Question
In agreement with the Versions, most scholars see the passage as a
statement of YHWH’s transcendence rather than a reference to a place
like the earthly temple (11). As in the Versions, this may be due to the
(9) Ibid., 155.
(10) Of course, we do not wish to ignore factors other than theological ones
that explain changes such as grammatical, orthographic, scribal errors etc. Yet it
seems the changes in the Versions are well beyond these possibilities. Therefore,
because the text deals with a fundamental concept in Israelite religion (where
YHWH dwells) and the differences between the Versions are intentional, we have
a suitable text for considering the theological tendencies of the translators.
(11) Cfr. J. OSWALT, Isaiah 40–66 (NICOT; Michigan 1986) 487; R.N.
WHYBRAY, Isaiah 40–66 ( NCB; London 1975) 210; BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah 56–66,
171. Yet J.D. WATTS, Isaiah 34–66 (WBC 25; Waco 1987) 262 believes that
“dwelling forever†implies that YHWH is now established in the Temple.