A Textual Problem in Isaiah 25 2:

B y j . A. Emerton
(34 Gough Way, Cambridge)

&

: 3
For thou hast made of a city an heap;
of a defenced city a ruin:
a palace of strangers to be no city;
it shall never be built* (Revised Version).
1 List / works cited: I have used for the versions: A .E . Brooke and N.McLean, The Old
Testament in Greek, I, 3 191 ;j . Ziegler, Isaias, 1939; R. Weber et al., Biblia sacra
iuxta vulgatam versionem, 1969; A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, III 1962 the
Urmia edition of the Peshitta, together with G. Diettrich, Ein Apparatus criticus
zur PeSitto zum Propheten Jesaja, 1905. The following works are cited by their
authors' names and, where necessary, dates of publication: L. H. Brockington, The
Hebrew
of the Old Testament. The Readings Adopted by the Translators of the
New English Bible, 1973; L. Cappellus, Commentarii et notae criticae in V etos Testamentom, 1689; j . c. Boederleto, Esaias, 1789; G. R. Driver, Textual and linguistic
problems in toe Book of Psalms, HTR 29 (1936), 171 195, especially 189; idem,
Some Hebrew medical expressions, ZAW 65 (1953), 2 5 5 -2 6 2 , especially 25 259
idem, Notos on Isaiah, in: Von Ugarit nachQumran, 1958, 4 2 4 8 ; idem, Old Testament problems re-examined, ZAW 80 (1968), 174 183, especially 178; B. Duhm,
Das Buch Jesaja, 1892; H. Ewald, Die Propheten des Alton Bundes, III 169 868.
171; G. K. = A. E. Cowley (ed.), Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar as edited and enlarged
by toe lato E. Kautzsch, 19102 ( = 190928 in the German); w. Gesenius, Philologischkritischer und historischer Commentai ber den Jesaja, I, 2 1821; H. Graetz (ed.
W. Bacher), Emendationes in plerosque Sacrae Scripturae Veteris Testamenti Libros,
I 1892. G. B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on toe Book of Isaiah
IX X V II, 1912; C. E. Houbigant, Notae criticae in universos Vetoris Testamenti
libros, I I 1777; E. j . Iiissane, The Book of Isaiah, 1 1941; E. Knig, Das Buch Jesaja,
1926; E. Liebmann, Der Text zu Jesaia 2 27 ZAW 22 (1902), 1 56. 2 8 5 -3 0 4 ;
23 (1903), 209 286; 24 (1904), 51 104; 25 (1905), 1 4 ^ 1 7 1 ; R. Lowth, Isaiah.
A new translation with a p relim in ar dissertation, and notes critical, philological,
and explanatory 79 j . D. Michaelis, Deutsche bersetzung des Alten Testaments, V I I I 1779; idem, Vorzgliche Varianten im Propheten Jesaia, in: Grientalische
und Exegetische Bibliothek, X IV 1779, 99155, continued in toe Anhang zum vierzehnten Theil, 2 223; see especially toe latter, 57 58; idem, Supplementa ad lexica
hebraica, 1792 E. F. C. Rosenmller, Scholia in V etos Testamentum, H I, 2 18 8;
D. Winton Thomas, Liber Jesaiae, BH^ 7,1968; F. Vatable, cited from Critici Sacri,
IV 1660.
2 G. R. Driver (1958) rightly points out that "rebuilt" would be a bettor translation
in toe context. The point had, of course, already been seen by earlier scholars such
as j . D. Michaelis.

65

. A. Emerton, A Textual P ro b lem in Isaiah 252

The purpose of the present artiefe is to discuss the second me'r in

Jes 25 2 , and to offer a new solution to the difficufty th at it raises. The
word cannot be discussed without a consideration of several o th e r
linguistic and textual problems in the verse. I t is, however, unnecessary to discuss the context in detail. The verse belongs to a song of
praise (v. 1-5) for the overthrow of a city, but the (question of the citys
identity m atters little, if at all, for the present purpose.

There are two difficulties in the words . One of them

can be dealt with very briefly: the use of te d eflate article in
contrasts with its absence from , and the pointing should pro^ably be changed to ( so G. B. Gray; B. w . Thomass inappropriate in pause). The other difficulty is more serious, and also
more im portant for the present purpose, since many translations
(including the Revised Version quoted above) assume th at the clause
to which the second m e 'r belongs has mta as its verb. The problem
is th a t am ta appears to have no o ^ e c t; and the first me Y has a preposition, whereas its parallel qirjd does not. Most scholars are agreed
th a t the Revised Versions thou hast made of a city an heap represents the general sense of the difficult clause, but it is not easy to
derive the translation from the Massoretic Text.
A ttem pts have been made to obtain sense from the text as it
stands. Perhaps the preposition in is the sign of the accusative
(an explanation mentioned by w. Gesenius, although he does not
favour it). The clause would then mean thou hast made out of a city
a heap. There are two difficulties. First, when m means to make,
it often uses lamedh with the noun denoting th at into which something
is made, and the use of the preposition in a different sense and a
sense th a t is rare in Biblical Hebrew would be harsh. Admittedly,
the preposition introduces the ob]ect of jastn in I Sam 22 7, but there
l ek1illekcem comes at the beginning of the clause, unlike Jes 25 2 . Moreover, the preposition in I Sam 22 7 is regarded by many commentators
as an addition made by a scribe who assimilated the word to l ek u ll e kcetn earlier in the verse. Secondly, if the first tne'r in Jes 25 2 is
explained in the way suggested, then the absence of the preposition
from qirjd is difficult^. Another way of obtaining sense from the Masso3 Hebrew poetry sometimes uses a preposition in one line but faiis to repeat it in the
paraiiei iine (G. K. 119hh). However, I know no exampie of the omission of m i n in
a construction quite like that of Jes 25 2, and it seems to me improbable that we should
understand the preposition before qirj. It would not have seemed so unnatural if
q irjd bes r had not been followed by lem p p e l but had simply been in apposition
to meY.
Zeitschr. {. alttcstamcntl. Wiss., Band 89,1977

66

. A. Emerton, A Textual Problem in Isaiah 25

retic Text was proposed by E. F. c. Rosenmller, who thinks th at

'r should be understood before me'ir, and th a t the clause means
posuisti urbem ex urbe acervum . I t is very doubtful whether
the Hebrew can naturally be understood in the way th a t he suggests,
especially since the writer would then have left out gerade den H auptbegriff (W. Gesenius).
Because it is difficult to defend the Massoretic Text, most commentators emend me'r in order to get rid of the preposition and to
make the word the direct object of the verb. Appeal is often made to
the LXX, Vulgate, Feshitta, and Targum, which treat the noun as
the direct object; b u t it is possible th at the ancient translators simply
gave they believed to be the meaning intended by the prophet and
th a t they ignored the preposition, even though it was present in the
Hebrew text before them.
A number of scholars (e. g. R. Lowth and w. Gesenius) have
followed L. Cappellus and F. Houbigant in emending the text to
ha'r; and C. F. Houbigant suggests, very plausibly, th at a scribe assimilated the word to me'ir later in the verse. However, qirj has no
definite article, and ft is better to read simply cir (j. c. Doederlein).
Hebrew verse is more sparing than prose in the use of the definite
article, and it is im material whether or not a particular city is in the
prophet's mind. We should probably not, however, accept the suggestion of C. F. Houbigant (who offers it as an alternative to his first
theory) th a t the original te x t was , and th at the letter he was
first attached to the following word and then corrupted to mem;
against the suggestion stands the fact th a t the letters he and mem are
not easily confused, j . D. Michaelis keeps closer to the received text
by attaching the mem to the verb and reading amtam *Y . . . ,
posuisti . . illos (hostes), urbem in ruinas . The construction th at
he proposes is rather harsh, and it would be better to follow H. Ewald
in treating the suffix as the indirect object*: du wandeltest ihnen die
stadt in Schutt . However, the suffix would have no antecedent, and
ft seems better not to try to preserve the mem of me'r, but simply
to delete it. A different way of keeping the mem is to move it to the end
of the word and to read arm (H. Graetz), and to appeal to the fact
th at the nouns th a t translate it in the LX X (most manuscripts) and
Targum are plural. The New English Bible accepts this emendation,
and renders the restored tex t thou hast turned cities into heaps of
ruin (see L. H. Brockington). It is tempting to give preference to
an emendation th a t thus retains all the consonants of the Massoretic
Text, albeit in a different order, and th a t can appeal to two ancient
versions. Yet it is unwise to rely too much on the LX X version of
cp. ZA W 85 (1973), 221.

. A. Emerton, A Textual Problem ln Isaiah

67

Isaiah, which is scmetimes rather free, and it shcuid not be forgotten

th a t the Greek of Jes 14 31 1? 1 2 4 12 also renders the singular ' by a
piurai noun (cp. E. Liebmann, 1903, 220). The Targum too is often
free, and it has piural rendering in 14 31. Further, both qirj and ,rmon later in the verse are singular (and the fact th a t the New English
Bible has "towns and "every mansion does not imply th a t the text
has been emended), and it seems better to keep ' in the singular.
Einally, there is no reason to favour the h ^ o th e s is th a t the Hebrew
originally had an entirely different word such as ma'z, which B. Duhm
suggests as an alternative to ' .
It thus seems best to delete the letter mem in ' , and to change
the pointing of lggal. The restored text is , "thou hast
made a city into a heap .
II.
In the phrase there are variant readings: two
manuscripts have , "the proud, arrogant , and another has
(cp. R. Lowth). The LXX has here (and in v. 5, and 29 5),
which has been thought (e. g. by E. Houbigant and ^ Lowth) to
be dependent on the reading with daleth. Certainly, the LX X has the
verb in Dtn 1?13 18 2 , and the noun in D tn 18 2 2 ,
and the Hebrew has the root zwd in all those verses. On the other
hand, does not correspond precisely in meaning w ith either
zed or zar, and a confusion between daleth and is as likely in
three verses in Deuteronomy as it is in three verses in Isaiah, and it
is far from certain th at the LXX implies zedm in Jes 25 2. Anyhow,
in whatever way the LXX is interpreted, the fact remains th a t both
zarm and zedm are attested in the verse in Hebrew manuscripts.
Some scholars favour the reading zedm, and various reasons are
given. "Commode quidem alieni, c. E. Houbigant argues, "ubi tanguntur res, quas egerint apud Judaeos extranei, non item ubi aguntur
res ipsae populorum extraneorum ; but his argument is scarcely decisive. B. Duhm thinks th at the expression "die Stadt der Fremden
is strange trivial if they are really foreigners, and weak if the reference is to Samaritans. Similarly, G. R. Driver (1958) maintains th at
it "means nothing (though he also says of zedm th a t it "hardly
makes sense), and one of G. B. Grays' arguments is th a t zarm "is less
expressive . G. B. Grays' other argument, th a t za ^m is, "as the commoner word, the easier and less probable reading is weak, because
a confusion between daleth and re$h is common and it is unlikely that
the frequency of the words concerned would have made much difference to the possibility of a mistake.
It seems to me th a t both and zedm make sense. Despite
G. R. Driver's objection, I can see no reason why the prophet should

68

j . A. Emerton, A Textual Problem in Isaiah 25 2

not have described the enemy as arrogant men . On the other hand,
I cannot see much force the o^ections to accepting here a reference
to the enemy as foreigners. If the prophet beiieved th at the enemy
were foreign, there is no adequate reason for denying th at he may
have said so. I t m atters little which reading we accept. G. R. Driver's
different suggestion needs to be examined separately.
III.
G. R. Driver (1958) finds neither zarm nor zedm satisfactory,
and maintains th at the word should be vocalized as a verb zorm,
presumably the pu. or passive q. of zrm\ and he translated the clause
which it is found: towered mansion is swept away from the city .
Similarly, the New English Bible points the word zarm (see L. H.
Brockington), the passive participle , and offers the translation:
every mansion in the cities is swept away . G. R. Driver also believes
th a t zcercem, rain-storm describes rain sweeping all before it .
How does G. R. Driver reach the conclusion th at zaram can mean to
sweep away ? I t is necessary to read his article of 1958, in which he
makes the suggestion, in the light of his earlier articles of 1936 and
1953 and his later article of 1968.
According to G. R. Driver, the primary root ZR denotes squeezing or pressing, joining together or closing up, and, in consequence of
these actions, forcing out or expressing, spreading or scattering
(1953, p. 258 From the primary root are derived the secondary roots
ZRB, which need not be examined here, and ZRM. Two different semantic developments can, he thinks, be seen in Accadian and Arabic,
respectively, but Hebrew shows both lines of development (p. 259).
First, Accadian zarmu I i and II i denotes to grasp (the hand), to
seize (a country) , and the Hebrew zorem mjim abot in Fs 77 IS
means the clouds are wrung out (so as to be emptied) of w ater .
Second, Arabic zarama means checked, broke off, and zarima
( tears, urine, excrement) was stopped . I t is possible, he believes,
to explainz ermtam in Ps 905 from the second meaning: thou checkest
them ( e. puttest an end to their lives)6. Similarly, Phoenician
*zrm means short-lived (1953) or cut off prematurely (1968)*.
G. R. Driver also conjectures that Syriac zarm reverend' must
5 w. Baumgartner,

Hebr^ebes und aramisches Lexiken zum Alten Testament, I

967 ,7 , first refers correctly to the volume of ZAW in which G. R. Drivers article
appears as 65. There is, however, a misprint in the second reference, which wrongly
states that the volume number is 45.
A comparison between the Arabic root and Ps 90 5 was earlier made by other scholars,
such as j . D. Michaelis, Supplementa, no. 64.
7 cp. H. Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen, I 1893, 67.

. A. Emertoa, A Textual P ro^em in Isaiah 25

69

originally have meant confined, secluded, hedged in or the like .

Ethiopie zarama, dissipated, squandered , to which he refers in 1958,
presumably represents the last of the meanings th at he lists for the
prim ary root ZR.
The first comment th at may be made about G. R. Drivers
treatm ent of the root is th at it is not entirely self-consistent. His article
of 1953 speaks of checking and squeezing , and the meanings of
the root in ?s 77 18 and 90 5 are distinguished. In 1958, he introduces
the different meaning to sweep away , without advancing any evidence in support of it, and maintains th at Ps 90 5 refers to people
being carried off in death, and th at zrm is rain sweeping all before it . e t if zcercem had th at meaning, it would be difficult to
maintain that the verb in Ps 77 18, which is also concerned with raining, had no direct connexion in meaning but was used of clouds being
wrung out (so G. R. Driver in 1953).
Secondly, there is a difficulty in G. R. Drivers treatm ent of the
Accadian evidence. The meaning to grasp, seize for zarmu might
perhaps help to justify the view th a t z 0 Y*m in Ps 77 18 is used of
clouds being wrung out, but it appears to have little to do with sweeping away. However, it now seems probable th at the meaning of zarmu
is different, and G. R. Driver himself said of it in 1936, when he gave
it the meaning to overwhelm , th at it appears to be adoubtful verb .
The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary subsumes zarmu under sarmu,
to endeavor, to strive (for something), to apply oneself (to something),
to exert ones influence (upon somebody or on behalf of somebody,
with ana), to be concerned . The Accadian e^ddence thus appears
to offer no support for G. R. Drivers theory, and, indeed, to shed no
light on the use of the root zrm in Hebrew.
Thirdly, G. R. Drivers theory about the semantic development
of the root zrm is speculative. It may freely be granted th at a similarity
in meaning can be detected among many roots th at have two consonants in common, and it is legitimate to put forward hypotheses about
possible semantic developments th at will explain how roots with the
same consonants but different meanings are related to one another.
Yet it must not be forgotten th a t such hypotheses tend to be speculative, and it is difficult to feel confident about conclusions drawn from
their application to particular problems in the Hebrew Bible. I do not
wish to suggest th a t G. R. Drivers general hypothesis about the root
zrm is absurd, but there seems to me to be considerable uncertainty
about his attem pt to bring together, arrange in a pattern, and explain
a number of words with different meanings in different Semitic languages.
Fourthly, G. R. Drivers treatm ent of the Hebrew and Fhoenician
evidence is open to question. The root zrm is rare in Hebrew, except

A. Emerton, A Textual Problem. Isaiah

in the noun zcercem, and the meanings given by G. R. Driver to the

verb in ?s 77 and 90 5 are different feom each other. Now th at a
mistaken understanding of Aceadian zarmu has been abandoned,
it is doubtful whether zorem in Ps 77 18 should be translated are
wrung out . It is more likely th at it is a denominative from zcercem,
rain-stoim , as many scholars have believed; and no evidence has
been found that the noun's meaning has anything to do with sweeping
away. The verb in Ps 90 5 is difficult and the text of the verse is not
above suspicion. It is possible th at an Arabic verb used of the checking
of urine, tears, speech, and dung8 is related to a Hebrew verb denoting
the bringing of life to an end, although the difference between the
meanings must not be overlooked. It is also possible th at lines 3 and 13
of the Eshmunazar inscription are to be explained in a similar way;
the lines are, however, obscure, and it is worthy of note at least th a t
two standard works on inscriptions reject the explanation th a t G. R.
D river favours9. Yet even if Arabic zarima is connected with Ps 90 5
and the Eshmunazar inscription, it is difficult to see how the hypothesis can help us in Jes 25 2. Neither the meaning in Arabic nor the
supposed meaning in Ps 90 5 and in Phoenician fits a building, which
can scarcely be said to be checked and we have seen th a t the
meaning to sweep away lacks support. It would be unwise to make
even the small change to zarm in Jes 25 2 th at G. R. Driver favours,
unless we could be confident th at the root had a suitable meaning.
G. R. Driver's theory and the rendering of Jes 25 2 in the New English
Bible must, therefore, be rejected.
IV.
We turn finally to the problem of the meaning of the words
. The Revised Version takes them with the verb mta:
thou hast made . a palace of strangers to be no city . The translation gives to the preposition a well-established pregnant sense (G. K.
119 X . y) comparable to th at of me'am in Jes 7 )

th at it be not a
people"). Yet, while the grammar is satisfactory, the sense is bad. A
palace (or whatever building an 'armn was) never was a city. How,
then, can it cease to be one ?
As in the earlier part of the verse, attem pts have been made to
obtain sense from the Massoretic Text. One suggestion is th at armn
8 E. w. Lane, Arabie-English Lexicon, 1863 1893, gives for zarima such meanings as
following: said of one's urine . . . and of Lis flow of tears, and of his speech . . .
and of his oath . . . and of anything that had gone back . . . It became interrupted, or
stopped', or it stopped', or . . .
j . Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des inscriptions smitiques de iouest, 1965; and H. Donner
and W. Rllig, Kanaanische und aramische Inschriften, 1962 1964, in which the
Eshmunazar inscription is no. 14.

A. Emerton, A Textual Problem.

Isal
25
rh2

71

should be rtanslated as a plural (Gesenius), th at , presumably,

regarded as a eolleetlve. Then, it may be elaimed, palaees in the plural
eould have been thought to make up a city, and so could have ceased
to be a city. Yet it may be doubted whether it is legitimate to translate any singular noun as a plural simply by bringing in the concept of
collectivity as a deus ex machina. The plural o f armn occurs a number
of times in the Old Testament, and it is probable th at the prophet
would have used it here if he had wished the noun to be understood in
a plural sense. Other suggestions are even less satisfactory. B. Duhm's
rendering of me'r as unbewohnt is illegitimate, and E. Knig's dass
er keinen Stadtteil mehr bildet is not much better. Finally, the sixteenth-century scholar F. Vatable offers a translation th at would be
possible only if the words were viewed in isolation from their context.
His opinion is that the meaning is thou hast made . . . out of the city
a citadel of foreigners , th at is, ex urbe clarissima in qua te colebant,
fecisti ut esset arx eorum qui alieni sunt a tide tu a . However, a
citadel of foreigners is not a good parallel to mppel: the context
speaks of reducing a city to ruins, not of reducing it to a citadel occupied by foreigners.
It is, therefore, not surprising th a t attem pts have been made to
tackle the problem by means of emendation. G. R. Driver's solution,
by changing the pointing of zarm, has already been considered, others
wish to emend me'r. L. Cappellus changes it to be<r and takes the
phrase, not with the earlier part of the verse, but with what follows:
Falatium . . . alienorum, in civitate nunquam aedificabitur . His
suggestion makes good sense, but it involves a change to the consonantal text, and it is better to seek some other solution to the problem
before resorting to such a change. H. Graetz's deletion of me'ir as a
dittograph not only alters the consonantal text, but also raises a
metrical difficulty. G. B. Gray thinks th at me'r was accidentally
substituted for the word which originally stood here, and which may
have been either a third synonym to and . . . or a vb. meaning
thou hast (or is) overthrown, or the like ; and most emendations th a t
have been proposed belong to one or other of his alternatives. First,
a word denoting ruin is suggested by j . c. Doederlein, who emends
me'r to m e<, tum ulus (cp. in Mi 1 Hi 30 2 4 ) : et palatia barbara in
tumulos nunquam restaurandos [vertisti] . The noun m e* is itself
found in Jes 1? 1 , but there is reason to doubt the correctness of the
text (see, for example, G. B. Gray). The word th at j . c. Doederlein
wishes to read in Jes 25 2 is thus suspect, and his suggestion suffers
from the fact th at he co^'ecturally emends the consonantal texts. Secondly, some have substituted a verb for me'r. E. j . Kissane suggests
m e*orar, the po'al participle of , and translates the line: The castle
of the proud [=
is levelled . The meaning is excellent, but E. j .

72

. A. Emerton, A Textual Problem m Isaiah 25

Kissane makes a change to the consonantal text by, presumably,

p o s i t i n g haplography of the letter resh. ]. D. Michaehs, however,
keeps the consonantal unchanged, and emends only the vocalization.
He points the word m etuyyar, the pu. participle of a verb cognate with
Arabic gayyara, mutavit, abolevit , and translates the line palatium peregrinorum m utabitur, abolebitur, destruetur . The translation makes good sense, but there is a difficulty. The root is not clearly attested elsewhere in Hebrew and even ]. D. Michaehs seems to
be doubtful whether it is to be found Jes ? , if the variant mwsd
is accepted in place of mwsr. I t is hazardous to make a change even
to the vocalization of me'r in order to produce a hapax legomenon.
Further, we might have expected the po'lal of a hollow verb in Biblical
Hebrew rather than the pu., though the objection is not decisive. I t
is best, therefore, to reject j . D. Michaehs's suggestion.
It is possible to make a new suggestion, which has affinities with
the theories of j . D. Michaehs and j . Kissane b u t avoids their defects. Perhaps they are right in thinking th at me'r conceals a participie, and perhaps it is from the root (an idea th a t had occured to
me before I came across E. j . Kissane's suggestion). The verb is
found in the pilpel and hitpalpel in Jer 51 58, where it describes the
destruction of the walls of Babylon, and in the potel in Jes 23 13,
where it also denotes destruction and has *rm^otczha as its object;
and the pi. of the related verb ^ is employed of the destruction of
Jerusalem in Ps 13? ? Since the verb is used of the destruction (perhaps originally the lading bare) of buildings, and since Jes 23 13 shows
th a t it could appropriately be used of an rmn, it would be very
suitable in Jes 25 2 . The word may be pointed, not as the po'al,
which would involve a change to the consonantal text, b ut as the
hoph'al, which keeps much closer to the reading of the Massoretes.
The verb is not attested in the hoph'al, but th a t is not a serious
difficulty. The hoph'al participle could be mu'ar, and the clause
might be translated the palace of foreigners is destroyed . A copyist
perhaps read the word as me'r, because he was thinking of
earlier in the verse. Later still, another copyist changed ^
to me'r
under the influence of the corrupt form later in the verse.
V.
The conclusion of the present article may now be summarized.
1. The first in Jes 25 2 should be emended to , and the present
text explained as an assimilation to the (corrupt) later in the
verse. 2. should be repointed as 3 .. Either or yields
suitable sense, and there is no sufficient reason to prefer the latter
reading. 4. The second should be changed to , the hoph'al

E. Otto, Die Steilung der Wehe-Worte in der Verkndigung des Prepheten Habakuk ?

participle of ^ It was later read as under the influence of

earlier in the verse. The relevant parts of the verse, when thus restored,
m ay he translated: For thou hast made the city into a heap . . the
palace of fore^ners is destroyed .
In Jes 25 2 ist das mem des ersten me'r zu tilgen und ist lggal in legal zu ndern.
Dagegen ist es unntig, dem zarm ein zedm vnrzuziehen. Das zweite me'r sollto
m u a r (pt. ho. von ) vokalisiert werden. Die beiden Versteile lauten dann: Denn
du hast die Stadt zu einem Haufen gemacht . . Der Palast der Fremden ist zerstrt.
En Esale 252 il faut supprimer le mem du premier me'Y et changer lggal en
legal. Il n'est par contre pas ncessaire de prfrer un zedm zarm. De second me'r
d e v a it tre vocalis mu'ar (part, hofal de ). On traduira de la sorte: car tu as fait
de la ville un monceau . . . De palais des trangers est dtruit.

Die Steliung der Wehe-Worte in der Verkndigung des

?ropheten Habakuk
Von Eckart Otto
(Hamburg 52, Elbblcken le )

/ . Problembersicht
In den letzten fnfzehn Jahren hat es, ausgelst durch C. Westermanns These*, der prophetische Wehe-Ruf2 habe seinen berheferungsgeschichtlichen Ursprung im Fluchspruch, eine intensive Diskussion
um die Frage nach der Herkunft des prophetischen Wehe-Wortes
gegeben^. Dabei stand die Frage im Vordergrund, ob sich das prophetische Wehe-Wort aus dem kultischen Fluch*, der weisheitlichen
Belehrung, sei es einer Sippenweisheft^, sei es der Weisheitsschule
von Jerusalem, oder schlielich aus der Leichenklage* ableite. Gegen
1 s. Grundformen ^ophetiseber Rede, I960, I37ff.; vgl. bereits p. Humbert, Problmes du livre d'Habacuc, 1944, I8ff.
Zur formgeschichtlichen Abgrenzung der flWorte von den K-Worten s. G. Wanke,
und , ZAW 78 (1966), 2 1 5 -2 1 8 ; vgl. auch w . Janzen, Mourning Cry and
Woe Oracle, 1972, 24ff.
S. den forh u n g g esch ich tlich en berblick bei H.-J. Krause, hj als profetische
I^ichenklage ber das eigene Volk im 8. Jahrhundert, ZAW 85 (1973), 1546, 16ff.
4 Vgl. c. W estermann a. a. o. 137 ff.
5 Vgl. E. Gerstenberger, The Woe-Oracles of the Prophets, JBD 81 (1962), 249 263;
H. w. Wolff, Amos' geistige Heimat, 1964, 12ff.; ders., BK XIV. 2, 1969, 284ff.;
j . G. Williams, The Alas-Oracles of toe Eighth Century Prophets, HUCA 38 (1967),
75 91, 8 4 f.; w . Schottroff, Der altisraelitische Fluchspruch, 1969, 112ff.
Vgl. W. Richter, Recht und Ethos, 1966, 172.
7 Vgl. G. Wanke a. a. O. 217f.; R. D. Clifford, The Use of H6j in the Prophets, CBQ 28
(1966), 458 464; w . Janzen a. a. O. passim; A. Wildberger, BK X, 1972, 182;
H.-J. Krause a. a. o. 15ff.


Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your resp ective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent.
No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s) express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initia funding from Liiiy Endowment !).
The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.