Hebrew writings were not laid out with the apparatus of footnotes and parentheses. Marginal corrections and marks above and below the line were used to comment upon the accuracy of the text. This does not mean that the phenomenon of a footnote is absent from the text; it is just that the modern representation of a footnote is obviously absent. This observation can also be made for parentheses. Identifying footnotes or parentheses is no different in principle from identifying excurses, digressions, or other in-line comments.
Footnotes
The criteria we propose for identifying a footnote are,
- The text features at the end of an oracle.
- The text reproduces one or more lexical items from inside the oracle.
- The text expands on the information inside the oracle that is associated with the replicated lexical items.
- The text does not naturally close the oracle.
These criteria do not all have to be fulfilled, and are only offered as a guide.
For example, the text of Isa 44:28 is a footnote to what the Lord will “perform” in respect of Jerusalem. This is indicated by several markers:
- 28 is at the end of the oracle.
- 28 reproduces lexical material from v. 26,
- The Lord asserts that he “performs” (~lv) the counsel of his messengers. These messengers are giving a message about Jerusalem, the cities of Judah, and the waste places; v. 28 picks up this idea of what the Lord will “perform” and asserts that Cyrus will “perform” (~lv) the pleasure of the Lord.
- The messengers have a message for Jerusalem (~Ølvwryl rma); v. 28 places a message for Jerusalem into the mouth of Cyrus (~Ølvwryl rma).
- 28 expands on the point being made in v. 26; it repeats the spirit of the message, but varies its prediction.
Since Cyrus is not a messenger, his charge is positioned as the fulfillment of the counsel of the messengers. This characteristic makes v. 28 a prediction of how vv. 25-26 will be fulfilled (performed). As such it could well be a footnote interpreting vv. 25-26. The fulfillment is typological in that Jerusalem will now be “built” whereas the oracle had asserted that Jerusalem will only be “inhabited”.
Sensitivity to the presence of footnotes at the end of oracles is important. Scholars attuned to repetition in oracles will often “delete” the repetition as secondary and later, the work of a clumsy editor.[1] Footnotes require some repetition to function, and expand on an oracle precisely as an “afterthought” or “parallel thought”. These characteristics have been misconstrued by scholars as indicating the work of later editors.
Parentheses
Parentheses are an in-line comment that an author places into a text. They may explain a word or a point; they will relate to the body of the text to some degree, but they are signalled as a parallel thought to the flow of the text. They could be as small as a “which being interpreted”, or as a large as a digression or excursus.
The thought in Isa 45:1 is Davidic. The oracle addresses the Lord’s anointed (v. 1). The Hebrew for word “anointed” is fairly common (37x) although it is rare in the prophets (3x). Its principal usage is in relation to the Davidic king (e.g. Lam 4:20, Hab 3:13), and the classic example of its use is found in Psalm 2:
“The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying…” Psa 2:2 (KJV)
The exact Hebrew expression in Isa 45:1, “to his anointed” (wxyvml), only occurs in two other texts (2 Sam 22:51, Psa 18:51) and in relation to David. It is likely therefore that Isa 45:1 quotes these earlier texts. However, the use of “to his anointed” in respect of Cyrus is precisely not Davidic, and this suggests that “to Cyrus” is a variation of “to David”.[2]
The same explanatory structure is present in the original text of 2 Sam 22:51 and Psa 18:51. The expression vrwkl wxyvml (“to his anointed, to Cyrus”) is a citation of the structure of dwdl wxyvml (“to his anointed, to David”). But the citation arrests the attention of the reader because it was not completed with a “to David” but a “to Cyrus” and this makes it a metalepsis.
The point of the citation is precisely the variation of “to Cyrus” for “to David”, and this is ironic because Cyrus is not David and yet is given a Davidic role. Cyrus is standing in for David in respect of restoring his original achievements, which were to capture Jerusalem and establish her as the city for Yahweh to dwell, and acquire the materials for laying the foundation of the temple. Cyrus is standing in for “David” because the Davidic king in Jerusalem (Hezekiah) has failed to fulfil his Davidic role because of his courtship of the Babylonian envoys (Isaiah 39).
[1] For example, in the case of Isa 44:28, see C. C. Torrey, The Second Isaiah (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928), 43-44.
[2] Hence, commentators such as H. A. Whittaker, Isaiah (Cannock: Biblia, 1988), 393-397, or Torrey, Second Isaiah, 40-43, who argue that the mention of Cyrus is a later interpolation, misconstrue the text.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One