Reading ‘House of Jacob’ in Isaiah 48:1-11 in Light of

Benjamin. Abstract: Isaiah 48:1-11 has been described as a difficult passage due to a perceived discord between its harsh tone and the message of comfort espoused elsewhere in Isaiah 40-55. This paper analyses this passage with regard to four groups of arguments, namely, proposals of a Judahite origin for the text, the archaeological evidence for settlement continuity in the Benjaminite region in the Neo-Babylonian period, the development and use of the patriarchal traditions in the sixth century, and studies of hidden polemic. By drawing these together, this paper proposes that the house of Jacob in Isaiah 48:1-2, could be understood as addressing a sixth century Judahite community in the Benjaminite region, perhaps in the vicinity of Bethel.


Introduction
Isaiah 48:1-11 comprises a series of harsh statements against the house of Jacob that have caused some difficulty for interpreters over the years. Although some scholars see  XL-LV, VTS 24 (Leiden: Brill, 1973), table VI, 285; and more recent comments in Chris A. Franke,Isaiah 46,47,and 48: A New 2 Isaiah Live?' as Buttenwieser put it almost a century ago, has been widely debated, but in recent years there have been strong arguments made in favour of a Judahite origin for the core material of the text. 2 This paper accepts these proposals and combines them with textual and archaeological evidence from Judah in the sixth century, in an attempt to approach Isa 48:1-11 in light of issues that may have arisen in a Judahite context at this time.  T&T Clark, 2006). Due to considerations of space this paper will deal only with 48:1-11, though a broader range of verses will be taken into account in a future research project.  light of recent studies regarding the development and use of the Jacob and Abraham traditions in the exilic period. Finally, in Part IV, we return to Isa 48:1-11 and analyse it in light of the preceding sections, proposing to read the "house of Jacob" in light of a sixth century community in the Benjaminite region of Judah, most likely in the vicinity of Bethel. In this light, Isa 48:1-11 may be shown to be in keeping with the prophet's rhetoric elsewhere in Isa 40-55, and in accord with theological and rhetorical developments in other exilic texts. By focusing on Bethel, and raising the probability of other Yahwistic shrines and communities within Judah, the paper demonstrates the likelihood of intra-communal strife within the Yahwistic community in the sixth century. With regard to the book of Isaiah, this intra-communal strife does not begin with the returnees from Babylon in Isa 56-66 but, in all likelihood, was present at any time when the interpretation of the true Israel was up for discussion.

I. An Anonymous Prophet in Exilic Judah
The difficulty of identifying the location of Isa 40-55 has provoked interest from scholars since the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. 6 Babylon (except Isa 47), and the seeming geographical orientation behind statements such as "go forth from Babylon, flee from Chaldea" (Isa 48:20). 10 On the basis of the trees listed in Isa 44, Sherwin has also argued for a western origin of the text, and the comments of Koops and Zohary on the trees occurring elsewhere in 44:4,14;55:13) are also instructive on this point. 11 A Judahite location also Structure and Chronological Framework of the Prophecies in Is. xl-xlviii," in Congress Volume Bonn 1962, VTS 9 (Leiden: Brill, 1963R. Abma, "Travelling from Babylon to Zion: Location and Function in Isaiah 49-55," JSOT 74 (1997): 3-28. See also the works referred to in fn.2 above. 14 Strine, Sworn Enemies, 257-8. 7 against Babylon in Isa 40-55 as originating in Judah, rather than amongst the Babylonian exiles.

II. Sixth Century Judah and Benjamin
Having briefly outlined the reasoning for approaching Isa 40-55 as a Judahite text, this next section considers some aspects of the historical reality of sixth-century Judah and Benjamin that would have influenced its author and formed the background against which the text was written. To this end, more attention is paid to Benjamin than has been typical of previous studies of Isa 40-55. In recent years scholarship has increasingly begun to focus on the role of Benjamin in the formation of Israelite identity and traditions in the exilic period, which seems a sensible development given that the Benjaminite region became pre-eminent in Judah during this time. This paper takes the view that if we are to argue for a Judahite Isa 40-55 then the role of Benjamin should be taken into account. Middlemas has proposed the phrase "templeless Judah" to refer to the land of Judah in the exilic period, in order to acknowledge the existence of the nonexiles who remained in the land. 15 However, given that the goal of this paper is to raise the possibility that Isa 40-55 was aware of other Yahwistic cult sites functioning in the sixth century, it would be inappropriate to use the term "templeless Judah." Therefore I refer to the land of Judah during the Neo-Babylonian period using the terms "exilic," or "sixth century." 16 In the past twenty years or so, archaeological and historical 16 Given the multiplicity of exiles and exilic communities, the breadth of the term "exilic" can be somewhat difficult when one wishes to speak specifically about a 8 scholarship has sought to rectify the previous unfortunate lacuna in studies regarding this period. 17 Through these recent works, it has become clear that although the areas around Jerusalem, and more centrally in the Shephelah, suffered destruction or decline immediately after 586, the regions north of Jerusalem, particularly around Mizpah and Gibeon, did not. 18 Regarding the region of Benjamin, Lipschits observes that <EXT> no evidence emerges of destruction at the beginning of the sixth century, apart from the razing of parts of Tell el-Ful. At all the excavated sites evidence of continuity of settlement exists between the seventh and sixth centuries, and of their existence particular time, region, or group, within the ancient Near East in the eighth-fifth centuries, so where possible in this paper I have endeavoured to use the wordier, but occasionally more accurate term "sixth century." "Exilic" is used when a broader term is required. Benjaminite city is noteworthy. In the next section we will turn to a more specific discussion of Bethel, which both illuminates these preceding comments on Judah and Benjamin in the Neo-Babylonian period and also moves the discussion forward into the realms of tradition and polemic.

Bethel
Since 1838 Bethel has been identified with Beitin and, notwithstanding Livingston and Bimson's objection and proposal of el-Bireh, the majority of scholars hold to this view. 23 Beitin was excavated by Kelso in 1954Kelso in , 1957Kelso in and 1960  the Chalcolithic through to the Byzantine period, but found no evidence of an Iron Age temple. In 2009 Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz reanalysed the reports and finds from these excavations. 25 They noted the difficulty of assigning the pottery vessels to an original context and, in any case, found that most of the loci were mixed. 26 Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz did, however, note that much of the pottery the excavators had identified as sixth century BC had come from loci marked on the excavation plans as Iron I, and this, combined with the small evidence for Persian-period activity, led them to conclude that Bethel was most likely very small in the Neo-Babylonian-Persian periods. 27 Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz note that the lack of destruction layers in the first half of the seventh century makes dating difficult, but point to the lack of "unambiguous evidence" for Neo-Babylonian or Persian period settlement to suggest 26 Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz, "Reevaluating Bethel," 36.

12
that Bethel was in a state of decline at this time. 28 However, it is important to note that much of Beitin is covered by modern buildings and, as the excavators found no evidence of the temple, this suggests that the main settlement was either beneath or outside modern Beitin and remains unexcavated. 29 In this case, absence of evidence cannot entirely prove absence of historical settlement. Though appreciated, the efforts of Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz to re-evaluate the Bethel material do little to challenge the prevailing view that, whilst the archaeology of Bethel is inconclusive, textual considerations suggest that habitation at Bethel continued in the exilic period. 30 As noted, contrary to Finkelstein's view that Bethel was in decline from the seventh century, Lipschits' survey of demographic changes in Judah and Benjamin suggests that the decline of the Benjaminite region, including Bethel, began towards the end of the sixth century rather than at the beginning. 31 Although the finds from Bethel are scant for the sixth-fifth centuries, the fact remains that Bethel is in close proximity to Mizpah and Gibeon, the former of which became the new administrative center of the region and experienced some measure of prosperity; the latter attests to settlement continuity and 28 Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz, "Reevaluating Bethel," 43-45.  37 Knauf has also concluded that Bethel played an important role in the sixth century whenby virtue of its continued existence when the Jerusalem temple was destroyed -its rivalry with Jerusalem was at its highest, and he suggests that it may even have provided an obstacle for the rebuilding of Jerusalem. 38 It seems, therefore, that there is some agreement that Bethel probably survived the Babylonian destructions of 586 and continued to function in some form during the sixth century.

Silence as Polemic
Despite the circumstantial evidence, it cannot be denied that neither Bethel, nor any community around or in Bethel, is explicitly mentioned in the sixth century biblical texts. Yet the post-exilic texts suggest that habitation at the site did continue, even if it was reduced significantly from what it was in previous centuries. 39  continued as a ritual center, may have led to the Bethel polemic being expressed differently. 44 Gomes also highlights the reticence of exilic and post-exilic texts to refer to Bethel as a sanctuary or as having any kind of ritual significance, though some form of existence of the city is clearly attested by its presence in city lists and tribal records. 45 He identifies numerous texts that suggest worship continued at Bethel during the Neo-Babylonian period, and observes that despite the silence of some texts, the final redaction of the Pentateuch presents Bethel in a positive light. 46 Middlemas observes a "veiled association of Bethel with matters of a religious nature in Zechariah 7:2" and argues in overall agreement with Blenkinsopp that Zech 7 hints at Bethel functioning as a religious centre before the return. 47 It seems, therefore, that there is an agenda present in the sixth century texts that sought to diminish the importance of Bethel, achieved via deliberate omission. Notably, the majority of these sixth century texts also downplay the aware that Benjamin had replaced Jerusalem as the political and social centre of Judah, so their silence is clearly deliberate. The lack of reference to Bethel in the sixth century texts has been rightly acknowledged. But it should also be acknowledged that the sixth century texts are largely silent about the Benjaminite region as a whole and also have a tendency to omit reference to any other cult centres. In this context, the lack of explicit reference to Bethel or Benjamin in Isa 40-55 cannot be taken as proof that neither Bethel, nor the Benjaminite sites existed during this time. Nor can it prove that the existence of the Benjaminite sites had no influence on the Isaianic author. Rather, the omission of explicit references to Bethel and Benjamin in Isa 40-55 is entirely in keeping with the rhetoric of the other sixth century texts.

III. Jacob and Bethel in the Exilic Period
Continuing with the subject of Bethel, the following section turns to discussions of the literary and theological traditions associated with Bethel, particularly with regard to Jacob. This section is a logical progression of the argument laid out in parts I and II; namely, that if the author of Isa 40-55 should be located in Judah (part I) at a time when the Benjaminite region was prominent and Bethel (and thus its traditions) continued to function (part II) then this ought to have left some trace in the text. It is in this vein that we now focus on Jacob as the main patriarch of Bethel, and a surprisingly dominant

Summary of Parts I-III
Part I briefly outlined the case for approaching Isa 40-55 as having originated in Judah.
Part II noted that the archaeology of sixth century Judah attests to settlement continuity in the Benjaminite region, and noted arguments that Bethel may well have continued in use during the sixth century. Part II also outlined scholars' observations of some sixth century texts engaging in hidden or silent polemic against Bethel, and observed the tendency in other sixth century texts to avoid mentioning the Benjaminite sites or any cultic sites altogether. Part III highlighted Jacob's associations with Bethel, and noted suggestions of a measure of competition between the Jacob (formerly northern) and Abraham (southern) traditions in the seventh-sixth centuries. Part III also noted the 25 increasing popularity of the Abraham traditions in Judah during the exilic period and proposed that the Jacob traditions may have found more popularity in the Benjaminite region, to which he had been historically closely connected. With this historical and rhetorical context in mind we shall now turn to Isaiah 48:1-11.

IV. Isaiah 48:1-11 and the House of Jacob
A more detailed study would explore all the references to Jacob in Isa 40-55 in light of the preceding discussions in parts I-III of this paper. However, within the scope of the present discussion it is possible to focus on only one section here; remaining material will have to await future investigation. 66 Isaiah 48:1-11 has been selected for 49:1-6) and his article cautions against the tendency to view all the Jacob-Israel references as having a single narrow audience. Interestingly, he raises the possibility that the "tribes of Jacob" in 49:6 need not necessarily refer to the old ancestral traditions, but, rather, could demonstrate acknowledgment of the complicated diaspora consideration as, firstly, 48:1-2 constitutes the most specific identification of the house of Jacob in Isa 40-55, and, secondly, 48:1-11 has led to some difficulties for commentators. Despite the prevalence of the term Jacob and its common parallelism with Israel in Isa 40-55, the term "house of Jacob" occurs only once elsewhere (46:3). 67 Given that Jacob-Israel are such common terms in Isa 40-55, yet the "house of Jacob" only occurs twice and the "house of Israel" only once, when these houses do appear they likely have a more specific agenda than the broader Jacob-Israel references found numerously elsewhere.
Commentators who retain the majority of the passage as original to a sixth century prophet have noted that in chapter 48 the tension between prophet and audience, previously only hinted at (40:18-20, 27; 43:22-28; 44:9-20; 45:9-11; 46:5-12), now comes to the fore. 68 Not only does the prophet speak in a harsher tone than before but the passage occurs at a turning point in the book. Franke emphasized the pivotal nature demographics (p. 67). To be clear, in arguing that Isa 48:1-11 has a specific referent, I do not deny that the audience/group referred to as Jacob-Israel elsewhere may be far broader; I am merely arguing that the house of Jacob in Isa 48:1 may be one part of this greater whole. 67 The term "house of Jacob" only occurs elsewhere in Isaiah in 2:3, 5, 6; 8:17; 10:20; character of Jacob to state that the house of Jacob is still caught up in Jacob's sin. 75 For the author, although the house of Jacob may have changed their name to Israel and claimed a new identity, they were still intertwined in the old heritage of Jacob, as shown by the illegitimacy of their cultic actions.
Kratz has argued that the author of Isa 40-55 is aware of a difference still existing between Israel and Judah, as he views 48:1 as the prophetic author saying that only the Judeans who come out of the waters of Judah are called by the name of Israel, and so the author uses the title "house of Jacob" to address the nation as a whole in order to level out the geographical and political differences. 76 Although Kratz seems correct in his observation that the use of Jacob-Israel in Isa 40-55 may well entail an effort to level out geographical and political differences between Judahite groups, the reference to the house of Jacob in 48:1-11 seems more specific. The reference to the house of Jacob having come from the waters, or loins, of Judah makes it seem unlikely that the entire community are envisaged as the addressee, as do the statements of the following verses.
In 48:1-2 the dismissal of the house of Jacob's swearing by Yahweh and invocations of the God of Israel are dismissed as non-righteous and without truth, which is at odds 75 Contra Kratz, who argues that Jacob in Isa 40-55 represents a new beginning. Cf. R.G. rebellion is also found in 1 Kgs 12, where the establishment of Bethel and Dan in opposition to Jerusalem is narrated. Given that Bethel was established as a deliberate act of rebellion against Jerusalem it is possible to read 48:8 as reference to Bethel's origin.
It is perhaps also worth note that the Benjaminite cities that survived the Babylonian invasionsseemingly because they surrendered when Judah did not -may well have been viewed as having rebelled against Judah by those within the ruined Judahite cities.
The history of the region may also have contributed to it having a rebellious reputation; Benjamin appears to have been closely linked to Judah in the early days of the monarchy, then became part of the northern kingdom, then became part of Judah again, and then survived when Jerusalem did not. As a region, Benjamin seemingly had a habit of changing sides and outlasting the kingdom that controlled it. 43:27-28; 48:9-10) and the fact that the house of Jacob still existed was for Yahweh's own sake (48:9-11) and not due to any inherent righteousness or holiness of the group in question. Tiemeyer argued that Jacob-Israel probably refers to a group in Judah, and in light of parts I-III of this paper, I propose that the group referred to as the house of Jacob in 48:1-11 could be understood as a sixth century community in the Benjaminite region, most likely in the vicinity of Bethel. 80 commentators interpret this as a reference to the exodus in Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, 268; cf. also Blenkinsopp,290;Westermann,198. 80 Tiemeyer, For the Comfort of Zion,225,237,239,

V. Conclusions
For much of the sixth century the Benjaminite region replaced Jerusalem as the social and political centre of Judah, and it is highly likely that as a consequence of this newfound importance, Benjaminite traditions would have increased in popularity during this time. This paper has argued that if we are to posit a Judahite origin for the core material of Isa 40-55 then this background should be taken into consideration. I have argued that the house of Jacob in Isa 48:1-11 refers to a specific group within the broader conception of Jacob-Israel in Isa 40-55. This solves some of the perceived inconsistency between Israel's relationship and communication with its God, and the statements of 48:1-11 that the house of Jacob call on Yahweh illegitimately and that they have never known Yahweh's plans. In light of evidence demonstrating settlement continuity in the Benjaminite region, and arguments that Bethel continued to function after 586, combined with the centrality of Bethel in the Jacob and Abraham traditions, I have proposed that the house of Jacob in Isa 48:1-2 be identified with a group in Benjamin, perhaps in the vicinity of Bethel. This may better explain the author's choice of Jacob as the central figure (rather than Abraham), the mistrust of the selfidentification of the group in 48:1-2, and the accusation of their Yahwistic actions being illegitimate. Read this way, 48:9-11 serves as an explanation that the preservation of this group -and perhaps the city in which they were based -was not due to its holiness or righteousness, but only because Yahweh chose not to profane his name. Although Bethel is not mentioned explicitly in 48:1-11, or elsewhere in 40-55, this omission is in keeping with other sixth century texts, which omit references to any Yahwistic shrines and tend to avoid mentioning the Benjaminite cities altogether. The region of Benjamin may well have offered some hope to the Judahites in the early years of the exile, and 34 perhaps the mounting frustration in Isa 40-48 that comes to a head in 48:1-11 speaks to this situation, expressing the failure of this Yahwistic community and thus looking forward to the hope of the new servant and the restored Zion.