Talk:Isa 29:1-5

Ariel (v.1)

Robert, can you give some commentary notes on Ariel, from the Anchor Bible, the Continental Commentary, and the Word Biblical Commentary? I began doing some work on Isaiah 29 (still thinking through this typology stuff, and I thought it would be interesting to take a close look at Nephi's interweaving of Isaiah 29 with his own prophecies, etc.), and I thought I'd be able to solve the "Ariel" puzzle to my own satisfaction without much difficulty. That quickly led me through about ten of my own resources, but without anything like a conclusion. I'm especially interested in the Moabite reading of the LXX. I'm wondering what some of these good commentaries might have to say on the subject. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated! --Joe Spencer 15:06, 7 Dec 2006 (UTC)

OK, but here's my request of you (quid pro quo!): how do you understand the phrase "one eternal round"? It's the KJV "year to year" phrase that raises the issue (to my mind at least) here, and it's something I've been wondering about off and on for a long time. (Related to my thoughts on a "dialectical view of faith-and-truth" esp. per Alma 32, which I've mentioned before....). This has come up several times on the wiki, but no one's really taken up the task of discussing this (though there's a very brief note about this at Alma 37:12). I keep meaning to look more carefully at what Nibley's written about this, but haven't really gotten to it yet (and my sense is he only scratches the surface as to it's potential meaning and significance...). For "Ariel" (and "year to year"), I'll start with Wildberger, then look at the Anchor Bible, and I'll email you the WBC material on this in case you can look at it first). --RobertC 16:55, 7 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's see here. I'm going to begin with a strict look at "one eternal round," and then I'll look at the year to year business (I've got some very interesting poetic ideas on this, but what is poetry?). The phrase only shows up in scriptures Joseph Smith had a hand in, so here's the 1828 Webster's on the noun "round." Definitions 1 and 2 look the most relevant: "1. A circle; a circular thing, or a circle in motion," and "2. Action or performance in a circle, or passing through a series of hands or things and coming to the point of beginning; or the time of such action." Already two pictures come to mind: the Great Dance in the last scenes of C. S. Lewis' Perelandra and prayers performed in a circle (of any kind, including the heavenly chorus as in 1 Ne 1:8, etc.). Of interest also is that every instance of the phrase employs the noun to explain "the course of the Lord": the phrasing changes from verse to verse, but the word "course" is always present. In the Book of Mormon and the D&C, "course" seems universally to mean the direction one is heading (as opposed to the "circle-oriented meanings that occur in the Bible here and there). In the OT, this seems best represented by mrwtsh, which is translated "course" in Jer 8:6 and Jer 23:10. Then, "course" occurs a number of times in the NT in this sense, always a translation of dromos in one form or another. Both the Hebrew and the Greek mean simply "a race." This fits well with the Latin cursus, which derrives from curro, to run. So....

The Lord's "course," the race He has to run. On the one hand, perhaps it is a circle: He repeats (Kierkegaard?). On the other hand, perhaps it is the great circle dance/prayer: He sits always in council (Barker?). I don't believe Nibley really discusses this anywhere (I've just about all that he's published, and I don't know that I've come across anything worth remembering on that). But the book he was writing when he died (after working on it already for twenty years) is going to be called One Eternal Round. It will be published by FARMS whenever they can get the manuscript tidied up. My wife and I were in Brother Nibley's ward while we were at BYU, and we got to know him for the last year or so before he died. He was struggling then only with the conclusion, the rest was, as far as he was considered, done. I can't imagine FARMS will take too much longer getting it out. At the same time, I'm not convinced it will deal with that concept very directly: it is a collection of so many years of research on the hypocephalus. But just that he calls the hypocephalus "one eternal round" is interesting. Fig. 18 of fac. no. 2 is a prayer, and gathered at the center is an enthroned god. Do we have the great dance embodied in the hypocephalus itself?

But what of year to year? I suppose I'd like to take up the ritual implications of both the theme of repeating and the theme of the great dance (Day of Atonement), but then to take them up in terms of the Book of Hebrews, where Paul discusses the concept of year to year versus once and for all. More tomorrow. --Joe Spencer 15:03, 8 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Wildberger's take

Wildberger takes takes Ariel as a reference to Jerusalem. He writes, "Isaiah certainly must have had his reasons for not speaking here about either Jerusalem or Zion when he chose this designation instead; one must assume that it would immediately have brought certain associations to the minds of his hearers as soon as it struck their ears. The term was a cause of embarrassment already in ancient times. That is to be seen not only in the early versions but also in the very way that it has been written" (p. 71). He goes on to discuss the Ezek 43:15 referring to the topmost part of the altar of burnt offering in the temple (in Jerusalem). Regarding the Moabite stone, he simply notes that some take the phrase "Ariel of their rwr" to mean altar of their cheiftain/god. He goes on to discuss how the altar hearth is the most important part of the altar, and the altar is placed in the center of the sanctuary, and "the sanctuary upon Zion is the very place that affords this particular city its central importance." The rhetorical effect, then, is that the woe is being directed at the very heart of Jerusalem as a symbol of safety (since the sacrificial offerings on the altar are what were supposed to guarantee Jerusalem's safety).

W. also mentions words related to Ariel in [[[Ezra 8:16]], 2 Sam 23:20 (warrior, presumably from the lion/ari part of the word...), Gen 46:16, Num 26:17 and Isa 33:7, and discusses--though skeptically--the conjectures of some scholars trying to connect Ariel to the Akaadian (originally Sumerian) name of Jerusalem (urusalim/mu), which some have tried to argue comes from the word arallu which means "underword" (and was earlier thought to have a second meaning "mountain of God" though that possibility has mostly been refuted). --RobertC 20:49, 8 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Young's take

The Anchor Bible doesn't really address this Ariel business much. But Edward Young (The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, 1969, p. 305, not such an outdated series after all...) takes a view I don't think Wildberger addressed (at least directly):

Perhaps appeal should be made to Ug. ary, kinsman, dependent, Egy. r., Hurrian `ari, man of. The word would then mean "belonging to God, possession of God." This suggestion is put forth tentatively.

Young also notes that Samaria is symbolically referred to in 28:1, so the symbolic reference to Jerusalem seems to fit within a larger structure (and theme). --RobertC 00:29, 13 Dec 2006 (UTC)

"Year to year" (v. 1)

Quick brainstorm of thoughts on this: First, I think there's an interesting theme of recurrence and circularity here (v. 1, "year to year" and v. 3 "round about"). Actually, I have 2 Tim 3:7 particularly in mind as a parallel here (perhaps there is a better place to take up this issue), which brings to mind knowledge. I also have Prov 1:7 in mind which contrasts the not-coming-to-knowledge with fear of God and wisdom as the "beginning of knowledge" (in case anyone's interested, my larger project is studying Abraham, and I've been wondering about "fear of God" per Gen 22:12).

So my thought is that the proper way to worship God, particularly in the temple, is to "amen" (Hebrew faith) that which God says/commands/desires by believing God's promises and covenant and following his commandments (teaching the "fear of God" is a/the primary justification stated in Exodus for giving the law of Moses...)--that is, amen-ing God's will in one's life, which is a way to worship God (incarnating God per Joe's thinking?). This type of recurrent affirmation of God starkly contrasts the situation Isaiah seems to be sacrcastically mocking in chapters 28-29 where the festivals recur but do not affirm God, self, or others. The idea then is that understanding eludes this people who do not affirm God (cf. Isa 28:10-13 esp.), and so the only way understanding/knowledge/wisdom/fear-of-God can be obtained is via a destructive "foreign tongue" (28:11) and a speaking "from the dust" (29:4). This notion of false rituals/festivals which do not affirm God (e.g. 29:16: the pottery saying to the potter "he didn't make me") causes blindness and misunderstanding seems particularly prominent throughout both of these chapters.

Since I think my thoughts here are a bit all over the place, let me add that I think an important link to all of these different concepts is the idea of actions affirming words (cf. our recent 1 Tim 1:6 discussion on speculation). True faith affirms (amens) others (i.e. love), and hopes that others will reciprocate this affirmation (by loving us back, affirming promises made, listening/responding to us, etc.). Also, affirming others entails actions, not just words. Thus lying and hyporcrisy epitomise not affirming others. Hence Satan is the father of lies. Hence the notion of wickedness as actions that do not affirm others, and by contrast, the notion of righteousness as that which will affirm others. God is righteous b/c he both loves others and keeps his promises, and his promises are such that they affirm his love of others (so here is one sense in which God's being is one eternal round...). All wickedness can thus be viewed as the opposite of affirming others (and not affirming oneself, e.g. self-deception...).

Thanks in advance for any help/feedback in helping me work through these disorganized thoughts.... --RobertC 17:54, 7 Dec 2006 (UTC)

A Fresh Take

Perhaps the best approach to this first verse is to recognize the mistranslation of "to" in the first couple of words: there is no "to" in Hebrew. The Hebrew reads: "Hoy! Ariel! Ariel!" In other words, it begins with a totally inarticulate word, a word without etymology, one that announces a dissolution or disorientation. Might that explain the disorienting alternate name for Jerusalem. It seems a stretch to me to settle so confidently on the altar-hearth meaning, especially in light of the LXX mention of Moab in the final part of the verse. Knowing Isaiah, I wonder if it is not an attempt to transcend intentional meaning, that is, an attempt to mean several things at once: the altar in the temple, the lion of Judah, the light of God, and something to do with Moab.... If Isaiah's word can be taken as following from the inarticulate "Hoy!" then one might read the "Ariel" as similarly inarticulate, or only as approaching articulation. The somewhat disjointed language of "add ye year to year" and "let them kill sacrifices" is then a further move towards articulation, but still dwelling in the realm of the inarticulate (I'm thinking, to some degree, of Landy's article again). If we can read this powerful emotion into Isaiah's words, his frustration that drives him beyond articulation, we might recognize the polysemy of this announcement.

Perhaps it is worth noting also that Nephi entirely drops these first two verses in his detailed working out of Isaiah 29. Consequently, when Nephi picks up Isaiah's verse 7, he drops the reference to "Ariel." Is there a hint here of a late addition? Or might one read into this that Nephi had no idea what to make of such inarticulation? Or might it be that "Ariel" was so particular a reference that Nephi had to drop it in order to "liken" (though he doesn't seem to do so elsewhere)? What is at work here?

These difficulties might underscore the importance of reading "one eternal round" into these questions: the year to year business is so earthly, so Israelite, while the "eternal round" is heavenly. Might it be that the one eternal round breaks the continual process of sacrifice (I have Hebrews in mind here), that the once for all nature of the round is the dance that is without beginning or end. The Israelites, in taking up the dance every year for a bit, can't break into the circle dance itself. There is something more that must happen (i.e., the endowment, or some such thing). Hmm.... I think these thoughts are inarticulate. --Joe Spencer 15:27, 12 Dec 2006 (UTC)

This "breaking into the circle dance" idea makes a lot of sense to me. This seems a continuation of themes in Ch. 6 (Isaiah's becoming undone and being called to "undo" others; cf. "hearken and hear" in Isa 28:23...) and Ch. 28 (the misguided rejoicing in vv. 1ff; the mocking repition of prophetic words in vv. 10ff; the "for what purpose" question implicit in Isa 28:24ff...). Doesn't verse 4 also reinforce this idea of "understanding coming from beyond (one's horizon)"? verse 8 I think also fits into this reading nicely: the festivals in Samaria and the repeated sacrifices do not have their intended effect because they're not really (sincerely) doing them--the insincere acts of worship are false and have no effect, like dreaming about eating food (very relevant I think to our discussion of the speculation theme in Timothy, viz. 2 Tim 3:7, "ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." --RobertC 00:50, 13 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I think it is especially interesting that Nephi drops this part we have such a hard time with. --Matthew Faulconer 03:26, 13 Dec 2006 (UTC)