Isaiah 46, 47, and 48: A New Literary-Critical Reading (review)

160 SHOFAR Fall 1996 Vol. 15, No. 1 Jungian bias I would commend the venture this collection undertakes and wish it bon voyage. John P. Dourley Carleton University Ottawa Isaiah 46, 47, and 48: A New Uterary-Critical Reading, by Chris Franke. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994. 293 pp. $32.50. Franke's Graduate Theological Union dissertation (Duane Christensen, David Noel Freedman, and Francis I. Andersen) applies literary- or rhetorical-critical methodology to the study of Isaiah 46, 47, and 48 in an effort to demonstrate that the poems found within these chapters constitute unified literary works. She is especially concerned to refute the work of earlier form-critical studies, such as those by Schoors, Westermann , Melugin, and Whybray, that divide the text into a series of originally independent, short, self-contained generic units. Noting that most scholars regard Isaiah 47 as a long, skillfully constructed, unified poem by DeuteroIsaiah , she argues that it is inconsistent to propose that the rest of Deutero-Isaiah consists ofsuch short, form-critically defined units. Because previous scholarship notes thematic parallels between Isaiah 47 and the surrounding material in Isaiah 46 and 48, she proposes a study of all three to see what rhetorical devices are employed to define the structure of each poem/chapter. She assumes that each poem is a unified work and conceives of her study as a means to test that assumption. Franke's method owes much to the work of James Muilenburg and Richard Clifford, who developed the rhetorical-critical approach by focusing especially on the literary coherence and interrelationship of textual sub-units within a larger textual structure. She gives special emphasis to their concern with the strophic structure of the text, which she establishes in large measure by the syllable and stress count approach developed by Freedman. Her analysis of each chapter includes the following elements: 1) a transliteration of the text, which indicates its strophic divisions and syllable or stress count; 2) her English translation of the text; 3) detailed notes which take up philological, text-critical, and other interpretive issues; 4) an analysis of the microstructure of the text based upon various rhetorical features; and 5) an analysis of the macrostructure of the text. Her analyses of Isaiah 46, 47, and 48 conclude that each is a unified poem. Book Reviews 161 Franke is certainly correct to challenge Gunkel's axiomatic principle that the short, self-contained, generic unit constitutes an originally independent text that must stand as the primary focus of biblical exegesis. She is likewise correct in her assertion that scholars need to consider larger literary contexts and textual structures in which the smaller units function. together as part of a large whole. But to a certain extent, she is shadow-boxing with the form-critical methodology ofthe past. More recent form-critical methodological literature, especially the work of Martin Buss, George Coats, RolfKnierim, Wolfgang Richter, and others, and the volumes of the "Forms of the Old Testament literature" commentary series demonstrate that the lessons taught by James Muilenburg and others have been heeded as form-critical scholarship is increasingly shifting its attention to the larger textual entities. Gunkel's focus on the short, self-contained generic unit is not inherent to the form-critical method; rather, concern with the typical elements of language, its generic character, and its function in shaping and defining a text are the essential elements of formcritical analysis. Franke's assertion that all texts are unique is correct, but typical generic elements function within the language of each unique text to define its textual character and message. In this regard, Franke's assessment of Muilenburg's methodological intention is to the point: "He does not seek to undermine previous scholarship; rather, he opens up additional perspectives on the biblical text" (p. 11). Many form critics understand Muilenburg as a contributor to the development of formcritical theory insofar as he points to the need to examine larger textual units and their unique features. Ideally, form criticism and rhetorical criticism work together to identifY the interaction of typically generic language and unique rhetorical structure which define the larger literary text. Franke's discussion of the structure of Isaiah 48, for...