Show description

While others cannot be plausibly dated much earlier than end of the exile. They are also inconsistent with regard to such characteristics as literary form, length, and content. The example at 14:28 shows that even the ‫ ַמ ָשּׂא‬titles are not entirely uniform, and the presumed reference to Jerusalem in the ‘Valley of Vision’ oracle (22:1–14) indicates that these cannot even be categorized exclusively as oracles against foreign nations. 45 The designation ‘Dumah’ is uncertain, but 21:11 mentions Seir (Edom), which arguably could more plausibly be considered a neighboring nation than a significant power.

24 Also, Sweeney upholds Weis’s claim that a text belonging to the ‫ ַמ ָשּׂא‬genre should include mention of Yhwh’s activity in human affairs. Since he is unable to locate a description of Yhwh’s involvement within 17:1–18:7 until 18:3–6, he concludes that the latter verses must be taken as an essential element of the ‫ ַמ ָשּׂא‬concerning Damascus. He finds additional support for the inclusion of 18:1–7 with the Damascus oracle on the basis of his observation that agricultural imagery unifies the various subunits of the oracle.

On the other hand, Geyer’s consideration of Isa 13:1–8 + 14:1–3 as a single textual unit demonstrates clear indifference to the final form of the text. In either case, Geyer’s application of his proposed formal elements to justify his delimitation of the boundaries of each oracle results in a circular approach to his search for a common structure. More significantly, Geyer has failed to establish substantial criteria for his identification of each of the structural elements. He offers some discussion of Jer 47:1–7 as an example, but even here, little explanation (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), which is largely reprinted from “Mythology and Culture in the Oracles Against the Nations,” VT 36 (1986): 129–45.