The Song of the Vineyard: Isaiah 5:1-7
The Song of the Vineyard is a splendid piece of poetry. For a scansion and new translation, go to:
Isa_5_1-7_A new translation.pdf
Isa_5_1-7_A_bilingual_edition.pdf
Controversy
surrounds the question of genre or genres represented by Isa 5:1-7. In my view,
a barrier to understanding is created by the false expectation that prophetic
speech will adhere to conventions beyond its own in a sustained and predictable
fashion. It is instead the case that prophetic discourse exploits whatever
genres and topoi serve its purposes without reproducing them in full or
slavishly following them.
Isa 5:1-7 illustrate
the point. 5:1-2 exploit the conventions of narrative song, whereas 5:3-6 build
on the preceding with an unexpected switch to the language and themes of a
lawsuit. 5:7 interprets 1-6 as a parable. The unit as a whole functions as an
accusation of wrongdoing and a prediction of woe.
A great deal of
nonsense has been written about the meter of this poem. Wildberger supposes
that 5:1-3 instantiates the 3:2 meter characteristic of the lament form as
preserved, e.g., in Lam 1-4. But he obtains a 3:2 meter throughout by arbitrary
additions and subtractions to the natural rhythm of the text.[1] שִׁירַת דּוֹדִי לְכַרְמוֹ
is given two beats only. The iambic-anapestic rhythm typical of ancient Hebrew
is set aside. וַיְעַזְּקֵהוּ
וַיְסַקְּלֵהוּ is
given three beats by double-beating the second word. This is arbitrary: why double-beat one
and not the other? Why either? חָצֵב בּוֹ in וְגַם־יֶקֶב חָצֵב בּוֹ is given a single beat in accordance with
a ‘no two stresses in a row’ rule. But this rule is far from established, and goes
against the practice of the Masoretes. I argue elsewhere that the rule is an
overgeneralization.[2]
The decliticization of נָּא throughout the poem cannot be ruled out
from first principles, but neither can it be considered a given. In light of
the above, 3 of 7 lines only in 5:1-3 securely exhibit a 3:2 rhythm. The other
lines are more naturally read in other ways.
Williamson rightly debunks the
suggestion that the qinah rhythm hints at the pericope’s final
denouement. “[S]uch a rhythm,” he points out, is by no means restricted to
laments.”[3]
As demonstrated above, the notion that 5:1-3 instantiates qinah meter is itself
problematic.
It is possible to scan the first line of 5:5 as a bipartite line as Williamson does.[4] It would make for a tighter construction, but in order to obtain it, an unusual double-cliticization must be posited. The frequency and conditions under which double-cliticization occurs are not well-understood. Until they are, a final judgment is impossible.
Go to: Isa_5_1-7_A_brief_introduction.pdf for a printable version of this post
[1] Hans Wildberger, Jesaja: 1. Teilband: Jesaja 1-12 (BKAT 10/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 21980 [1972]) 166.
[2] “Retaining and Transcending the Classical Description,” http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/files/retaining_and_transcending_the_classical_description.pdf.
[3] H. G. M. Williamson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1-27. Volume 1. Commentary on Isaiah 1-5 (ICC; London: T & T Clark, 2006) 326.
[4] Isaiah 1-5, 316.
Comments