SHORTER COMMUNICATIONS THE USE OF HOY IN THE PROPHETS ‘The Hebrew word /dy, which is to be distinguished both in spelling and grammatical usage from the similar-sounding word ’éy, appears in the OT 53 times (counting the two instances of fid in Am 5,16) and has three uses: 1) to describe actual funeral laments (8x; 1 Kgs 13,30; Am 5,l 22,18; 34,5) for which modern translations give “alas” or the French or German equivalents; 2) a ery to get attention (4x; Is 55,1; Zech 2.10.11) for which modern translations give “hol,” “ait,” or something. similar ; and 3) a use limited to the prophets where the word introduces announce- ments of doom (41x) for which the usual translation is “woe to,” “malheur 4,” and “wei” plus the dative. Commentators are litte disposed to challenge the translators here, most simply styling it a Weheruf (ery of woe) in- troducing a threat. This is not to say that various shades of meaning of hay have been ignored—sources as common and as old as Brown-Driver- Briggs and the Chicago Translation give some of the complexities of the word—but in general the more standard translations, the CCD, the RSV, the SB/ and the Luther Bibel echo the traditional “woe to” translation, Claus Westermann, in his survey of the basic forms of prophetic speech,! treats the prophetic dy as a Weheruj and classes it as the most important variation of the Gerichtsankiindigung (announcement of judgment). He finds the origin of hy in the series of covenant curses such as those found in Dt 27. The curses in Dt 27 are in series as are some of the héys, are syntactically similar ('drdr plus participle = hdy plus participle), and like ‘many of the hdy statements, the covenant curses have to do with the social morality of the covenant. With Is 30 and 31, Westermann argues, the original covenant situation is abandoned in the polemic against an Egyptian alliance, In the héys against the evil shepherds (Jer 23,1-4; Ex 341-16; Zech 11,17), the original form is further broken down, In the exilic and postexile period the original curse-origin shows through again. Erhard Gerstenberger, in a recent article? has disagreed with Wester- ‘mann on the origin of the Ady formula, He finds it rather in popular say- ings, in lists of acceptable and unacceptable conduct such as we find in Eccl 10,16-17 and Is 3,10: Happy the righteous, because he is well, because he can eat the fruit of his labor. Woe (’4y) to the unrighteous; he is badly off, ‘because the deeds of his hands come over him. 2 Gnundjormen prophetischer Rede (Munich: Kaiser-Verlag, 1960) 137-140, 2 “The Woe-Oracles of the Prophets” JBL 81 (1962) 249-263 458Suorter Communications. 459 Tt should be noted that textual emendation is necessary in both examples to produce the necessary parallelism between ‘airé and Ady or ’4y. While there are many instances of ‘airé in the wisdom sayings of the Hebrew canon, there are none of héy (except perhaps Is 45,9-10), and only one of “ay. Gerstenberger himself is led to wonder “why more wisdom texts have not preserved this form.”* Gerstenberger appears to us to he correct in rejecting curse as the origin of Ady. On pages 258-260 of his article, he finds no real basis for com- parison in content, emphasis or meaning. We would add that the occurrence of dy in series, which Westermann recognizes as part of the otiginal form (and hence an indication of kinship to the series of curses), is more likely due to the familiar catchword principle of the composition of prophetic books than to the original form. In seeking the origin of héy, both Westermann and Gerstenberger seem to us to separate too sharply the funerary use from the prophetic use. Since the funeral lament is the only attested nonprophetic use of hy in the (OT, it is matural to ask whether the funeral lament, rather than the curse or popular saying, is the origin of Ady. We will suggest that the funeral lament is the origin of Ady. When idy develops into a curse-tike formula in the late prophets, it is moving away from its origin, not closer to it. Such fan argument depends on an examination of the instances of the word in their approximate chronological order. We believe this examination will show us that Ady enters the prophets as a funeral ery and develops within this new matrix into a eurse-like formula. First, we will examine the funerary use. There can be little doubt from the OT that /dy, whatever its prophetic use, was a cry of funeral lamenta- tion in Israel at least from the ninth or eighth century to the exile, The earliest instance is 1 Kgs 13,30, the incident of the disobedient man of God ‘who was killed by a lion at the time of Jeroboam I, around 918. Though this chapter is dated around the time of the Josianic reform by many, de Vaux argues convincingly on the basis of the ancient opposition between man of God and prophet and between prophet and king displayed in the story, that the main features of the chapter are early.* ‘And the prophet took up the body of the man of God and laid it upon the ass, and brought it back to the city, to mourn (spd) and to bury him. And he laid the body in his own grave; and they lamented (spd) over him, brother. ‘Amos witnesses to its use in the eighth century (jd seems here to be the ‘equivalent of hdy because of its association with the root spd, ‘to lament”). 3 eid, 262. 4 Les Livres des Rois (SBI; Paris: Cert, 1958) 88,460 ‘Tue Caruouic Brscicat Quarreay [Vol 28 ‘Therefore thus says the Lord, the God of hosts, the Lord: “In all the squares there shall be lament (oisp2d) ; and in all the streets they shall say, “hd, hd.” ‘They shall call the farmers to mourning and to lament (misp2d) those who are skilled in mourning, and in all vineyards there shall be lament (mised), for I will passthrough the midst of you,” says the Lord (Am 516-17). Jeremiah shows the practice of royal funerals just before the exile, ‘Therefore thus says the Lord concerning Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Jadah: “They shall not lament (s¢d) for him, ‘hdy my brother!” or ‘hdy my Sister” They shall not fament for him, ‘Ady fordl? or ‘héy majesty!” (Jer 2218). Jer 34,5 shows the same practice. ‘Héy then was a funeral ery from the ninth or eighth century to the exile, at least, And it is very important to note that in all the funeral uses, the syntax is identical—Ady plus the noun (substantive), eg. Ady “abi, hey “ahat, hoy “adn, ete. The syntax will provide a clue to the development of the prophetic use. ‘Now let us look at the chronological evolution of the prophetic use. Both occurrences in Amos (5,18 and 6,1) introduce descriptions of the coming punishment of the Lord directed against Israel. hhdy those who desire (hammitowwim pte. masc. pl.) the day of the Lord! Why OR yom have ee dey ofthe Lord? Tels deinen and nee gb, ete. (Am hidy those who are at ease (haifa'énannim pte. mase. pl.) in Zion and those who feel secure (habborhim) on the mountain of Samaria (Am 61). We should note that in these earliest prophetic uses, there is no justitica- tion from the syntax alone—hdy plus substantive, the same as the purely funerary lament—for the traditional “woe to” translation. Both are simply announcements of impending destruction. In First Isaiah we find the greatest use of héy—18 times and in two noteworthy series (7 times in Is 5 including the hdy of 10,1 in this series; and 5 times in chapters 28 to 33). The chain of seven hdys in chapter 5 follows the parable of the vineyard and introduces announcements of divine chastisement for various specified sins, drunkenness, lack of faith, social injustice, ete. The syntax here is Ady plus substantive, the masc. pl. participle, as we find in Amos. Far from being a curse-like formula here, ‘héy appears to be the prophet’s automatic reaction to the destruction that will come upon various classes of Israel's society. We might compare “poor man!” or “poor India!” which may be uttered for friend or foe alike, and can be an almost automatic response. We would suggest as a transla ion here, “alas, those who join house to house, who add field to field...” A second, much looser, complex of Hidys, Is 28-33, is interesting because it shows the range of emotion that can inform the passages introduced by1966] ‘Swoxtex Cowatunications 461 ity are grouped around these Adys as around a framework, ‘The uses of hoy range from a use similar to the series of Is 5 to a use that is bitter and taunting, close to a curse, 33,1. ‘dy the destroyer (i6ded) ‘who yourself have not been destroyed; you treacherous one, ‘with whom none has dealt treacherously. ‘Yet destruction is predicted here in v. 1b, so technically this can be a lament over future destruction. However, the usual translation of “woe to you, destroyer,” seems here to be correct. In summary, First Isaiah uses hdy 18 times with substantives, including proper names (once with a verb in 1,24). This is the syntax found in the funerary use. In all but one passage, 29,15, impending disaster is prominent, A clear Jament context is evident in all but two passages, 29,15 and 33,1, ‘where, although destruction is mentioned, the bitter tone seems to preclude Jament. ‘The single hdy of Mi 2,1 is similar to the use in Amos and Isaiah in tone, content, and syntax, However, with Jeremiah and Habakkuk, 11 prophetic uses, we find for the first time a change in the syntax of héy, an explicit association of hoy ‘with maal and mliga hidét, “taunt” and “scoffing derision,” and a further development of a bitter, curse-like tone. In Jeremiah, in place of Ady plus substantive (usually a participle) of the funeral lament and of the earlier prophets, we find three instances of hoy... i, and much more importantly, hdy ‘el and hoy ‘al. hhoy against ‘et Nebo, for it is Ind waste! (48,1). hhoy against them, ‘aléhems for their day has come, ‘the time of their punishment (50,27). Along with the freeing of syntax, there is increased bitterness, Jer 23,1, ““‘hoy the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture,” says the Lord,” though it refers to future destruction, is very bitter. Héy begins to be used in Jeremiah to introduce the destruction of non-Israclite cities and appears to'share the bitter feelings animating the oracles against non-Israelites. In Habakkuk, there is a series of five hdys pronounced against the Babylonians, The syntax, hdy plus substantive, is the same as the funerary use but in 2,6, the héy passages are termed mA0l and m*lisa hidot. ‘Shall not all these take up their taunt against him (‘olagw maial yitt'@), in scoffing derision of him (m'iyd hidét 4).462 ‘Tae Carnouie Bisticat Quantesty [Vol. 28 Then follow the hdy passages. That taunt predominates is confirmed by examining the use of héy concerning foreign nations in contemporary prophets. Is 33,1, Jer 48,1; 50,27; Ze 2,5; Na 3,1 are relevant. In all of these passages, the prophet exults in the predicted downfall of Israel's enemy. Zephaniah and Nahum have three uses of hdy. In Ze 2,5, among the foracles concerning foreign nations, we read, “héy inhabitants of the coast.” No fault is mentioned but the context shows the prophet has any- thing but affection for the Philistines. In 3,1 of the same prophet, Jerusalem is singled out. “Héy the rebellious and defiled, the oppressing city.” Her faults are detailed. In both passages in Zephaniah, destruction is foretold. Nahum, in a vivid, violent description of the fall of Nineveh, cries, “hdy the bloody city” In the light of what we know about Nahum and his feelings about Nineveh, this Ady is certainly not sympathetic but might well be the lament (automatic) of the prophet at the version of such total destruction. ‘An examination of the prophetic use of hy in exilic and postexilic times instructive. Ezekiel in 13,3 says, “héy upon (‘al) the foolish prophets ‘who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing.” He utters his héy in obedience to a command of the Lord, “Prophesy against ('el) the prophets of Israel” (v. 2). Ez 13,18, “hay to (14) the women who sew magic bands on all wrists . . .” parallels 13,3, treated above, and is in response to Yahweh's command to set his face against (’el) the daughters of the people. ‘The harsh question and accusation of wv. 18b-19 seem to rule out lament a5, primary here. Ez 34,2, “Ady the shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves,” is also spoken in response to God’s command, “Prophesy against the shep- herds of Israel.” In Ezekiel, then, dy seems not primarily a lament, but & ‘curse-like formula or taunt. And there is a further frecing of syntax. Second Isaiah uses dy similarly in a non-lament context, perhaps another testimony to the freeing of the word from its original function as a ‘ry over a dead body. In 45,9-10 hiéy the one who strives with his Maker, ‘an earthen vessel with the potter! Does the clay say to him who fashi raking” or “Your work has no handles?” ‘hdy the one who says to a father, “What are you begetting ?” or toa woman, “With what are you in travail?" 8 it, “What are you ‘ndy seems to be within the form of 2 maa! in its meaning of proverb, rather than in a lament form. There is no context of destruction but neither1966} Suorrer Communications 463 is there truly a curse, Rather the meaning seems to be “Foolish or unlucky is he who strives with his maker.” Is 55,1, “Ady everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has xno money, come, buy and eat,” along with Zech 2,10-1L (MT) illustrates a curious use of héy as a cry to get attention. It apparently is related to the prophetic and funerary héy only by sound, These four examples may be a Surther indication of the divorce of the word from its funeral origin, Zech 11,17, probably the latest in date of all the uses, is the closest of all toa curse. Tt occurs in a prayer for destruction. hay my worthless shepherd who deserts the flock! May the sword smite his arm and his right eye! Let his arm be wholly withered, his right eye utterly” blinded? Jn summary, in the prophets before Jeremiah the syntax is the same as the purely funerary use described for us in 1 Kgs 13,30; Am 5,16; Jer 22,18 and 345, i.e, hdy plus substantive (noun or participle) ; allowing for one exception, hdy plus the finite verb in Is 1,24. In all the pre-Jeremiah uses, with the exception of Is 29,15 and 33,1, the scom and bitterness that would justify a “woe to” translation do not appear to be present. With Jeremiah ‘and Habakkuk come a freeing of syntax and an increased bitterness. The trend away from lament over impending destruction toward a scornful, bitter use that would justify the modern “woe to” translation continues after Jeremiah with the exilie and postexilie prophets. With Zechariah we are far indeed from the “hdy my brother” of the old prophet of Bethel. As to why hidy came to be translated generally as a curse-like formula or taunt, we suggest that the Septuagint and Vulgate translations have played a part along with the frequent NT construction ouai plus the dative. ‘The Septuagint generally translates ’éy, which does mean “woe to,” correctly by ouai plus the dative (sometimes by ’0) and hay by owai plus the substantive in the nominative case, but four times in Isaiah hdy is translated by ouai plus the dative which would give the “woe to” rendering. ‘The NT, especially in Jesus’ prophetic denunciations in Mt 23 and Lk 11, uses ouai plus the dative apparently reflecting the late OT denunciatory usage, The NT “woe to” formula may have led translators to see in all OT instances of hdy or ouai a denunciatory element. ‘The Vulgate, so influential in the formation of modern vernacular translations, regularly does not distinguish sharply between ’éy and Aéy. “ay is regularly vae plus the dative as it should be, and héy is voe plus the464 ‘Tue Carnouic Busca Quanrenty [Vol. 28 substantive in the nominative case, but ten times hdy comes over as vae plus the dative which would surely be a source of confusion, A suggestion finally on the role of hdy in the prophets, It has already been offered that the word is an automatic reaction of the prophet upon hearing the word of God's judgment. To the prophet, God’s word is as good as the deed it announced. Promise of destruction was the destruction. Lament was called for. We know from the Bible and from studies of mourning in the ancient Near East that the ritual aspect of mourning predominated over the psychological. There was mourning not so much because the bereaved felt grief and consequently felt the need of some expression of his grief, but more because death itself demanded this rite. Hence there was an important place in the biblical world for the professional mourner, and of the rites and gestures of lament, eg., rending of garments, dust on the head, a particular posture, When the prophet hears of impending disaster from Yahweh, he utters a ritual héy in automatic lament, a ery borrowed from the funeral customs of his milieu. The prophet need not feel a psychological drive, but only an “ontological” one—the situation demands it. Tt is interesting to note that in the midst of the series of hdys in Is 5, we read, “The Lord of hosts has sworn in my hearing: ‘Surely many houses shall be left desolate, . . ."” This verse may well place the prophet in the divine Council, hearing its decrees and reacting appropriately as representa- tive of Israel. ‘When destruction is decreed, the lament formula hdy may be the appro- priate word to introduce the announcement of it to the people. The prophet’s own feeling and the tone of each Ady passage must be learned from the context. There is a wide scale of emotion, at the top of which is the genuine compassion of some of the hdys uttered over the destruction about to come to Tsrael and at the bottom of which come the bitter post- exilic héys* Rrcmaxp J. Curerow, S.J. Weston College Weston, Massachusetts 1 would lke to acknowledge suggestions by Prof. G. E. Wright and some pre- liminary work by C. M. Santmire.Copyright and Use: Asan ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. ‘No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a joumal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, ‘or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously Published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Ine. ‘The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.