Marta Høyland Lavik: A People Tall and Smooth-Skinned. The Rhetoric of Isaiah 18. Leiden: Brill, 2007 (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, vol. 112). xvii + 274 pp. ISBN: 90-04-15434-5. EUR 112.00, US$ 146.00.

This publication is a revised version of the doctoral dissertation that Marta Høyland-Lavik presented to the University of Oslo in 2004. The author, who is presently employed as Associate Professor in Old Testament Studies at the School of Mission and Theology, Stavanger, Norway, developed an exegetical strategy in this book for analyzing the rhetoric of the intriguing passage in Isaiah 18, a section in which the Cushites feature twice as “a people tall and smooth-skinned”. She states clearly in her introduction that her study wants to synthesize rhetorical approaches understood as “the art of composition” (represented by Muilenburg), and as “the art of persuasion” (the more classical model, represented by Gitay’s and Clifford’s work). Her “synthetic approach” is strongly influenced by the work of Phyllis Trible. The presuppositions from which Høyland Lavik departs in her approach are the following: (i) “… there is something that can be called an Old Testament rhetoric” (p. 30). She argues that the Old Testament rhetoric should be distinguished from classical rhetoric – it has its own conventions and form that have to be studied in their own integrity. (ii) “… the text is designed, and … for the most part is well designed” (p. 32). With this presupposition she argues against the traditional historical-critical studies that regard texts as “inorganic, consisting of scattered collections of pieces with few links between them.” She concedes, however, that this is not a general statement, but that it applies specifically to Isaiah 18. (iii) “… form and content are inseparable” (p. 33). In discussing this presupposition she clarifies what she understands under the rubric “meaning”. With reference to Paul Ricoeur’s understanding she states: “My emphasis lies therefore on reader’s meaning and textual meaning, with an emphasis on the latter. In other words, in the search for the text’s historical meaning, it is impossible to escape the fact that I am a modern reader” (p. 34). (iv) “… a preference for the text in its final form” (p. 34). In stating this presupposition, she qualifies: “Such a synchronic approach does however not exclude a diachronic reflection. This work will evaluate the findings of historical critical disciplines in light of the synchronic findings” (p. 34).

After the Introduction in which Høyland Lavik explains her approach in the above-mentioned way, she continues her study with six chapters in which she meticulously analyzes the passage of Isaiah 18. The six chapters each deal with a specific strophe of the text. The textual division with which she works is the following: Vss. 1-2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Her analyses follow the practical guidelines that was formulated in the methodological exposition in chapter 1, dealing with the following aspects in each chapter: (i) Text and translation; (ii) Textual design (including phonetic, syntactic and semantic observations, as well as attention to the poetic technique); (iii) Motifs; and (iv) Rhetorical analysis. Chapters 6 and 7 are concluded by a description of what the author calls “contextual analysis”. These sections deal with the inner-literature coherence between the different strophes of the passage under discussion.

The culmination of her interpretation of Isaiah 18 is formulated in the closing section of her conclusion (ch. 8): “Although the opening of Isa 18 can look like a judgement over Cush, the present analysis of the chapter as a whole has showed that the ones who are reported to be judged are the Judeans (vv. 5-6), and nobody else. However, although the judgement over Judah is harsh (vv. 5-6), the text does open for a restoration in the future. Even though both tendrils and twigs of the vine are cut down and given to the birds and beasts (vv. 5-6), the roots of the vine are still intact. And as long as the vine has its roots planted in the soil, there is always hope for a new beginning” (p. 238). This interpretation strongly relies on the author’s analysis of the rhetoric of the passage, particularly the role of the mentioning of the Cushites. Høyland-Lavik indicates at the end of her analysis of vs. 7 (ch. 7): “When v. 7 not explicitly mentions the Judeans, but refers to Cush in relation to YHWH on Mount Zion, this can function to humiliate the Judeans even more than what has already been done by the message of vv. 5-6. Even the strong and feared Cushites – that Judah put her trust in – will have to submit under YHWH one day, and this tells the audience of Isa 18 that YHWH should be Judah’s ally, and not any strong and powerful nation” (p. 234).

Høyland Lavik can be applauded for her courage to develop this strategy for interpreting Isaiah 18, a strategy that goes against many traditional approaches to this text. Her emphasis on the literary qualities of the text in the service of the persuasive nature thereof should be welcomed. Her meticulous and detailed analyses of the different parts of Isaiah 18 present the strong point and value of this study.

However, one would also like to debate with her on whether a rhetorical analysis is at all possible without taking into account the context of communication. I would like to ask whether a contextual analysis (not in the sense in which she limits this term down to an inner-literature relationship and dynamic) could not benefit our appreciation of rhetoric. With contextual analysis, I do not only refer to “the context of the original hearers/readers” (although this aspect would certainly form an important part of a contextual analysis), but understand it broadly as “the context within which the communication takes place” (including even the reading context of the modern reader). A discourse has rhetorical thrust only when embedded in a context of communication (which is always constituted by inter alia socio-cultural, socio-political and socio-religious factors). Rhetoric, in my understanding, occurs when designed features of a discourse (textual or otherwise) interact with a context of communication. Can one claim the term “rhetorical analysis” for your approach if you have only given attention to the design of the textual discourse?

This methodological debating point emphasizes, however, that Høyland Lavik has done an excellent job to stimulate new reflection on how Isaiah 18 could be approached. Her book can therefore be recommended to scholars interested in methodological issues, but also to Isaiah specialist who will benefit from her excellent analysis.

Reviewed 2008-11-12 by Louis Jonker, Faculty of Theology, University of Stellenbosch, Private Bag X01, 7602 Matieland Stellenbosch, South Africa. E-mail: lcj@sun.ac.za