How Beautiful Upon the Mountains: Jewish Interpretations of Isaiah 52, Pt. 1

After Sunday School yesterday, I decided it would be interesting to do a series of blog posts on Jewish interpretations of Isaiah 52. Walker Wright has already posted on both the Dead Sea Scrolls and LDS interpretations of the same chapter, so I'm going to refer the reader there rather than going over it again.
http://walkstar.blogspot.com/2010/12/isaiah-according-to-abinadi-qumran.html
The first interpretation I'll discuss is less an interpretation than it is a use of Isa. 52:7. In the Babylonian Talmud there is a long list of various dream symbols and their range of meanings. A word on the psychology of dreams might be helpful. Carl Jung wrote that dream symbols, subliminal aspects of our daily lives, are "the almost invisible roots of our conscious thoughts." As a result, they play a crucial role in the interpretation of dreams. "That is why commonplace objects or ideas can assume such powerful psychic significance in a dream that we may awake seriously disturbed, in spite of having dreamed of nothing worse than a locked room or a missed train." Jung goes on to say that the reason dream symbols are so vivid is due to the dissimilarity between them and our conscious thoughts in which we "restrain ourselves within the limits of rational statements."[1]
Granted, my dream where I approached someone at night and began running past them as soon as I felt something wrong, too late though as a knife flashed in the dark, that dream disturbed me more than I ever was by any door, but Jung does have a point. Things we see in dreams can stand for something deeper. That being said, Trachtenberg, in his classic study of Jewish "magic," pointed out a different approach to dreams. I might as well mention that this approach is still favoured by many people around the world. Not everyone puts stock in Western psychological paradigms.

In the long pre-Freudian centuries, before the mystery of the dream was reduced to all too human terms, when men still listened for the voice of God in the still of the night, dreams played a greater role in shaping ideas and actions and careers than it is easy for us today to believe. If we have come to look upon these nocturnal visions as the products of experience, we have simply reversed the older, though not yet altogether discarded, view which made of them initiators of experience. The supernatural world communicated with man through the dream, and spoke words of counsel and command which he felt impelled to heed.[2]

There were many different approaches to dreams and their sources. Whether they be 1/60th of prophecy, or revelations to the soul in its nightly journey, dreams (though not all) were considered another form of interraction between this world and those beyond it, conveying information impacting the future.

Since unfavorable as well as favorable dreams come true, and the event therefore came to be regarded as the consequence of the dream, it was believed that if one could somehow nullify the dream itself in advance its effects would be obviated.[3]

Using much the same idea behind the Western scientific process, events were observed and the cause deduced from the effect. It seemed to work in many cases.

Once the dream has been experienced, however, other means must be adopted to forestall its consequences.[4]

Nothing, of course, is infallible. Very few people rely solely upon Plan A, without also having Plans B, C, and so on. Jewish dream interpreters had various methods in place for when the dream couldn't be avoided.

Still a third method is to recite, immediately upon waking, a Biblical verse suggested by the dream, which contains a promise of good.[5]

Here, then, is the talmudic passage.

One who dreams of a mountain should arise and recite, "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger of good tidings (Is. 52:7),"  before he is overtaken by another verse, "For the mountains will I take up a weeping and wailing (Jer. 9:9)."[6]

This use of the Bible to ensure a favourable outcome to the future, not to mention that it also controls the negative outcome, underscores both the centrality and the power of the Bible in early Judaism. Howard Schwarz's Tree of Souls expands on those themes. The Torah not only was the means for creating the world, but sustains its very existence.

Thus not only was the Torah created prior to the creation of the world, it was the vessel by which the world was created. Thus the universe was created through the letters of the Torah. So too did God declare, at the time of man’s creation, that the world was created only for the sake of the Torah, and that as long as the Jewish people occupy themselves with the Torah, the world will continue to exist. But if the Jewish people abandon the Torah, God will return all of creation to a state of chaos.[7]

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this method of assigning biblical verses to symbols in order to affect a dream's outcome doesn't appear to be a part of Christian dream-lore. At least, I was unable to find anything similar.

[1]Carl G. Jung, "Man and His Symbols," p. 43.

[2]Joshua Trachtenberg, "Jewish Magic and Superstition," p. 230.

[3]Ibid, p. 244.

[4]Ibid.

[5]Ibid, p. 245.

[6]Babylonian Talmud, t. Berachot 56b. Further examples of the positive verses are found on p. 245 of Trachtenberg. " If one dreams of a well, he should say, "And there Isaac's servants digged a well" (Gen. 26:25); of a river, "Behold I will extend peace to her like a river" (Is. 66:12); of a bird, "As birds flying so will the Lord of hosts protect Jerusalem" (Is. 31:5); of a dog, "Against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog whet his tongue" (Ex. 11:7); of a mountain, "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger of good tidings" (Is. 52:7); of a shofar, "In that day a great shofar shall be blown" (Is. 27:13); of a bullock, "His firstling bullock, majesty is his" (Deut. 33:17); of a lion, "The lion hath roared, who will not fear?" (Amos 3:8); of shaving, "Joseph shaved himself and changed his raiment and came in unto Pharaoh" (Gen. 41:14); and so on. "

[7]Howard Schwartz, "Tree of Souls," p. 249.

The Council of Souls

Found something too good to pass up. In fact, it deserves to be posted in its entirety, dealing at it does with an obscure strand of Jewish thought on the preexistence and prehistory of the soul, or, at least, some souls.
This is from Howard Schwartz's "Tree of Souls: the mythology of Judaism".

           196. THE COUNCIL OF SOULS

The souls of the righteous existed long before the creation of the world.
God consulted these souls in creating the universe, as it is said, They dwelt there in the king’s service (I Chron. 4:23). God called upon the souls of the righteous, who sat on the council with the Supreme King of Kings, to come together. He then took counsel with them before He brought the world into being, saying, “Let us make man” (Gen. 1:26). So too did they help Him with His work. Some assisted in planting and some helped create the borders of the sea, as it is said, Who set the sand as a boundary to the sea (Jer. 5:22). Nor does God make any important decision without consulting the Council of Souls. So too did God take counsel with the souls of the righteous. He asked them if they were willing to be created. And that is how the souls of the righteous, including the souls of Abraham and the other patriarchs, came into being.

While there are traditions that God took council with the angels or a divine partner such as Adam in creating the world, here the phrase, “Let us make man” from Genesis 1:26 is said to refer to a Council of Souls (nefashot shel Tzaddikim), with whom God consulted before creating the world. These souls of the righteous are said to have existed before the creation of the world. In fact, it is not specified that they were created by God at all, but only called together by God before He created the universe.
Further, they not only give their consent for the creation of the world, but they participate in it, assisting God in planting and creating the boundaries of the sea. Rabbi Levi Yitzhak of Berditchev interprets God’s consulting with the souls of the righteous to mean that He asked them if they were willing to be created.
Evidence of a divine council can be found in several biblical passages, such as Psalms 82:1, which states that God stands in the divine assembly; among the divine beings He pronounces judgment. Here the term for the divine assembly is “adat el.” In Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, Frank Moore Cross describes this council as the Israelite counterpart of the Council of El found in Canaanite mythology, referring to El, the primary Canaanite god. It would thus seem that this obscure Jewish tradition is directly drawn from the Canaanite. Psalm 82 adds a strange twist to this myth: God appears to condemn the gods of the Council of Gods to death: “I had taken you for divine beings, sons of the Most High, all of you; but you shall die as men do, fall like any prince” (Ps. 82:6). This might be interpreted to mean that monotheism declares the death of polytheism.
Jeremiah 23:18 also describes a divine council: But he who has stood in the council of
Yahweh, and seen, and heard His word—He who has listened to His word must obey. Another reference to the divine council is found in 1 Kings 22:19-22, where God addresses the host of heaven, asking who will entice Ahab, and a certain spirit came forward and stood before the Lord and said, “I will entice him.” Other passages suggesting the existence of heavenly beings with whom God discusses His decisions include Isaiah 6 and Job 1-2.
Usually the term, “the souls of the righteous,” refers to the souls of the pious who have died, and whose souls have ascended to Paradise. By pre-existing, these souls become identified as primordial gods, such as are found in other Near Eastern mythologies. By calling them together as a council, God implicitly recognizes their power. It must be assumed that the council of souls gave its approval for the creation of the universe, since God proceeded with it after that. Another possible explanation would be to identify “the souls of the righteous” in this midrash with the angels. In other sources, God is said to have consulted with the angels before creating man, and there are traditions and countertraditions of the notion that the angels somehow participated in the creation of the world itself. See “Creation by Angels,” p. 116. However, it would be highly unusual to refer to the angels as “the souls of the righteous,” although Philo does refer to angels as “unbodied souls.” A prooftext for the existence of such a council of souls or angels can be found in Daniel 4:14: The matter is by decree of the watchers, and the sentence by the word of the holy ones. Both of these terms, the “watchers” and the “holy ones,” suggest some kind of supernatural figures from the heavenly realm, whether angels, souls, or additional divinities. The Council of Souls may also be identified with the heavenly court, and identified as the Watchers. See “The Heavenly Court,” p. 208, and “The Watchers,” p. 457. There are parallel myths about God consulting the angels, rather than souls, in the creation of Adam. The text of Genesis 1:26 states that God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” But in the Pseudo-Yonathan Targum on Genesis 1:26, this is changed to read: “And God said to the angels who minister before him, who were created on the second day of Creation. `Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’” See “Creation By Angels,” p. 116. In Genesis Rabbah 8:9 the question of how many deities created the world is directly broached: “How many deities created the world? You and I must inquire of the first day, as it is said, For ask now of the first days (Deut. 4:32).” The rabbis subsequently debate whether the first sentence of Genesis describes creation by one God or by many, since Elohim is plural. Read this way, the first line of Genesis reads: “In the beginning Gods created the heaven and the earth.” That such a debate can take place at all is remarkable, considering the centrality of monotheism. But it is also a tribute to the open-ended willingness of the rabbis to explore even apparently heretical interpretations of the Torah. The existence of this discussion and the fact that it was recorded in a primary text such as Genesis Rabbah, indicates that the “heretical” had some advocates among the rabbis. Perhaps it harks back to a residual pagan myth, a Canaanite myth about a council of gods. Such divine councils rule in Mesopotamian, Babylonian, and Canaanite mythology. In the Babylonian epic Enuma Elish, Marduk is made head of the divine council by defeating Tiamat, the personification of the sea. It is likely that the existence of such a council in Jewish tradition is a remnant of such an ancient myth. Ugaritic texts describe the abode of El, the primary Canaanite god, and his council on the mountain of El, where the gods are seated at a table. El’s abode is said to be in the north. This setting and location is echoed in Isaiah 14:13: “I will sit in the mount of assembly, on the summit of Zaphon.” (Zaphon is Hebrew for “north.”) God’s perplexing use of the first person plural in verses such as Let us make man in our image (Gen. 1:26), Behold the man has become like one of us (Gen. 3:22), and Let us, then, go down and confound their speech there (Gen. 11:7) can be explained as addressing the divine council. This same usage is found in the Ugaritic texts. Most midrashic texts interpret “Let us” as God addressing the angels.

Sources:
Genesis Rabbah 8: 7; Maggid Devarav le-Ya’akov 1; No’am Elimelekh, Bo 36b.
Studies:
"Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic" by Frank Moore Cross, pp. 36-43, 186-190.
“The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah” by Frank Moore Cross.
“The Council of Yahweh” by H. Wheeler Robinson.
“God and the Gods in Assembly” by Matitiahu Tsevat.
"Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature" by E. Theodore Mullen.

An Early Redaction of Isaiah

This quote by Michael Fishbane is absolutely essential in gaining an understanding of the biblical tradition and its interpretation.

Even in the language of the prophets, speaking under divine revelation, we can detect inner biblical exegesis. In Isaiah 29, the prophet is denouncing the people of Judah; they have been the object of his scorn throughout the preceding oracles and no new subject has been introduced. In Isaiah 29:9–11 we would expect to find that it is the people of Judah who are referred to as drunk and who totter and who cannot fathom the prophetic visions given to them. But by the addition of a few words the oracle becomes—by inner biblical exegesis—a rebuke of false prophets. The passage is not easy and requires a close reading; the inner biblical exegesis—the words added by an interpreter—are italicized in the following quotation from Isaiah 29:9–11:
“9. Be astonished and dazed, revel and be, blinded: you have drunk, but not from wine; totter, but not from drink;
10. For YHWHa has poured over you a spirit of stupefaction: He has closed your eyes—namely, the prophets—and your heads he has cloaked—the seers;
11. All prophetic visions shall be sealed from you ….”
Without inclusion of the italicized words it is YHWH who has closed your eyes and cloaked your heads. The object of the denunciation is unspecified. Because of what preceded, however, it would seem that the object was the people of Judah. By the addition of the italicized words—“namely, the prophets” and “the seers”—the object of Isaiah’s scorn has shifted from the people to (false) prophets and seers who do not speak with the true word of God.
Moreover, by the addition of the italicized words, a common biblical literary construction called chiasmus has been disrupted. Here is another clue that we are in the presence of inner biblical exegesis. Chiasmus derives etymologically from the Greek letter chi, which looks like an x; chiasmus refers to a rhetorical construction of an a, b; b’, a’ type. In such a construction, the linguistic features of a second line invert (usually by means of synonyms) those of the preceding one.
In Isaiah 29, without the words added by inner biblical exegesis, we have a perfect chiasmus in which a second line is inversely parallel to a first line, literally:
“He has closed your eyes;
Your heads he has cloaked.”
Here—in the original—it is the people who do not see. In this quotation of Isaiah 29:10, without the inner biblical exegesis, we can identify the preserved original oracle. By the explicatory addition “the (false) prophets” and “the seers,” they—the false prophets and the seers—become the cause of the people’s blindness. The result is that an oracle condemning the people is transformed into a rebuke of false prophets.
Without going into further detail (but relating to this same example), we simply observe that in the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Bible, parts of which may date from the third century B.C., this process of exegesis within the text of Isaiah was taken further, for there the abruptness of the intrusion was smoothed over. And a later Greek version, known as the Lucianic recension, went still further in an effort to improve on the Septuagint version without (apparently) ever consulting the Masoretic Hebrew version.
From the viewpoint of the exegetical process, the textual strata represented by the Masoretic text and by the Septuagint and its Lucianic recension reflect continuous rereadings of the original oracle. Moreover, this example represents the most invasive exegetical procedure, which, in the final Hebrew text, transforms the meaning of the passage and disturbs its syntactic balance—a matter later translators into Greek tried to rectify.
Moreover, this striking transformation of an oracle against the people into one against false prophets shows the extent to which the interpretive tradition might introduce a new authority into a received tradition, so that these human comments compete with and ultimately transform the focus of the ancient, divine words. The privileged voice of divine revelation and the human voice of instruction have become one. That this paradox not always perceived is a measure of the scribes’ success in subordinating their voice to that of the tradition. Even more paradoxically, in the end it is their interpretations that have become the received tradition; their oral traditions are the written text given to the community.

Fishbane, Micheal. “The Earliest Biblical Exegesis is in the Bible Itself.” Bible Review, Fall 1986, 42-45.