A Short Note on the REB of Isaiah 38:21-22

The REB is one of my favorite versions, and indeed for personal reading is my favorite. Nonetheless it has one feature that often makes me mildly uncomfortable, its tendency to move texts around with a minimum of textual evidence. Even in cases in which I find the balance of internal evidence favorable to such a move, doing so without any manuscript evidence at all makes me a bit uncomfortable as part of a translation.

A good example of this is found in Isaiah 38, in which the REB moves verses 21 and 22 from the end of the chapter and places them prior to verse 8, reading 1-7, 21, 22, 8-20. Now before you have an excessively negative reaction, there are some reasons for this move.

• This chapter of Isaiah parallels 2 Kings 20:1-11, and the new order is in accord with the order in that chapter. There are strong verbal parallels that suggest either that one was copied from the other, or that both came from the same source.
• Placing the healing together with the promise seems logical in context.
• The REB provides a note and marks the verses by numbers so you can reconstruct the original chapter.

But I still have a problem for this one. The REB note is cryptic: “Cp. 2 Kgs. 20:1-11” and the added note in my Oxford Study Bible doesn’t help that much more: “The Revised English Bible has moved these verses from the end of hte chapter to their more logical place in the narrative.” But there are two questions, first whether one can impose a logic on the text without evidence of disruption, and second whether the new order is, in fact, any more logical. As the chapter appears in all manuscripts, We have the sicknesses, the report of a short prayer, the promise of healing, a longer prayer of thanksgiving that retells the story, then the act of healing. Especially if one regards the longer prayer as an addition from a different source, I could easily see how a compiler would produce the existing order. It makes good enough sense, though having something written after his healing appear in the text before the healing may offend our sense of chronology. One should note, however, that included in the prayer is the narrative of what happened and of Hezekiah’s prayer itself.

Even further, we need to consider issues of composition, and ask the question of how the chapter came together as it is. The narrative in 2 Kings 20:1-11 is more complete (except for the thanksgiving prayer), and well ordered. I don’t think that only on the basis of looking at the two texts we can be certain of the order of composition. It looks to me offhand as though both were brought together from the same source material for different purposes. Obviously this entry is not a study of the composition history (I would recommend Childs, Isaiah, pp. 282-283 for a brief discussion, noting that Childs also sees 21-22 as logically following verse 7.) Nonetheless, I would suggest that the purpose of composition of this chapter is different from that of Kings, and there is a good possibility that the redactor wished to have the chapter end on the note of “going up to the house of the Lord” just before discussing the visit of Merodach-baladan.

In any case, unless one can posit a scribal error, such questions go back to source and redaction criticism, rather than textual criticism. There doesn’t seem to be any basis for suggesting a simple scribal error. Even if one believes that a later redactor inserted verses 21-22 at the end of the chapter, one would still have to deal with whatever logic caused that redactor to place the text where it is. Further, if one cannot see the logic in terms of this chapter, even better logic would be produced by bracketing it as unoriginal.

All of those options would be acceptable in a commentary or a scholarly study. In a translation, I’m concerned with this type of change based on the level of evidence available.