How does one make sense of a naked prophet who walked the streets of Jerusalem for no less than three years? This contribution interpreted the ambulatory naked prophet in Isaiah 20 as a sign-act by means of symbolic interactionism and performative interpretation according to which symbolic or sign-acts are multivalent entities. Isaiah 20 was interpreted as an embodied, multivalent text that invited ongoing appropriation among subsequent audiences while exploring the potential meaning(s) of the initial act within the parameters of text and context. It is presupposed that human beings reinterpret symbolic acts in different subsequent contexts and that a symbolic act should never be reduced to one single (original!) meaning – this reinterpretation process is illustrated by the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 20. Furthermore, the question will be posed how one could interpret and appropriate a disruptive and ‘foolish’ prophetic and symbolic act of public exposure – Isaiah as an ‘agent provocateur’?
The performative critique of Isaiah 20 drew attention to the neglected multivalent character of the initial sign-act that enabled ongoing appropriations (‘
Most biblical scholars agree that the prophecy in Isaiah 20 entails a barefoot and naked or scantily clad prophet performing a symbolic or sign-act for almost three years as a warning to the impending fate of Egypt and Cush (Ethiopia or Nubia) and potentially the Southern Kingdom of Judah at the hands of the Assyrians.
This contribution will interpret the prophecy in Isaiah 20 by means of symbolic interactionism and performative interpretation, according to which symbolic or sign-acts are multivalent entities – embodied texts that invite ongoing appropriation among subsequent audiences while exploring the potential meaning(s) of the initial act within the parameters of text and context (Campbell & Cilliers
‘Biblical performance criticism’ can be described as ‘the study of biblical writings as witness to oral performances … in the context of predominantly oral cultures of the ancient world’ by shifting the focus of interpretation ‘from what a written text
Mathews (
Turning to symbolic interactionism, Herbert Blumer first coined the term ‘symbolic interaction’ in 1937 but clarified its central ideas in 1969. This term takes as its point of departure the emphasis that human conduct is above all meaningful and that people must interpret the meaning of each other’s acts to respond appropriately to them.
Although ‘symbol’ is a key concept in this investigation, it is no easy task to define it. In seminal research, Geertz (
(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and longstanding moods and motivations in men [
Although chapter 20 lacks a םשא superscript, the prophetic collection in Isaiah 13–23 consists of 10 משא oracles against foreign nations that cannot be assigned to one period or a single author (Cook
It is important to note that the predominantly first-person poetic oracles in Isaiah 13–23 are interrupted by a third person prose passage in chapter 20. Isaiah 20 seems to be part of a series of prose narratives of datable events that provide a historical (even chronological) frame of reference for Isaiah 1–39.
During the reign of Hezekiah over Judah (726–697 BCE), Assyria (Sargon II: 721–705; Sennacherib: 704–681 BCE), Babylonia (Merodach-baladan: 721–710 & 703 BCE) and Egypt (Osorkon IV: 720–715 BCE; Shabako: c.715–702 BCE) were the dominant political power-players in the ANE that did not allow Judah ‘to assert its independence’, despite numerous revolts by Palestinian vassal states instigated by Egypt and Babylonia against Assyria (Kitchen
Tiglat-pileser III led the first Assyrian campaign against Philistine city states – Gaza in 734 BCE and one year later against Ashkelon – but for the next decade, ‘Philistia remained quiet’ (Stern
A few years after the final subjugation of Samaria, Sargon II conducted two military campaigns in Palestine or southern Levant: in 716–715 BCE he conquered the western Sinai area (
In the following discussion of Isaiah 20, a performative interpretation will be attempted of the Hebrew text, while also taking into consideration where the Septuagint translation provides indications of reinterpretation in a later context.
It is important to note that the following six verses are written in the third person, and this probably suggests that the narrator ‘offers an account concerning the prophet’ and does not derive directly from a first-person account by Isaiah (Childs
Isaiah 20:1 provides an indication about the historical context of this chapter by referring to the year in which Sargon II of Assyria sent his תַרְתָּן (related to the Assyrian
The exact date of this Assyrian punitive campaign is unsure because the ninth
During the rise of the Cushite Dynasty, a policy of reconciliation was followed with Assyria, and this led to a change in the usual honouring of the asylum rights of political refugees (Spalinger
A symbolic interactionist interpretation of Isaiah 20 will probably consider the ‘historical’ introduction in verse 1 to trigger an ‘aura of factuality’ that religion uses to clothe its conceptions in such a manner that it seems to be ‘realistic’.
The Septuagint translation refers to the ‘tartan’ or ‘commander-in-chief’ as Ταναθαν and twice to ‘Ashdod’ as Ἀζωτος,
Isaiah 20:2 starts with an enigmatic indication of time, הַהִ֗יא בָּעֵ֣ת (‘at that time’), because there is no clear coherence between the indicators of time in the first three verses of this chapter (Clements
One must take note of the (Deuteronomistic?) expression that denotes agency, דִּבֶּ֣ר יְהוָה֮ בְּיַ֣ד (‘spoken through the hand of Isaiah’), that suggests that the prophet was the vehicle through whom YHWH spoke, but this interpretation is problematised by the Septuagint reading of ‘the Lord spoke to [προς] Isaiah’ (Ogden & Sterk
Of special importance for this contribution is the command of YHWH to Isaiah in this second verse to loosen or untie (לֵ֗ךְ וּפִתַּחְתָּ֤) ‘the sackcloth’ (הַשַּׂק֙) and take off ‘his sandal(s)’ (וְנַעַלְךָ תַחֲלֹ֖ץ).
Furthermore, no final agreement has been reached whether Isaiah was stark naked or if he managed to retain a loincloth, but frankly it does not matter all that much in this instance. It is important to remember the scandalous nature of public nudity according to the Hebrew Bible (Gn 3:7 and 10; 9:22 and 2 Sm 6:20). Even more important is to keep in mind that nakedness, or at least scanty clothing, was characteristic of the appearance of prisoners of war and fugitives (2 Chr 28:5; Am 2;16 and Mi 1:8). This brings one to the conclusion that שַּׂק֙ was a rough and hairy garment that varied in shape, function and symbolic meaning. The act of removing the ‘sandals’ is possibly a sign of mourning or humiliation (Ezk 24:17 and 23). Verse 2 concludes with a description of how the prophet obeyed and walked about stripped of clothing (possibly naked) and barefoot. The term עָר֥וֹם does not necessarily refer to complete nudity (Wildberger
According to symbolic interactionism, the bare (foot?) prophet uses scanty or no clothing as signs that were conventionally associated with the appearance of captives taken into exile. At this stage it is at least clear that Isaiah received a command to execute a symbolic act, but with little clarity about what it entailed. Was the prophet naked or scantily dressed, and more important, was it aimed at Palestinian revolutionaries and Judah, or was it intended for Egypt and Cush? Both the indication of time in verse 1 and the removal of the sackcloth and sandals are uncertain, and the rest of chapter 20 must be taken into consideration before a final decision is made.
Isaiah 20:3 reports that YHWH refers to the prophet as עַבְדִּ֥י (‘my servant’) and continues to describe how Isaiah obeyed the divine command to perform the challenging symbolic act to walk naked and barefoot for three years. There are numerous examples of prophets who are described in the Hebrew Bible as ‘servants’ of the Lord, such as Elijah (1 Ki 18:36 & 2 Ki 9:7) and Jonah the son of Amittai (2 Ki 14:25).
It is not clear when the ‘three years’ (שָׁלֹ֤שׁ שָׁנִיםׁ֙) took place – possibly from the beginning of the Philistine rebellion in 713 BCE up to the destruction of Ashdod by the Assyrian army in 711 BCE.
The Lord continues to describe the naked and barefoot prophet in verse 3 as a ‘sign’ (א֣וֹת) and ‘portent’ (מוֹפֵ֔ת) against Egypt (מִצְרַ֖יִם) and Cush or Ethiopia or Nubia (כּֽוּשׁ). What connection exists between the symbolic act of the prophet and the calamity it warns against? Is it possible that a form of analogic or sympathetic magic can be found in Isaiah 20? Fohrer (
Can a performative approach to text interpretation and symbolic interactionism contribute to making sense of this extraordinary behaviour of the prophet? Was Isaiah considered to be a comical or irrational figure when he walked around Jerusalem with little or no clothes on for no apparent reason – an act of sheer folly (Wildberger
On the one hand, the symbolic act could have been understood as referring to the Palestinian revolt and the Assyrian capture of Ashdod, as well as to Egypt who left her allies in the lurch – that is, as a warning for the inhabitants of Ashdod and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem who might have been contemplating joining the uprising against Assyria and depending on Egyptian support.
On the other hand, it could have been interpreted as a prediction that Assyria would conquer Egypt and Cush sometime in the future and that many of their inhabitants would be led away as scantily clad prisoners of war (Watts
It seems more likely that the symbolic act at first commented on the fate of Ashdod at the hands of the Assyrians and being forsaken by the Egyptians. It also anticipated the future fate of the Egyptians at the hands of the Assyrians, which is developed further in verse 4. There seems to be a clear legitimating shift from the ‘earlier word against Philistia’ to ‘a prophecy directed to the future defeat of Egypt in chapter 19’ (Childs
Before discussing verse 4, some attention must also be given to other symbolic acts performed by Isaiah. It is important to note that when Isaiah gave his children symbolic names in 8:18, this action of the prophet is also depicted as a ‘sign’ and a ‘portent’ (Clements
Closer scrutiny is also required for the use of א֣וֹת and מוֹפֵ֔ת in passages outside of Isaiah. Deuteronomy (13:1,2; 28:46; 29:3; 34:11) and Jeremiah (32:20–21) reveal an evidentiary function of the symbolic or sign-act that excludes the possibility of a causal relationship between the sign and the event referred to (Oswalt
Isaiah 20:4 provides further explanation of the enigmatic ‘sign’ and ‘portent’ of the previous verse and relates it to a future defeat and exile of the inhabitants in Egypt and Cush by the Assyrians. The initial good relations between the 25th (Cushite) Dynasty and Assyria became strained and culminated in the battle of Eltekeh or Elthake, when Sennacherib defeated Egypt in 701 BCE (Stern
The nonspecific reference to the ‘king of Assyria’ (מֶֽלֶךְ־אַ֠שּׁוּר) contrasts with the specific mention of Sargon II in verse 1, and this might point to a time after the death of Sargon II in 705 BCE (Clements
Since the influential Isaiah commentary by Duhm (
Isaiah 20:5 contains pronouns that either refer to the Egyptian captives and Cushite exiles in verse 4 or anticipate the Philistine inhabitants of the coastland mentioned in verse 6 (Ogden & Sterk
Isaiah 20:6 is the last verse of the chapter and provides important clues about the way the historical context was utilised as backdrop for the theological message the prophet intended to communicate. The interjective marker of attention (הנה) indicates the importance of the explanation of the sign-act that is provided in the following clauses. For the first time, mention is made of the (Philistine?) ‘inhabitants of the coastland’ (יֹשֵׁ֨ב הָאִ֣י) who experienced despair because of the fate of the Egyptians at the hands of the Assyrians because it dashed all their expectations to be delivered from the ‘king of Assyria’ who is also mentioned in verse 1 to form an
Because the last phrase וְאֵ֖יךְ נִמָּלֵ֥ט אֲנָֽחְנוּ (‘how then can / shall we escape?’) comprises an open-ended question, it potentially incorporates all the parties taking part in the revolt, entails a specific message for Judah and opens ‘
A performative criticism and symbolic interactionist interpretation of Isaiah 20 considers the historical introduction of verse 1 to be part of the ‘aura of factuality’ that religious texts use to articulate or ‘clothe’ their prophecies in such a manner that it seems to be more realistic or ‘history-like’. According to these exegetical methodologies, the bare (foot?) prophet uses nudity or scanty clothing as a ‘sign and portent’ associated with captives taken into exile. The exact dating becomes less important, and verse 1 needs only be interpreted as an initial first reference to the capture of Ashdod, circa 711 BCE, that does not preclude further reinterpretation and appropriation (‘
One must also take into consideration that the capture of Ashdod (711 BCE) takes place soon after the Assyrian capture and exile of the Northern Kingdom and Samaria (722 BCE) and before the eventual capture and exile of the Southern Kingdom and Jerusalem (586 BCE). Even after the fall of Jerusalem and the Babylonian exile of its inhabitants, the symbolic or sign-act of Isaiah remained relevant because it reminded the exiles that they had ample prophetic warnings that they should not put their trust in political alliances that ignored their primary obligations with YHWH.
The expansive Septuagint translation of Isaiah 20 not only simplified and clarified aspects of the MT, but also reformulated a larger section (such as verse 5) to appropriate the sign-act for Hellenistic audiences who had views of prophecy and the role of Egypt that differed from their Judean predecessors. One must take note of Arie Van der Kooij’s (
The theological interpretation of religious texts can benefit from performative criticism and a symbolic interactionist interpretation of texts like Isaiah 20 by detecting the interaction between the actors by scrutinising the symbolic reference of their provocative acts – walking around in the nude or scantily clothed. Isaiah 20 describes one of the several ‘acted-out signs’ in the prophetic books of the Old Testament and can be interpreted as ‘a kind of street theatre’, for which performative criticism can be considered as an appropriate exegetical methodology.
The bottom line is not the capture of Ashdod and the forced exile of its inhabitants, but the use of symbolic, scandalous sign-acts to exhort Judah to rely on the protection of YHWH alone and not put its trust in superpowers such as Egypt or Cush.
The author declares that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
H.B. is the sole author of this article.
This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the author.
The article is dedicated to Prof. Johan Cilliers (emeritus professor at Stellenbosch University and recently rated by the NRF as an A1 researcher). He stimulated students over many years to engage with a paradoxical text like the Bible in a manner that both challenges and enables the believing community to come to a deeper understanding of an often-incongruous message. Although such an approach almost inevitably leads to episodes of supposed foolishness, he developed a creative and liminal space for unsettling interpretation and transformative preaching – building blocks for a homiletic that nurtures a
Since the late 19th century, Isaiah commentators from different exegetical traditions agreed that the sign-act performed by Isaiah warned against the futile resistance to the encroaching Assyrian empire: Duhm (
Friebel (
According to Anderson and Taylor (2004:23–24) society is constructed through ongoing human interaction and the meaning given to these interactions – ‘people react and change, depending on the actions and reaction of the others’.
Machinist (
Because of the lack of Assyrian records from the reign of Shalmaneser V it is difficult to determine ‘the historical detail of the fall of Samaria’, but most scholars assume that he besieged Samaria in 725 BCE and conquered it three years later in 722 BCE (Wright & Elliot
Blenkinsopp (
The title is also mentioned in 2 Kings 18:17 and is used in Akkadian to refer to a senior military leader or even a crown-prince who had to represent the king – in this context it can be translated as ‘second-in-command’ (Wildberger
Tadmor (
This presupposes the function of symbols in religion as defined by Geertz (
Emanuel Tov (
One can interpret this ‘stylistic correction’ as an attempt by the LXX translator to indicate that ‘Yahweh’s words are a request to the prophet, rather than the prophet speaking on behalf of Yahweh’ (Ogden & Sterk
Watts (
Oswalt (
Bronner (
Niehr (
In his later NIVAC commentary, Oswalt (
In this regard one should also note that from about 664 BCE onwards, the 25th Dynasty came to an end and the thrones of Egypt and Cush were again separated (Kitchen
Hayes (
Blenkinsopp (
Aster (
Isaiah was more than a mere mouthpiece to convey divine instructions, but he used his body to convey a provocative and challenging message to those parties in Jerusalem who did not trust in the power of the Lord (Frolov