Explore the vast range of titles available.

The relationship between the Torah and the Prophets has been a matter of dispute. This article discusses the links of the Book of Jeremiah especially with the warnings in Leviticus 26 and the curses in Deuteronomy 28, but then goes on to show that it also picks up promises from the Torah and thus indicates a way to salvation. In doing so, it comes close to the Book of Isaiah. The intertextual comparison between these two prophetic books reveals that the entire Book of Isaiah may be the source for similar announcements in the Book of Jeremiah, yet also for taking a more nuanced stance. Intra-disciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: The literary relationship between the Torah and Prophets as well as between the Books of Isaiah and Jeremiah is seen anew from an Old Testament perspective with its dogmatic implication for a portrayal of God.

This article argues that prayer does not only offer hope of restoration in the future but also presents a restoration of the supplicants. Isaiah 62:6-7 will be presented as a case study. The psychology of religion will be used as the methodology to achieve this goal: present restoration of the prayers in Isaiah 62:6-7. Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications This article combines exegetical insights from biblical studies and psychology of religion.

The article analyses the theology of homecoming in the book of Isaiah and makes a case for using resilience theory as a hermeneutical frame for the task of Hebrew Scripture theology. Defined as “positive adaptation despite adversity”, resilience builds on the crisis setting of wide parts of the Hebrew Scriptures and demonstrates that the formation of theology represents a resilience discourse. In the case of the Isaianic prophecies of return, three concepts of return are distinguished (return, gathering and homecoming, a second Exodus) that respond to the adversities of exile and diaspora. Thus, the prophecies offer a literary home that the different religious communities through time can inhabit.

The word day is one of the most important indications of «time» in the Book of Isaiah. It is used in various expressions to guide the text-immanent reader towards the future in the Book of Isaiah. The unique time-indication ̔aḥărît hayyāmîm, beyond the days, in Isa 2,2 is the most significant expression. It appears to be related to the days of the Kings mentioned in the opening heading of the Book of Isaiah. All the different yôm-expressions and their interrelations aim at making the text-immanent reader aware that the implementation of the beyond the days is beyond the Book of Isaiah. La parola giorno è una delle indicazioni più importanti del «tempo» nel libro di Isaia. Essa è utilizzata in varie espressioni per guidare il lettore testo-immanente verso il futuro nel libro di Isaia. Il tempo-indicazione unica ̔aḥărît hayyāmîm, oltre i giorni, di Isa 2,2 è l'espressione più significativa. Essa sembra essere correlato ai giorni dei Re menzionati nel titolo del libro di Isaia apertura. Tutti i diversi yôm-espressioni e le loro interrelazioni mirano a rendere il lettore testo-immanente consapevoli del fatto che l'attuazione del oltre i giorni è al di là del libro di Isaia.

This paper furthers my argument that the religious messianic figure in secular projects reflects a trauma of secularism. I make my case through an analysis of Anne Carson’s poetic treatment of the biblical text The Book of Isaiah, a text that has been valuable for both Christians and Jews in defining the messiah (Isaiah 53) and in promoting Judaism’s role as a “light to the nations” (49:6). Carson’s poetic revision of this biblical text for a secular audience explains how the trauma of secularism is an issue that we, as members of a modern society, unconsciously inherit, replete with the blind assumptions and prejudices that serve secular ideology.

This book offers a proposal for the formation of oracles about Cush and Egypt in the book of Isaiah (chapters 18-20) within the context of the development of a larger collection of foreign nations oracles in Isaiah 13-23.

This is a response to Seyla Benhabib’s Exile, Stateless, and Migration. I focus on Benhabib’s engagement with Arendt and her assessment of stateless persons in addition to what such a discussion suggests for the scope of our historical inquiry.

In her chapter on Judith Butler’s Parting Ways, Seyla Benhabib revisits not only Levinas’s statements on Israel but also Butler’s response to them. Several of Levinas’s statements on the State of Israel were made either before the state came into existence or just as it was forming. And several of Levinas’s statements about the hostility that Israel faces were made not about the Palestinian but about the threats to Israel from its neighboring Arab states. In this essay, I revisit those statements and Butler’s response, in order to place them in their proper context. My aim is to ask what we can learn by revisiting these comments when placed in their original context as opposed to thinking of them as comments about Israel in its more contemporary struggles.

The failure of post-war institutions to fully grasp the depth and permanence of the placeless condition in the twentieth-century is at least in part responsible for the re-emergence of camps, barbed wire, sunken boats, and separated children in our own. As Seyla Benhabib demonstrates brilliantly, none of key intellectual exiles at the center of her book believed that political thought could simply accommodate the age of the refugee: the terms under which it operated had to shift with the moving world. I argue that there is an important kind of border poetics at work in these accounts of exile, migration and statelessness and within Benhabib’s analysis of the challenges that the placeless condition presents to the institutions of law and democracy today. This is no-coincidence. The modern history of placelessness required — and requires — a political imagination, and a language, that we are yet to fully appreciate or articulate. The wager of Benhabib’s book is how we might cultivate a poetics of exile which relinquishes claims to sweeping universalism whilst imagining the new forms we so urgently need to keep political life open to the differences and otherness that is its lifeblood.