Prophecy and Propaganda: Images of Enemies in the Book of Isaiah

232 Pages·2009·2.659 MB·English

by  Göran Eidevall

Eidevall-FM Page i Saturday, February 21, 2009 10:40 AM
Prophecy and Propaganda
i
Eidevall-FM Page ii Saturday, February 21, 2009 10:40 AM
CB
Coniectanea Biblica
Old Testament Series
56
ISSN 0069-8954
Editors:
Fredrik Lindström and Stig Norin
Eidevall-FM Page iii Saturday, February 21, 2009 10:40 AM
Prophecy and Propaganda
Images of Enemies in the
Book of Isaiah
Göran Eidevall
Winona Lake, Indiana
Eisenbrauns
2009
Eidevall-FM Page iv Saturday, February 21, 2009 10:40 AM
Copyright ç 2009 by Eisenbrauns
Winona Lake, Indiana
All rights reserved.
www.eisenbrauns.com
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Eidevall, Göran.
Prophecy and propaganda : images of enemies in the book of Isaiah / Göran
Eidevall.
p. cm. — (Coniectanea biblica. Old Testament series ; 56)
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 978-1-57506-806-0 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. Bible. O.T. Isaiah—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Enemy in the
Bible. 3. God—Biblical teaching. I. Title.
BS1515.52.E39 2009
224u.106—dc22
2009003274
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American
National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library
Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.†‰
Eidevall-FM Page v Saturday, February 21, 2009 10:40 AM
Contents
I. Introduction
1. Outlining the task: Backgrounds and goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1. On enemy images 1
1.2. Enemy images in texts from the ancient Near East 6
1.3. Enemy images and biblical exegesis:
Perspectives on previous research 13
1.4. On the book of Isaiah as object of the investigation 15
1.5. Problems, goals, and methods 19
II. Investigation
2. Images of empires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.1. Isa 5:26–30: A prologue to the discourse on empires 23
2.2. Images of Assyria 28
2.3. Images of Egypt and Cush 76
2.4. Images of Babylon 107
2.5. Empire portraits: Comparisons and conclusions 130
3. Images of neighbouring nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
3.1. Images of Ephraim/Israel and Aram 133
3.2. Images of Edom 150
3.3. Images of other neighbouring nations 158
3.4. Neighbouring nations: Comparisons and conclusions 162
4. Anonymous enemies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
4.1. Rebels and stubble:
Characterization of anonymous enemies 168
4.2. Key passages 170
4.3. Links to images of nations and empires 172
4.4. Named and unnamed enemies in a
macrostructural perspective 174
v
Eidevall-FM Page vi Saturday, February 21, 2009 10:40 AM
vi Contents
III. Discussion
5. The enemies and Yhwh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
5.1. Enemies of Yhwh 177
5.2. Enemies as instruments in Yhwh’s service 179
5.3. Yhwh as enemy 184
5.4. Yhwh as the enemy’s enemy 185
6. Enemy images, ideology, and identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
6.1. The Zion-centered perspective and the 701 paradigm 187
6.2. Prophecies as political propaganda 190
6.3. On enemy images and implied self-images 195
7. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Index of biblical references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Chapter 1
Introduction

1.1. On enemy images

In the beginning we create the enemy. Before the weapon comes the image.1

This quotation, with its unmistakable biblical allusion, is taken from a seminal
work written by Sam Keen, Faces of the Enemy: Reflections of the Hostile
Imagination. The point made by Keen is that warfare presupposes the existence
of enemies—or, to be more precise, the existence, within a group, of shared
images of alleged enemies. Throughout the human history, such images have
been created, spread, and maintained with the help of oral, written and pictorial
propaganda. Important stages in this history of “the hostile imagination” have
been documented by Keen, in his thought-provoking study.2 Despite (or,
perhaps, because of) the depressing and frightening character of much of the
material, the author ends on a hopeful note, presenting a “potpurri of
possibilities”,3 and advocating the abolition of enemy images and “the education
of Homo Amicus.”4 However, during the decades following the publication of
Keen’s study, the worldwide production of propagandistic images of various
enemies has continued, like an everflowing stream—with no signs of abating.5
There are, sadly enough, good reasons to assume that the hostile imagination is

1 Keen (1986:10).
2 Keen (1986:15-144). Keen’s presentation spans over several centuries and a large
number of cultures. Cf. also Wagenlehner (1989), with documentation and discussion of
enemy images used in propaganda from World War II and its aftermath.
3 Keen (1986:145-178, quote on p. 145).
4 Keen (1986:183-189, quote on p. 183, emphasis as in the orig.)
5 I will leave it to the reader, to make her/his own connections between theories,
texts, and themes discussed in this study and political developments at the beginning of
the 21th century.
1
2 Chapter 1

deeply rooted in the human nature, and linked to some of the most basic
mechanisms of group behaviour.6 This has been well expressed by Keen:

We human beings are Homo hostilis, the hostile species, the enemy-making
animal. We are driven to fabricate an enemy as a scapegoat to bear the burden
of our denied enmity. From the unconscious residue of our hostility, we create
a target; from our private demons, we conjure a public enemy. And, perhaps,
more than anything else, the wars we engage in are compulsive rituals, shadow
dramas in which we continually try to kill those parts of ourselves we deny and
despise.7

Although the phenomenon denoted by the concept ‘enemy image’ is of ancient,
probably pre-historical, origin, the concept itself is a modern creation. In fact,
the linguistic expression ‘enemy image’, representing an attempt to translate the
German term Feindbild, is a neologism within the English language.8 It has,
however, become part of the academic terminology, and is nowadays used in the
international discussion within several disciplines.
There is a vast literature on the subject of enemy images, above all within
the fields of psychology and sociology. In addition to attribution theories9 and
ingroup/outgroup theories,10 developed within social psychology, there are—to
mention just a few examples—sociobiological theories,11 and theories inspired
by Jungian psychology, and in particular by Jung’s concept of “the shadow.”12

6 Cf. Rieber and Kelly (1991:7): “The logic of group action intertwines with the
emotional needs of the individual under stress to produce a shared image of the enemy.”
7 Keen (1986:10-11).
8 Originally, the German term Feindbild seems to stem from military vocabulary.
See Schmal (1995:17-18). An alternative English translation, “image of (the) enemy”, is
also used in scholarly discussions.
9 On attribution theory, see, e.g., Kelley and Michela (1980), or almost any
handbook in psychology. For applications in the study of enemy images, see, e.g.,
Silverstein and Flamenbaum (1989) and Sande et al. (1989). See also Bathurst (1993:1-
22) and Ottosen (1994:84-86), the latter relating the theory propounded by Lee Ross.
10 For a discussion of the relevance of ingroup/outgroup theories for the study of
enemy images, and for further references to literature see Fiebig-von Hase (1997:15-19)
and Schmal (1995:19-24).
11 See Spillmann and Spillmann (1997).
12 On the “shadow” (Schatten), see Jung (1951:22-26, cf. also 1957:29-34). On its
use in theories about enemy images, see Rieber and Kelly (1991). The following
definition of the Jungian concept of the shadow is given by Rieber and Kelly (1991:10):
“It consists of all those inclinations which do not fit the image of the persona and are thus
Introduction 3

In the following, I will not make any attempt to cover the history of research or
the current scholarly debate.13 In place of a detailed theoretical introduction, I
will discuss a couple of definitions, in order to clarify how I intend to use the
term ‘enemy image’ in this study.
In her introduction to the anthology Enemy Images in the American
History,14 Ragnhild Fiebig-von Hase has offered the following definition:

[A]n enemy image is a culturally influenced, very negative, and stereotyped
evaluation of the ‘other’—be it individuals, groups, nations, or ideologies.
‘Others’ are classified as ‘enemies’ if their appearance is coupled with some
extreme threat perception.15

This definition underlines that, basically, enemy images can be seen as a special
kind of images of “the other(s).”16 The distinctive features of this subcategory,
the factors that, so to speak, transform “the other” into “the enemy” are:
(1) Negative stereotypes (which may not correspond at all to the actual
attitudes and behaviour of the group or individual in question).17
(2) The notion of a perceived threat (rather than the “objective” existence of
a “real” threat).18
All kinds of “bad” traits and values can be attributed to (or projected onto)
others, in the process of “enmification.”19 In the words of Keen, “[w]hatever a

suppressed—and projected.” Cf. also Keen (1986:11-13). Others take their point of
departure in Freud’s theories. See, e.g., Kennedy (1997).
13 For helpful surveys, see Fiebig-von Hase (1997) and Silverstein and Holt (1989).
Cf. also Holt and Silverstein (1989), and Ottosen (1994:84-91).
14 Fiebig-von Hase and Lehmkuhl (1997).
15 Fiebig-von Hase (1997:2).
16 Cf. Kennedy (1997:349): “we might say that all enemies are others, but not all
others are enemies. To this it might be added that the degree of otherness does not in and
of itself determine the degree of enmity.”
17 Stereotypes are cognitive schemata which are not quickly or easily altered by new
information. They are the building blocks that prejudices are made of. On stereotypes, as
related to enemy images, see Fiebig-von Hase (1997:7-8) and Schmal (1995:15-17). On
prejudices, see the classical study by Gordon Allport (1954) and the contributions in
Karsten (1978). Cf. also Eiser (1986:125-170).
18 As pointed out by Kennedy (1997:340-341), referring to George Kennan,
“‘enmity’ has little or nothing to do with objective reality ” (1997:340). Kennedy adds:
“Rather, it has everything to do with the internal political requirements of the group that,
in effect, ‘invents’ its enemy” (1997:341).