Egyptian Viticultural Practices and the Citation of Isa 5:1-7 in Mark 12:1-9

Author(s): John S. Kloppenborg Verbin

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 44, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 2002), pp. 134-159
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561114 .
Accessed: 06/02/2012 21:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org
 EGYPTIAN VITICULTURAL PRACTICES AND THE
CITATION OF ISA 5:1-7 IN MARK 12:1-9

by

JOHN S. KLOPPENBORG VERBIN

Toronto

A key problemin the interpretation of the Parable of the Tenants

in Mark 12:1-12 is the questionof whetherIsa 5:1-7 is integralto the
fabricof the parable. The stakesare high. If, for example, the allu-
sion to Isa 5:1-7 is fundamentalto the constructionof Mark's para-
ble, it is natural-virtuallyinevitable-to read the parable's characters
intertextually in relationto Isaiah's vineyard:the owner is God, the
vineyard is Israel or some part of it, and the fruitis some behaviour,
response, or virtue that God expectsof Israel. This will be the case
whetherthe parable used a Hebrew text of Isaiah and derivesfrom
the historical Jesus,or whetherit used the Septuagintand is an early
Christiancreation placed on Jesus' lips. If on the other hand, the
Isaian allusionsare secondary,the resultof later tradentsimporting
biblical allusions,we are leftwithtwo questions:how to interpretthe
parable in the absence of an explicitallusion to Isaiah; and how to
account for the connectionof the parable with Isaiah 5:1-7 in the
Synopticstreamof tradition.
The issue of the parable's relationship to textsof the Tanak became
a pressingone withthe discoveryof the Gospelof Thomas, whose ver-
sion of the parable (saying65) lacks any allusions to Isa 5:1-2, 5.'
What is more puzzlingabout the Gos. Thom.is thatwhile the parable
properhas no referenceto Ps 118:22, the verynextsaying(66) alludes

' Gos. Thom.65. "He said: 'A

[usurer]owned a vineyard.He gave it to some farm-
ers so that theywould workit (and) he mightreceiveits fruitfromthem.He sent his
servantso that the farmersmightgive him the fruitof the vineyard.They seized his
servant,beat him (and) almostkilledhim. The servantwent (back) (and) told his mas-
ter. His mastersaid: 'Perhaps <they> did not recognize<him>'. He sent anotherser-
vant, (and) the farmersbeat thatotherone as well. Then the mastersenthis son (and)
said: 'Perhaps theywill show respectformy son'. (But) those farmers,since theyknew
that he was the heir of the vineyard,seized him (and) killedhim. 'Whoever has ears
should hear'."

? KoninklijkeBrill NV, Leiden, 2002 Novum TestamentumXLIV, 2

Also available online - www.brill.nl
 THE CITATION OF ISA 5:I-7 IN MARK 12:1-9 135

to the Psalm: "Jesussays:'Show me the stonethatthe buildersrejected.

It is the cornerstone'."What is different in the Gos. Thom.is that Ps
118:22is presentedas an entirely separatesaying,havingno grammatical
or logical relationshipto the previous saying.The existenceof this
alternateversionof theparable naturallyraisesthe questionsofwhether
the Synopticor the Thomasine versionis the earlier one, and how
the quotationof Ps 118:22 relatedto the originalformof the parable.
But the relationshipof textsof the Tanak to the Markan Parable
of the Tenants in factarose quite independently of any knowledgeof
the Gos. Thom.Even beforethe discoveryof this gospel, criticshad
observedboth the poor fitbetweenthe quotationof Ps 118:22-23 and
the parable proper and that the detailsin Mark 12:1 that are drawn
fromIsaiah 5 are irrelevantto the plot of the parable. That the owner
built a palisade and a tower,and dug a vine vat has no real bearing
on the plot or the outcome of Mark's story.Indeed, Luke omitted
most of them,perhaps preciselybecause theyare irrelevant.
A generationago it was standardto observe that the Isaiah allu-
sion in Mark 12:1 was Septuagintaland undoubtedlysecondary.In
the firsteditionsof Die Gleichnisse Jesu (1947; 1952; 1954, ET 1955)
Jeremiasalready seems to have regardedthe quotationof Isa 5:2 as
secondary,since he suggestedthat Luke 20:10-12, which lacks most
of the Isaian elements,retained"the featuresof a simple story."2In
the latereditionsof Die Gleichnisse
Jesu(81970,ET 1972), afterJeremias
had takenthe Gospel ofThomasintoaccount,his conclusionswerebolder:
as it stands,the parable is a pure allegory."The connectionwithIsa 5
must thereforebe due to secondary editorial activity."3The main
ground for this conclusionwas Mark's use of iT?ptlEtiKv (ppaygov, in
agreementwith the LXX's (ppayglbv 7epit9rKca,a featurethat is com-
pletelylackingin the MT of Isa 5:1-2.
Recentlythe wind has shiftedand more criticsare inclinedto see
the Isaian allusionas basic to the architectureto the parable. The fact
of the Septuagintalnatureof Mark 12:1 has been mitigatedvariously.

2
J. Jeremias,The ParablesofJesus(London: SCM; New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1955 (fromDie Gleichnisse
Jesu[Gottingen:Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht,31954]) 56.
Jeremias,however,later seems to implythat the Isaian allusionsare original(Parables,
124).
3 Thus
J. Jeremias,Die Gleichnisse
Jesu(Gottingen:Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht,81970)
68; ET: The ParablesofJesus(Rev. ed.; London: SCM; New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1972) 71. Similarly,H.-J. Klauck, Allegorie
undAllegorese
in synoptischen
Gleichnistexten
(NTAbh NF 13; Miinster:Aschendorff, 1978) 287; U. Mell, Die "anderen"
Winzer:Eine
Studiezur Vollmacht
exegetische Jesu Christinach Markus 11,27-12,34 (WUNT 1/76;
Tubingen:J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1994) 80-81 and others.
136 JOHN S. KLOPPENBORG VERBIN

It is pointed out, for example, that the MT of Isa 5:5 mentions"its

hedge (fil1q); thusthe elementthatthe LXX shareswithMark is not
completelyunanticipatedin the MT. And it could be imaginedthat
pre-Markantradentsof the parable merelyassimilatedthe "original"
Isaian allusionsto a Septuagintalform.Still othersargue that in the
earlyfirstcenturyIsa 5:1-7 was alreadybeing construedin much the
same way thatMark 12:1 does, thatis, withreferenceto the Temple
and its administration. This being so, thereis no reason to thinkthat
the Isaianic allusionsare not primaryand basic.4
From the point of view of logic,the finalpointis a nonsequitur.The
factthat the parable, withits Isaian elements,would be intelligible to
a first-centuryaudience does not decide the issue of whetherthe Isaian
elementsare primaryor secondarysince in any event,theyare intel-
ligibleat the Markan level. The discoveryof a first-century allegoriz-
ing interpretation of Isa 5:1-7 only shows that any stipulativeargu-
mentapropos of Mark 12 fails.For example,an argumentthatMark
12:1-9 cannot originallyhave used Isaiah in an allegorizingfashion
because allegoricalinterpretations of Isa 5 are "late" obviouslyruns
aground on 4Q500.5 But these are not in fact the main groundsfor
thinkingthat the Isaian citationsare secondary.
There are severalbases for concludingthat Isaiah is secondaryto
the parable. I have argued elsewhereon the basis of an examination
of the legal and horticultural
aspectsof ancientviticulturethatthe sce-
nario presentedby Mark is economicallyand legallyincoherentand
that this incoherenceis principallya functionof the Isaian elements
in Mark 12:1. By contrast,the versionof the parable in the Gospelof
Thomasis consistentwith what we know of the operationand man-
agementof ancientvineyards.6

4 K.R. Snodgrass, The Parableof the WickedTenants(WUNT 7; Tubingen: J.C.B.

Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1983); T. Schmeller,"Der Erbe des Weinbergs:Zu den Gerichts-
gleichnissenMk 12,1-12 und Jes 5,1-7," MTZ 46 (1995) 183-201; C.A. Evans, "God's
Vineyard and its Caretakers,"in Jesusand his Contemporaries: Studies(AGJU
Comparative
25; Leiden, New York, and Koln: EJ. Brill, 1995) 381-406; R.D. Aus, The Wicked
Tenantsand Gethsemane: Isaiah in theWickedTenantsVineyard and Mosesand theHighPriest
in Gethsemane (Universityof South Florida InternationalStudies in FormativeJudaism
and Christianity 4; Atlanta,Ga.: Scholars Press, 1996), esp. 4-6; WJ.C. Weren, "The
Use of Isa 5,1-7 in the Parable of the Tenants (Mark 12,1-12; Matthew 21,33-46),"
Bib 79 (1998) 1-26.
5 See
4Q500 and the commentson the textbyJ.M. Baumgarten,"4Q500 and the
Ancient Conceptions of the Lord's Vineyard,"JJS 40 (1989) 1-6, and GJ. Brooke,
"4Q500 1 and the Use of Scripturein the Parable of the Vineyard,"DSD 2 (1995)
268-94.
6
J.S. KloppenborgVerbin,"Isaiah 5:1-7, the Parable of the Tenants,and Vineyard
 THE CITATION OF ISA 5:I-7 IN MARK 12:1-9 137

In thispaper I wish to argue the case in detail that the Isaian ele-
mentsin Mark 12:1, 9 are Septuagintal.The argumenthas primarily
to do with the LXX's reconceptualization of Isaiah's parable of the
in
vineyardand, part, the influencethat Egyptianviticultural practices
have exertedon the LXX's rendering.It is this reconceptualization
and theseinfluences, and not thoseof the MT, thatare foundin Mark.
Hence, there is no reasonto thinkthatthereare subterranean elements
of a Hebrew or Aramaic citationlyingbeneath the Septuagintalsur-
face. If one adopts the reasonablesuppositionthatthe historical Jesus
spoke mainly Aramaic (and, conceivably,Hebrew) and if the parable
is authentic,it is doubtfulthatthe originalparable alluded to Isaiah 5
in the mannerthat Mark's versiondoes. Of course,it is possiblethat
the parable is nonauthentic,as many criticshave argued, but pre-
Markan. But in that case too, the Septuagintalallusionsand citations
can only have been attachedas the parable circulatedin Greek.

Isaiah 5:1-7 in theMT and theLXX

In both the MT and the LXX, Isaiah's song of the vineyardhas
the formof a juridical parable.7As in the case of Nathan's parable
of the ewe (2 Sam 12:1-12),the forceof thejuridicalparable restson
its realism,a realismthatprovokesthe hearersto rendera judgment
in the case cited,unaware thatin so doing theycondemnthemselves.8
Isaiah's song, as Yee has persuasivelyargued,is addressedto a Jeru-
salemiteaudience. Its storyof a non-productive vineyardand its even-
tual destruction is a thinlydisguisedreferenceto the destruction
of the
NorthernKingdom by Tiglath-pileser in 734-32 B.C.E. As Yee notes,
it is a reasonable suppositionthat the audience would immediately
identify the vineyardwithIsrael, the NorthernKingdom,since at the
time of Isaiah ofJerusalem,the vineyardhad been a metaphorpre-
dominantlyassociatedwithIsrael (Hos 9:10; 10:1; 14:8; Psalm 80). But
Isaiah's applicationof theparable in v. 7-"for thevineyardof YHWH
is the house of Israel, and the menofJudahare its delightfulplanting"

Leases on Papyrus,"in TextandArtefact:

Religions inMediterranean Essaysin Honour
Antiquity:
of PeterRichardson(ed. S.G. Wilson, and M. Desjardins; Studies in Christianityand
Judaism/ Etudes sur le christianismeet le judaisme 9; Waterloo,Ont.: WilfridLaurier
UniversityPress, 2000) 111-134.
7 G.A. Yee, "The Form-CriticalStudy of Isaiah 5:1-7 as a Song and a Juridical

Parable," CBQ 43 (1981) 30-40.

8 U. Simon, "The Poor Man's Ewe Lamb: An
Example of a JuridicalParable," Bib
48 (1967) 220-21.
138 JOHN S. KLOPPENBORG VERBIN

extendsthe metaphorof God's vineyardto the SouthernKingdom

and thus threatens Judah with the same judgmentthat theyhad just
seen visitedupon theirnorthernneighbours.
Isaiah's song existsin two significantly
different forms,one in the
Hebrew Bible (MT), and another the Septuagint(LXX). Since there
in
are importantdifferences betweenthe two, it is possibleto determine
whetherMark's referenceto the text is to the MT or the LXX.
(Significant departuresof the LXX fromthe MT are underscored).

Isaiah 5:1-7 (M7) Isaiah 5:1-7 (M7)

1 'A'io 6i1T' ryctqrvcp
liDm- minn~iw
T
-T di)iEXcovi
aoria Txo aya7iCnrrob
. . . . .'.T
gIov.
x uT iya7rniLov.
atieVXOvEy?v0TN
.
:1'r 3 P?p ?V K6panT ev Tirco
TriOVI.
ip'D'
in5$?Q'
----------2 2 Kai
?caX yptaKOvX
(ppayJiov
eplOKa
pC
---------- KaclEXapaKcooa
FH.2? lDn1 Kai E?cpVTcDJoa oTOpr%
dcgIEXkoV
i=in.' I i .' Kat coK660rn
Kai r
q6o a iGpyovev lepo abxoS
iKaci
o xpoXhivtov -
^n 3p' 6p?)ua ev atc6
nlDtI 1p'1 KaicL ieiva -TO JlofoalorTa(pXruv,
3'^3: 21 E70ioieV &eiaioKavoaq.
3fF1i'il 3 Kai vbv, avOpor7oqTob Iooa Kai oi olOIKOVirEq
ev I?pouoarcXq,
'.3 -CDC :KpivaTEEvE?oi Kai dva jiEoov TO dlneXav6O(
s io).
niCtDF7 4 Ti IrouiGoe1t Ta) dcLpCEXCoVi 10O)
tn'rr t1 i'KCKaiOVicK7oiroa avTn);
nT
* T- ibs1. ''p 1OT&
e6,eiva TOOZbolfioarli YTa(pDuv,
n : :L
itn3 E'f1iroiriov&e c
6& aKavoaq.
T : I-
T
' i- imD1 5 vSv 86 dvayyelo){p~iv
"Ti:

N-~- nf Ti otloo100) T6) di7cXnEViiV JIOl

I?u. d1
p (ppayLbovaDcTO)
&(peXQ)TO%v
T 7T iEE
icicotar eoi lapayv,
1i7%
r"1c Ka
o Kao
Ooeri toToov a'TroS
bv
': OIg?q ~I`1 Kai eiarat Eti KaiTaadtrCiga,
nr
11innwl1 6 Kai avilrco-rVdOVanXeOva (LO)
3> "IQ-' ^tk 1KaiO0) l11-gTjOfi016e [IJf <(Kai(Pf,
'
1'i' 151 Kai d vapi(oeTat EiEtiaovT ?i
Xpo v
pV aKavXoa

D'3. 1 _.
KaioTai;
vecptEatl; eVTeoCLbgai TOb n'1Pp?Eao
:'Itr E?isa1x)Tv)CTOV.
17 CID "I'3 7 b yap dlauJXev)KDpio oaacoaO
n' o KOio;T0D IopariL
ba~' n'- nlax-
eoTiv
iT' t'~.1 oavOpcono; ToD Iova ve69)DTOV
~cKai fiya7rll,evov'
D 1't . 1 4,UeeivaTOu noiflaate7roilveVv
Kpi1oV, p e davoiiav
3i nli7 icon oviK (tKatoa0vrTVad(
0Kai) Kpacynlv.
 THE CITATION OF ISA 5:I-7 IN MARK I2:I-9 139

The Hebrew Version (MT)

General
Structure
Isaiah's song of the vineyardin the MT consistsof three stanzas,
w. 1-2, w. 3-6, and v. 7, with constantlyshiftinggrammaticalper-
complex.It beginsin the first
spectives.The firststanza is particularly
person as Isaiah's declarationof his intentionto sing to or for his
friend:"I will sing to my friend(7''TTL tq l'St)." The song itself,
however,seems to be his friend'ssong, for it is introducedas "my
beloved's song for his vineyard"(IrT: ''"l' n'fltj).One mightthere-
foreexpectthatwhat followswould be framedas a firstpersonspeech
of the friendto his vineyard.Instead,v. lb offersa thirdperson nar-
rative: "my friendhad a vineyard" and this perspectivecontinues
throughoutthe restof w. lb-2, which describesthe friend'sprepara-
tion and plantingof the vineyardand his disappointment at its unex-
pected unproductivity.
In the second stanza (w. 3-6) the fictivevineyardowner, Isaiah's
friend,steps out of his storyand, as it were, addressesthe inhabitant
ofJerusalemand the "man" ofJudah directly:
And now, you who dwell in Jerusalemand you man ofJudah,
judge between me and my vineyard.
What more can I do for my vineyard?
And what did I not do for it?

Afterrestatinghis case in the briefestterms-"I expectedit to pro-

duce grapes, but it produced stinkinggrapes"-, the speaker then
describeshis remedy:he will abandon the vineyard,destroyits hedge
and walls, and cease to tend it, withthe resultthatit will be overrun
by thornsand become a wasteland.Isaiah himselfreturnsin the final
stanza (v. 7) and offersin thirdperson perspectivethe interpretation
of the key elementsof the parable: the vineyardis Israel and Judah;
the expectedproduce were justice (mispdt) and righteousness (sedaqah);
and the actual resultswere bloodshed(mipdah) and an outcry(se'dqah).
Isa 5:1-7 thus comprisesthreelevels of discourse:Isaiah's introduc-
tion (v. la) and interpretation(v. 7); a storyof the vineyardowner's
efforts and expectations(w. lb-2); and embeddedin this,the owner's
directaddressto Israel andJudah (w. 3-6). Even beforeIsaiah's own
unequivocal interpretation of the parable's key elementsin v. 7, the
hearer would guess that Isaiah's "friend"was in fact YHWH. The
descriptionof the destructionof the vineyardin w. 5-6-the removal
of its hedge and wall, apparentlymetaphorsof God's protection,and
140 JOHN S. KLOPPENBORG VERBIN

itsbeingoverrunby thorns-wouldin the contextof late eighth-century

Judah evoke the destructionof Shechem and the NorthernKingdom.
(v. 7) confirmsthis identification,
Isaiah's interpretation but extends
the applicationof the parable to Judah.

Notes
5:1: 7rJi-plp3 (on a fertilehorn):The MT describesthe location
of the vineyardas rti7-l:,"on a fertilehorn." The precise meaning
of qeren(flp) is unknown,since it is used only here in the Tanak in
relation to a topographicalformation.Budde suggests"spur" (of a
mountain),which appears to suit the contextwell,9since vineyards
were normallylocated on terracedhillsides.'?
5:2: 1*SpD'1 7iptrT'l (and he broke up the clods and cleared the
stones):The MT uses the two verbsye'azzqehui (p7r5) and wayesaqqelehu
(5pO~), probably best rendered "to
respectively break up"" and "to
clear of stones."'2As such, the two verbs describethe initiallabour
required to transform a plot of land froma previouslyuncultivated
state into a state suitableforthe cultivationof vines.
5:2: p-1: Afterthe plot has been preparedit is plantedwithsoreq,
probablya red varietalgrape."3

9 K.
Budde, "Zu Jesaja 1-5," ZAW 50 (1932) 38-72, 55; KB 1068: "Auslaufereines
Berges."
10 A. die Wirtschaft Palistinazur Zeit der
Ben-David, Talmudische Okonomie: desjiidischen
Mischnaunddes Talmud(Vol. 1; Hildesheim:Georg Olms, 1974) 107.
" KB 766 (hapaxlegomenon): Qal: "aufhacken,umgraben,"From Ethiopic" 'azaqt,
"cistern";Akkadianesequ,"einritzen";Piel "umgraben,behacken,jaten" ("hoe," "weed");
Marcus Jastrow,A Dictionary of the Targumim, theTalmudBabli and Yerushalmi, and the
MidrashicLiterature(New York: Judaica Press, 1985) 1062: Piel "break up clods, level
ground,till" (b. Men. 85b; m.'Ohol.18.5; t.'Ohol.17.9).
O. Borowski(Agriculture in IronAge Israel [Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1987]
104), citingPuchacevsky("Explanationof BiblicalWords Relatingto Agriculture," Sefer
hashanashelEretzIsrael [Tel Aviv: Agudat HasofrimHa'ivriyimand Dvir, 1924] 43-
45), suggeststhat the most logical meaningis "clear of brambles,"basing this on the
Arabic name 'ajaq for the mastic or lentisk(pistacialentiscus), a common bush in the
Judaean mountains.
12 KB 725: Piel:
(1) "mit Steinen(be)worfen"2 Sam 16:13; 16:6; (2) (a) "von Steinen
saubern" Isa 5:2; (b) "Steine wegraumen."
13 This grape is mentionedalso in Gen 49:11 and Jer 2:21. That the soreq is red
in colour is suggestedby Zech 1:8, wherethe word appears in parallelwith'ador (red),
and by Gen 49:11, where it stands in parallel to the phrase bedam-'anabim, "blood of
grapes." Accordingto Judg 16:4 Delilah came fromthe Nahal Soreq(LXX: AXoc0oprX),
presumablya grape-growing valley.For a discussionof othergrape varieties,see G.H.
Dalman,Arbeit undSitteinPaliistina
(Deutschesevangelisches InstitutfurAltertumswissenschaft
des HeiligenLandes zuJerusalem,Schriften 3/1-2,5, 6, 8, 9, 10; Gutersloh:Bertelsmann,
1928-42) 4:320; Borowski,Agriculture in IronAgeIsrael,104.
 THE CITATION OF ISA 5:I-7 IN MARK 12:1-9 141

5:2: Pressinginstallations:The vineyardis also furnishedwith a

watchtower(migdal)and "even" (gam)a winepress(yeqeb).The use of
"even" (gam)drawsattentionto the factthata vineyardneed not have
a press.The buildingof a press,whichinvolvedthe excavationof the
vatsfromhard limestoneand the construction of a pressingmechanism,
representeda considerableinvestment of effort and capital and would
be unnecessaryif commercial or communal presses were available
nearby.The termyeqebhas a varietyof connotations:it can referto
the vat or troughthatholds the mustor to the entirewinepress,which
includesan upper vat fortreading(Amos 9:13; Isa 63:2), a lower vat
for collectionof the must (connectedby a sinnor, a groove),and the
pressingequipment.'4Since yeqeb is the object of the verb '1Zll;, "to
quarry,"the substantivemust referto the treadingor collectingvat,
which is excavated fromstone. But since the phrase 13 3n np'' =31
standsin parallelto the descriptionof the buildingof the watchtower,
the othermain structureof a vineyard,it seems likelythat the "vat"
refersby metonymyto the entirepressinginstallation.
The particularsof vv. lb-2 touch on the motifsof fertility, expense,
permanence,and the expectationof highproductivity. The locationof
the vineyardwas ideal for viticulture, on a hillside,presumablywith
good drainage; and the area was fertile, which probablymeant well-
watered.It was, nevertheless, stilluncultivatedand thereforerequired
a good deal of preparatorylabour on the part of the owner.Vv. Ib-
2a thus underscorethe efforts that the owner expended in creatinga
vineyard from where there was none. The permanentand expensive
structuresmentionedin v. 2b emphasize the owner's high expecta-
tions.Instead of erectinga temporaryhut (sukkah, Isa 1:8; 4:6) or cre-
ating a small shaded area (melunah,Isa 24:20), the owner built (Ml=1')
a stone tower.Instead of relyingon local presses,the ownerbuilthis
own. Such elementsimplythat the owner expectedto create a stable
and productivevineyardthat meritedpermanentinstallations.
5:2: r'.jWK(stinking[grapes]):All of these elementsof preparation
and expectationcombineto enhancethe contrastwiththe actual result,
the productionof be'usimratherthan of grapes. The termhas some-
timesbeen translatedas "wild grapes,"but thisis hardlyappropriate.
A good quality domesticvarietalof vitisvinifera L. never produces a
non-domesticated variety.Vitis L. to
vinifera appears have been domes-

14For descriptionsof the pressingmechanisms,see R. Frankel,Wineand Oil Production

in Antiquity
in Israel and OtherMediterranean
Countries(JSOT/ASOR Monographs 10;
Sheffield:SheffieldAcademic Press, 1999).
142 JOHN S. KLOPPENBORG VERBIN

ticatedin NorthernSyriaand theAegean and is foundin EarlyBronze

sites(3200-3000 B.C.E.) inJericho,Arad, Lachish,Ta'annek, Bab edh-
Dhra', and Numeira.'5No remainsof thewild grape (vitissilvestris) have
been found in Canaan.16 Hence be'usimcannot be rendered "wild
grapes" but should be translatedas "stinking(or diseased) grapes."'7
It is not a matterof the contaminationof a plot of land with some
foreignplants,but of the corruptionof what had been planted.
5:5: InDro: The viticultural metaphoris maintainedthroughout w.
4-6, whereseveralotherfeaturesof the construction and care of vine-
yards are mentioned. V. 5 notes the presence of a hedge (mesdkkdh or
mesukkah),'8 probably an enclosure made of thorns. Such hedges are
stillused by Beduin for creatingrough enclosuresaround sheepfolds.
The MT also mentionsa wall (gader), probablyconstructedat least in
part from the stones removed from the field.
5:6: Verse 6 advertsto the activitiesof pruning(nr2L),normally
done twice,immediatelyafterthe harvestand duringthe summer,19
and hoeing (7fl;) to keep down the thorns(samirwadsyit).20 Both are
essentialactivitiesif yieldsare to be maximized.And of course, rain
(-cn) is essential.
5:7: Only in v. 7 does the author'sapplicationof theparable appear.
Isaiah's interpretation dependson a double word play: God soughtfor
justice (mispdt) but found only bloodshed (mispah),and for righteous-
ness (sedaqah)but found only an outcry(se'dqah).These themes are
major preoccupationsof Isaiah of Jerusalem,who complainsof the
oppressionof the poor by the rich and of avariciouspracticesof the
elite (Isa 3:12, 13-15; 5:8-24; 10:1-4).Mispah(nMr2) is a hapaxlegomenon
in theHebrewBible but seemsto mean "bloodshed."21 Se'dqah("outcry,"

15 in IronAgeIsrael,102.
Borowski,Agriculture
16
M. Zohary,ThePlantsoftheBible(Cambridgeand New York: CambridgeUniversity
Press, 1982) 55; Borowski,Agriculture in IronAgeIsrael,102.
17 DJ.A. Clines, ed., The Dictionary of ClassicalHebrew(8 vols.; Sheffield:Sheffield
Academic Press, 1993-) 2:88, "stinking,"in referenceto worthlessgrapes.Aquila trans-
lates it as oacpita;, "rotten."
18 The
Qumran Isaiaha scrollreads n1ZO0,cf. Mic 7:4, where D100rstandsin par-
allel withp'T, briers.
19 in IronAgeIsrael,109-10.
Borowski,Agriculture
20 The
phraseFnr'l''rM2appears to be a hendiadys(Zohary,PlantsoftheBible,153).
Compare Isa 7:23-25 fora similarthreatof land being overrunby thorns(samirwas.iyit)
for lack of hoeing. The pair of samirand sayitis also seen at Isa 9:17; 27:4.
21 Thus H. Wildberger, Jesaja(3 vols.;BKAT 10/1-3;Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1972-82) 1:172-73 and J.D.W. Watts,Isaiah (Word Biblical Commentary24-
25; Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1985-7) 2:56 relate irnl to the root n.O.0 and to the
Arabic safaha,meaning "to shed blood."
 THE CITATION OF ISA 5:1-7 IN MARK 12:1-9 143

Tp:l?),the word play on sedaqah("righteousness," Fip'l), occurs only

here in Isaiah, but appears in othercontextsin the MT havingto do
with complaintsagainstinjustice(Gen 27:34; Exod 3:7, 9; 11:6).
Accordingly, Isaiah's parable of the vine in the MT concernsGod's
for
expectations Israel and Judah, that theywould produce a society
characterizedby justice and freedomfromabuse, but that it had just
the oppositeresults.

The Septuagint(LXX)

Althoughthe translatorsof the LXX refrainedfromeffecting major

rearrangements,additions,or deletions,their choice of Greek terms
and a few freeadaptationssignificantly
transformed the parable.

General
Structure
The MT displaysconfusingshiftsin perspective,fromthe firstper-
son (v. lb), to the third(w. lb-2), thenback to the first(w. 3-6), and
finallyto the third(v. 7). Some of these shiftsare due to the basic
rhetoricalstructureof the speech: Isaiah's speech (vv. la, 7) contains
a "parable" told in the thirdperson (w. lb-2), followedby the fictive
owner's challengeto the audience to judge the situationoutlinedin
the parable (vv. 3-4) and then the owner'sresponse(w. 5-6). A sim-
ilar structureis seen in 2 Sam 12:1-12, which moves from a parabolic
storytold in the thirdperson (2 Sam 12:lb-4), to David's reaction
to the story(2 Sam 12:5-6),and thento Nathan's oracle, deliveredin
the firstperson (2 Sam 12:7-12).
The LXX translatorsrationalizedthe speech, presentingit as first
person discoursethroughout,except in v. lb where the MT's third
person is preserved:"(my) beloved had a vineyardon the horn (of a
hill) in a rich place." The LXX's shiftto the firstperson in the fol-
lowing cola entailed the conversionof the verbs in v. 2 (ieptiOriKca,
exapdaKc(oa, 9cp6euGa, PKo86Oirtoa, remeva)and 7 (`emetva).But it also
meantthatthe structure of thejuridicalparable is effaced.The speaker
(Isaiah) stillsingshis beloved'ssong,introducing the songwitha paren-
thesisabout the vineyard(v. lb). But the remainderof the unit (w.
2-7) now becomes the beloved's song,includingwhat in the MT had
been the friend'saddress to Jerusalem(w. 3-6) and Isaiah's interpre-
tation (v. 7). The firstverse, nonetheless,remains ratherconfusing.
Rather than "I will sing to my beloved, (my) beloved's song for my
vineyard;mybeloved had a vineyard,"one mightmore reasonably
144 JOHN S. KLOPPENBORG VERBIN

a&lCXl vtic6'tro ("forhis vineyard")and )o6yE?vil9

expect TXo aOXiceXOv
("who had a vineyard").

Notes
5:1: ev Kcpaxrt 7Irovt:
?v TO;CpO In the LXX the vineyardis located on
a KEpaSor "horn,"22 whichseems generallyto correspondto the MT's
qeren.The MT's "fertile"(l2r--1,lit. "son of fatness")is renderedev
ToxipIiovt, "in a rich (or fertile)place."
7ieptel0cCK(and I surroundedit witha palisade): A
5:2: iaci ppaycuov
more significant alterationconcernsthe descriptionof the labours of
the owner.While the MT stressesthe initiallabour requiredto con-
vertvirginhillsideinto a productivevineyard,the LXX takesthe ini-
tial preparationsfor granted.Like the MT, the LXX indicatesthat
the "vineyard"was alreadyin the speaker'spossession(&aglegl)v eYevi90r
But the LXX, by dispensingwith the verbshavingto
TcO'lyaarltevpO).
do withthe breakingand clearingof the ground,impliesthatthe plot
had alreadybeen preparedforplanting.What was required,however,
was a palisade ((ppayo6S)23and furnishing the plot withstakesor props
forthe vines.Thus the LXX seemsto envisagethe conversionof exist-
ing agriculturalland into a vineyard.
Such conversions,it mightbe noted, probablyreflectpracticesin
Egypt,where agriculturallands were oftenredesignatedfromone use
to another,owing to the desiresof theirownersor to the availability
of waterthroughthe maintenanceof a systemof dikesand canals.The
failureof the irrigationsystemmightmean thatcertainplots,once used
forirrigation-intensivecrops(e.g.,vines,melons),mighthave to be con-
vertedforgraingrowingor pasturage.Alternatively, the creationof a
dike systemallowedownersto re-seeddryor marginallands withhigh-
yieldcrops.In Palestineunderthe Ptolemies,the conversionofplotsfor
fieldcrops into vineyardsand olive and fruitorchardswas drivenby
an interestin exportcrops and in maximizingthe yield of the land.24

22
LSJ 941, V.6 "mountainpeak," "spur" (Xenophon,Anabasis5.6.7; Lycophron534:
Tpo0Xou1aa X.epcaiou KE?po;, "Mazusia juttingfromthe horn of the dry land").
23 "surroundwith a enclose."
Vulgate: saepivit, palisade,
24
On the Ptolemaicoccupation and exploitationof Palestine,see in general,G.M.
Harper, "A Studyin the CommercialRelationsBetweenEgyptand Syria in the Third
CenturyBefore Christ,"AJP 49 (1928):1-35; V. Tcherikover,"Palestine Under the
Ptolemies,"Mizraim4-5 (1937):9-90; X. Durand, Des Grecsen Palestine au IIIe siecleavant
JesusChrist:Le dossier desarchives
syrien de Zenonde Caunos(261-252) (Cahiers de la Revue
biblique 38; Paris:J. Gabalda, 1997). M. Hengel ("Das Gleichnisvon den bosen Wein-
gartnern,Mc 12:1-12 im Lichte der Zenonpapyriund der rabbinischenGleichnisse,"
 THE CITATION OF ISA 5:I-7 IN MARK I2:1-9 145

Where the MT names diggingand stone-removalas the prelimi-

nary activitiesof vineyardpreparation,the LXX mentionsthe build-
ing of a palisade ((ppayygo6).Two issues are of importancehere: first,
the meaning of the LXX's term,and second, the significanceof its
mentionas an initialactivity.
1. While the MT makes no mentionof a hedge in 5:2, it emerges
fromv. 5 that a hedge had been present,where mesukkdh appears in
poetic parallelismwith gader(wall, LXX: ToiXoS). While mesukkdh is
probablya hedge formedof thornybushes,the cppayL6o; of the LXX
(5:2, 5) is more likely a wooden palisade or a low stone wall. To be
sure, the context of Isa 5:5 LXX indicatesthat the (ppayjio;is less sub-
stantialthan the ToixoS(stone wall):25the (ppaytgo; is merely"taken
away" or "removed" while
(a&pnirjl), the wall is "taken down" or "razed"
(KaOatpco).26 This corresponds generally to the MT's which
mesukkah,
whichis destroyed(2y').27 But
is removed('F1V ), and thewall (gader),
an examinationof otherinstancesof (ppayoS;,both in the LXX28 and
in contemporaryGreek literature,indicatesthat the word normally
referredto a wooden fence or palisade.29In Egyptianpapyri and a

4NW thatthisneweconomicsituation
59 [1968] 15-16)suggests in Palestine
produced
varioustensions:"The new-typically hellenistic-revenue-intensivekindof manage-
ment,in whichagentschargedwithachieving delivery quotascertainly did not act
withspecialdeference, arousedthe indignation of the Galileanfarmers, who appar-
entlyrefused to pay therent"(referringto PCairZen 59 018 (258 B.C.E.).
25 For TeiXo;in connectionwithvineyards, see PRylII 157 (135 C.E.); PRossGeorg
II 19 (141 C.E.); PStrasVI 539 (290/91C.E.); PVindSal 8.r.31(325 C.E.).
26 See rpITov vvTfivTElV
Xenophon, Hellenica4.4.13 (yvco HnpaiTxca; ti Ka0?XeEv
iKcaviv elval, "firstPraxitasdecided to pull down the walls to
COeT?6io5ovoTpaoTOc6Et,)
makea passagewide enoughfora passageforthe soldiers");
Plato,Menexenus
244C
KaOeCo0vXT;&vO' ov i?Ti; TxaK?IeivvEKoXiantaeEgv
TiX icX
(KaOC dreoeiv,"and they demolished
thewallsas a recompense forour savingtheirwallsfromruin").
Ps 80:13: 71'"' nrl; nl, "Whydid you destroy
27 Similarly, its [thevineyard's]
walls?" Note, however,thatthe LXX rendersthisas 'va Ti Ka0tesie TOv(payptovaCTrf;.
The same translationof gaderis given at Ps 89:14 (Kacc0ei?;
,cdvTa; Toi; (ppay,LoU;
x&Uoi).
28 In all cases wherethe connotationof (ppayRo.s
can be determined, it is used of
solidenclosures, or citywalls:Num 22:24 (wallof
eitherpalisadesaroundvineyards,
a vineyard, solidenoughto pin Balaamagainstit); 1 Kgs 10:22 (wallsofJerusalem);
Ps 61[62]:4(a tottering
11:27(wallsofthecity);2 Esdras9:9 (wallofJerusalem); fence);
Ps 79[80]:13 (destroying[Ka0eiL.e;] a vineyardwall); Ps 88[89]:41 (citywalls); Prov
24:31 (stonefences);Isa 58:12 (citywalls);Mic 4:14 (citywall?).
Theocritus,
29 ppaygi6r: Idyll5.108 (a fencearounda vineyard); Frag.10-
Lycurgus,
11.14 apudHarpocration,Lexikon[I C.E.] 215.14: bpcKa6vr *gniOTe (ppay7O;S,TO)TEOTI TO
Kai riaiClaoia, oL)TtKIaeitrc, Icap& TOEpVK?e
ceppi(ppacygaC v i nXapaTOepco; Eivat,"horkane:
thatis thefenceand (stone)wall,so calledfrom'to hold
perhapsa palisade(phragmos),
in' (erukein) Philo, Det. 105 (&aviTeixou; (ppCaytoiS;E?vat,"to be
or from'fence"' (herkos);
as] a wall");Agr.19 (a palisadeofwood);Moses1.271(aigaoiatKai
a fenceas [strong
146 JOHN S. KLOPPENBORG VERBIN

few othertexts ppayg6Srefersspecifically to a palisade that surrounds

an agriculturalplot or a vineyard.30 The choice of (ppayoi6to render
mesukkdh in v. 5 was probablymotivatedby the fact that the LXX
translators,with Egyptianagriculturalpracticesin view, assimilated
Isaiah's vineyardto vineyardsmore familiarto themin Egypt.31
2. The second issue concernsthe reasonsforthe LXX mentioning
the buildingof a palisade in the initialstage of preparinga plot for
vines. This probablyhas to do withthe likelihood,noted above, that
the LXX envisagesthe conversionof an existing agriculturalplot in an
intensively cultivatedarea into a vineyard rather than the MT's con-
of of
ception the breaking virgin hillside.
The palisade was a keypart
of a vineyard,forboth legal and practicalreasons.In areas of inten-
sive cultivation, the palisade servedas a boundarymarkerused in sur-
veys and land registers(e.g., PNessIII 31 [VI C.E.]), markingoffone
plot fallingunder one tax regimefromcontiguousplots thatmightbe
taxed quite differently. The palisade, moreover,protecteda newly
plantedvineyard from damage by humans and animals,which might
use the plot for grazingor as a short-cut.32 Finally,the palisade pro-
tectedthe maturingfruitfromravagesby animals,especiallyfoxesand
boars, and (along with a guard in the watchtower)from theftby
humans.33In later Palestinianagriculturalpractices,the palisade had

ppaygoi,"[stone]walls and palisades" thatare strongenoughto repelan attack);Strabo

13.4.14 (a fenceof stone);Plutarch,Pericles9.2.6 (xiCvrT? opitv TOvi;(payIgoi;S&patpiov,
describingthe removalof palisades around an orchard);Plutarch,Cimon10.1.4 (Txcvr
yap ayp&cv (ppayloiS;acpqetv, describingthe removalof palisades around fields).
30 BGU IV 1119 (6/5 B.C.E.) (palisade around a vineyard);PGiss.56 (V C.E.) (pal-
isade around a vineyard);PNessIII 31.11, 16, 31, 51, 55, 60 (VI C.E.) (palisadesmark-
ing vineyards).M. Schnebel (Die Landwirtschaft im hellenistischen
Agypten.ErsterBand: Der
BetriebdesLandwirtschaft[MiinchenerBeitragezur Papyrusforschung und antikenRechts-
geschichte7; Munchen: C.H. Beck, 1925] 244) doubts that Egyptian(ppaygotwere
made of wood, since wood was relativerare and expensive,and suggeststhat they
were (stone)walls.
31 This explanationseems preferableto that givenbyJ. Fischer(In Welcher Schrift
lag
das Buch Isaias denLXX vor?Eine textkritische Studie[BZAW 56; Giessen: Topelmann,
1930] 20), accordingto whom (ppayCov 7cepterliKa was a "free"translationwhich took
ptWto be relatedto lprD, "ring" (whichhowever,appears only as a proper name in
the Hebrew Bible). lprD ("signet")is attestedonly in Aramaic (Dan 6:18). R. Gundry
(The Use of theOld Testament in St. Matthew'sGospel:WithSpecialReference to theMessianic
Hope [NovTSup 18; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1967] 44) ratherimplausiblysuggeststhat the
LXX, Peshittaand Vulgate understoodllTpO' as "to build a (stone)fence"and argues
that this is unrelatedto the Dit0nof v. 5. But as I have argued above, this is more
likelya hedge of thorns.See below, n. 38.
32 Cf. PMich V 229 (48 C.E.), a complaintabout damage to a vineyardcaused by
ass-driver.
33 Prov 24:31 treatsthe stone wall (V1':K "i:, LXX: o' (ppcayjoiu&vkicov) as an
 THE CITATION OF ISA 5:I-7 IN MARK 12:1-9 147

an additionalfunction:since Deut 22:9 prohibitedthe intercultivation

of vineyardswith other(cereal or vegetable)crops,care was taken to
demarcatethe vineyardfromadjoiningfieldsthatwere sown to other
crops. A wall (MD~DM':3) or reed fence(D'plD nr'T2) servedas a valid
way to divide one area fromanotherso as to complywith the laws
of mixed seeds.34
5:2: Kai eXapadKooa(and I stakedit): What is completelynew in the
LXX is the use of XapaKoco, used in Ptolemaic- and Imperial-period
papyriin connectionwiththe stakingof vines.35This may be another

essentialpart of a vineyard,as does Sir 36:25: o) oOiKo:Ctv (ppcayi6;, btaprayiToETa

rK,iua,"whereverthereis no fence,the propertyis plundered."Damage to vineyards
fromanimals and humans is noted in Ps 80:13-14: "Why did you destroy[the vine-
yard's] walls, so that everypasserbyplucks its fruit,wild boars gnaw at it, and crea-
turesof the fieldfeed on it?"; Cant 2:15: tdcuaoareliiv aCX)7tEK
KaggiLp oU; cpaviovTaS
dac?gEXovo;, "catch us littlefoxes,thatspoil the vineyards";Theocritus,Idyll1.45: "And
but a littleremovedfrommasterWeatherbeatthere'sa vineyardwell laden withclus-
tersred to the ripening,and a littlelad seated watchingupon the fence [It; K&po; ?(p'
caigototaio(pq)aio?t]. And on eitherside of him two foxes; one ranges to and fro
along the rows and pilfersall such grapes as are ready foreating,while the othersets
all his cunning at the lad's wallet"; Theocritus,Idyll5.112-13: gioLcoTxCa;S8aGUKEpaX
a&X0nEKca;, ai Ix MiK(oVO; aidi poITax;o Trx payioovxt, "I hate the brush-tail
Oo07o9e pxoa
foxes,who ever come creepingto theirvintagingamid Mikon's vines." For the fable
of the Fox and the Grapes, see Babrius 19; Phaedrus 4.3.
34 Two biblical
prohibitionslead to concern over the space that must be allowed
between crops of different kinds,and the typesof partitionsthat validlyseparate two
crops. Deut 22:9-11 (fromD) speaks specifically of vineyards:"You shall not sow your
vineyardwith a second kind of seed, else the crop-from the seed you have sown-
and the yieldof the vineyardmay not be used [lit.:becomes holy].You shall not plow
with an ox and an ass together.You shall not wear a mingledgarment,wool and
linen together."A latertext(fromP) speaks more generally:Lev 19:19: "You shall not
let your cattlebreed witha different kind;you shall not sow your fieldwithtwo kinds
of seed; you shall not put on cloth froma mixtureof two kindsof material."
These prohibitionsare explicatedin the Mishnah. In m.Kil. 4.1, a space of 12 cubits
(16 accordingto Beth Shammai) must be allowed between the outer row of a vine-
yard and a seeded crop. A wall, however,formeda valid partitionbetweenplots of
land. Hence, the Mishnah assumes both that walls are a normal part of a vineyard
and thatvines could extendup to the wall, thusoccasionallytrailingover the wall and
infringing on a neighbour'sgrain crop (m. Kil. 7.4). Accordingto m. Kil. 4.3, a wall of
ten handbreadthshigh constitutesa valid partition.Likewise a reed fence is a valid
partition:"A partitionof reeds (Dlp7 nrrInn)-ifbetween reed and reed be less than
threehandbreadthssufficient for a kid to enter,-counts as a valid partition[and one
can sow seed on the otherside]. And a palisade thatis breached up to a space of ten
cubitsis consideredas an entrance,if it be more than this,oppositethe breach is for-
bidden [to sow seed]" (m. Kil. 4.4).
5 PCairZen59 229
(253 B.C.E.); PSI VI 595 (III B.C.E.): ior6gviltaZrivovt iapa
NiKoVwo; Ei; dTv gV oicKa(piv Kai XapiaKclnv, 6olcnep KaiCo b ny 6oKa<, npoo6o0aoct;
PZenPestman 64.14, 18 (= PSI VI 624; III B.C.E.); POxyIV 729.23 (Oxyrhynchus;137
C.E.): ]xt KX?oapaKoCo?gva; KOi Ta[To]v KTiUcaTxo;gXTuax KorEtyao
a Cgva icca btpo?n(pu-
kcoKrltev,". . stakedand the embankmentsof the vineyardfirmand watertight"; PRyl
148 JOHN S. KLOPPENBORG VERBIN

instanceof the influenceof Egyptianviticultural practiceson the LXX

translators,36but the trainingof vines on trellises,palisades,and trees
is also attestedin early Israeliteagriculture.37 In any case, the LXX
translatorshave reconceivedthe scenarioimaginedby the MT, shift-
ing the emphasisfromthe labour of makingvirginsoil suitable for
agriculture,to the particularpreparationscharacteristic of viticultural
practice,namely, the erection of a palisade or wall and the stakingof
the land withtrellises.38
ooprX (a vine of soreq): In the descriptionof the plant-
5:2: OCgiteXov
ing of the vines,the LXX also differs fromthe MT. Whereas the MT
a of
specifies particularvariety grape, soreq,39 a termunattestedout-
side the Hebrew Bible,40the LXX uses the phrase`aiceXov awoprl("a
vine of soreq") as the object of 9cpTeUoa.Althoughthe LXX preserves

II 427 (II/III C.E.); POxyXLIV 3205.41 (Oxyrhynchus;297-308 C.E.); CPR XVIIA

25.22 (307 C.E.); CPR VII 38.11 (V C.E.); PHambI 68.5 (549/50 or 654/55 C.E.).
36 On the
stakingof vines, see C. Ricci, La colturadellavitee la favvricazione del vino
nell'Egittogreco-romano (Studi della Scuola papirologica4/1; Milano: Hoepli, 1924) 23,
27, 34 and BGU IV 1122 (13 B.C.E.); PLondIII 1003 (562 C.E.). Pliny(Hist.naturalis
17.35.164-166) describes5 methodsof vine-training: (1) on the ground; (2) as a self-
supportingbush; (3) trainingon verticalposts; (4) trainingon horizontalyokes;and (5)
trainingon an overhead trellis("on fourbars in a rectangle").There is also consider-
able evidenceforthe trainingof vines on trees:Columella 5.6; Varro 1.8.3. See K.D.
White, FarmEquipment of theRomanWorld(Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,
1975) 19-23.
37 See in IronAgeIsrael,107-108; Frankel,Wineand Oil Production,
Borowski,Agriculture
35. Vines were trainedon the ground (Ezek 17:6, nmf-l7S; m. Men. 8.5; m. Kil. 4.7;
6.4) or on a fence (Ezek 17.8: nT'7t13:). t. Men. 9.10, m. Kil. 6.6-9 adds the term
nQ~:, apparentlya type of trellis(Jastrow,Dictionary of theTargumim, 671).
of theTargumim, 1062) thinksthat the LXX's renderingof pr?
38
Jastrow(Dictionary
as XapaKcoo) is influencedby the Aramaic RIpTD("clap," "ring").A more usual, albeit
adventuresome,explanationis thatthe LXX translators mistook p:D as'5^. The LXX
renders715: ("ramp") as Xapax (palisade) fourtimes:Isa 37:33; Jer 40(33):4; Ezek 4:2;
26:8. See Fischer,In Welcher Schrift,
20-21).
39 See
above, n. 13.
4o As a geographicaldesignation,the term appears only in Eusebius, Onomasticon,
160, where Eusebius suggeststhatcoprix (Judg 16:4) was located in the vicinityof
Eleutheropolis.The standardChristianexegesis of the term followsSymmachusand
interprets it to mean "elect": Origen,HomiliaeinJeremiam 12.1: 1I Kacox0)U?Evl 054[iREko
Xop(ioK. 'EK?KTCTItS OGooaKai Oatpaotci. Cf. also Basil, Enaratioinprophetam Isiam5.142;
Basil,Asceticon magnum (MPG 31:1136): coprix,6o ipvetveIe'TaOKXeKcKT';Cyrilof Alexandria
Commentarius in Isaiam Prophetam (MPG 70:137): CoprKl, ToDT' oatV?KeKrTIv; John
Chrysostom,Fragmenta in Jeremiam (MPG 64:768): X)oprK,ToDTeoGTIV rcEK'KTv; and
Theodoret Commentaria in Esiam 2.475 (Theodoret de Cyr,Commentaire sur Isai? [ed. J.N.
Guinot; 2 vols.; SC 276, 295; Paris: Cerf, 1980-1982] 1.230). In Interpretatio in Isaiam
Prophetam 5 (MPG 56:58) John Chrysostominterprets Soreq as well bred: Sorec autem
hic significatveram, generosam,non malis nec inferiorisnotae propaginibusinstruc-
tam, sed probatiset praecipuis.
 THE CITATION OF ISA 5:I-7 IN MARK I2:1-9 1499

soreqthrougha simpletransliteration, it seems probable that the term

was not sufficiently
well knownin Egyptto be self-explanatory and so
a.gnF_ov was added to make its generalmeaningclear.4'
5:2: npoX'vtov(vat):Verse 2b describesthe excavationof theyeqeb,
which the LXX rendersas iLpoki'vtov (vat). The usual translationof
yeqebis Xqv6; and this normallyrefersto the entirepressinginstalla-
tion.42In a few instancesit is renderedby {utioXi'vtov, that is, one of
twovats(one fortreadingand theotherto collectthemust).43HpoakrjViov,
the LXX's choice of translation, is unattestedin Greekliteratureuntil
fourthcenturyChristiancitations,where, commentingon the LXX
Isa 5:2, Eusebius,Athanasius,CyrilofAlexandria,and Theodoretinter-
pretIsaiah's inpokjviovas the altar beforethe temple.44 In the context
of Isaiah 5, however,2tpoX?iMvtovmustreferto a collectingor treading
vat and is probablythereforeequivalentto tiroXi7viov.45
It seemsprobable

41
I.L. Seefigmann (7weSeptuagint VersionofIsaiaAA Discussion ofItsProblems [Vooraziatisch-
EgyptischGenootschap"Ex OrienteLux," Mededelingenen Verhandelingen9; Leiden:
Ej. Brill,1948] 33), however,drawingattentionto the sevenfoldrepetitionof &tneX-jv
in Isa 5:1-7 (and in 1:8 and 3:14), suggeststhati4u?neXov is secondary.He also observes
that "from7.23 onward a`LgEhXo; is used withthe same regularity(eighttimesin suc-
cession) as &signTe6v previously."
42 Num 18:27, 30; Deut 15:14; 16:14; 2
Kgs 6:27; Hos 9:2;Joel 2:24 (in all instances,
paired withgoren, threshingfloor);Prov 3:10 (pairedwith 'asam,barn);Jer 48:33 (LXX
31:30); Lam 1:15. Ailv6; is used to translategotatJudg 6:11; Neh 13:15 (= 2 Esdras
23:15); Isa 63:2; Joel 4:13. See further, J. Ziegler,Untersuchungen zurSeptuagintadesBuches
Isaias (Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen12/3; Miinster:Aschendorff, 1934) 179.
13
Isa 16:10 (the treadingvat); Joel 4:13 (treadingvat or the collectingvat); Hag
2:16 (the collectingvat); Zech 14:10 (the king'swinepress).
" Eusebius, Commentaria in Psalmoson Ps 8 (MPG 23:125): npoXikvtov r6ip6 roovaoi
0ootacynr'ptov. Athanasius,Expositiones in Psalmoson Ps 8 (MPG 27:80): t6.xastiav iv tjj
vo[tmciXccrpeip I'v iSv,pokijvtov, 't Qumsccrn'jpsov 6iQkov6i Fti vaCp;CyrilofAlexandria,
tl iov
Commentanius inIsaiamProphetam (MPG 70:137): 0'Ko6bJ.owz9 8 p'la,
6h, Kal nlpyov iv gEMO
cz3YUo3),Ka i7tpoxivtov 60puza iv anztCo... 'trOe
atu 6i"&uocatippov iv rzivre;John
Chrysostom,Interpretatio in IsaiamProphetam 5 (MPG 56:58): et aedificaviturrim,et tor-
cular in medio eius: quidam turriminterpretantur templum,et torcularaltare; quia
illic fructusvirtutiscuiusque congregabantur;Theodoret, Commentaria in Esaiam 2.470
(ed. Guinot, 1.230). WJ.C. Weren ("The use of Isa 5,1-7 in the Parable of the Tenants
(Mark 12,1-12; Matthew 21,33-46)," Bib 79 [1998] 9 n. 24) erroneouslystates that
itpoXijvtov occurs also in Oda 10:2, not realizingthat this is Isa 5:2.
4'
The distinctionbetween Xflvo; and bi),oXljvtov is observed by the anonymous
Geoponica (Geoponica, sireCassianiBassi scholastici De re rusticaeclog,ae, ed. HeinrichBeckh;
Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1895) 6.1.2-4: 8-i roivuvd1'nv klv6v inpo;'t COin o; t&jvauy-
KoCirGOeX5 psXXh6vtwvicapiuo~v olKO8OpsLEV... S3T~O)6E 1 Xi1v0CbS~PJ5T, KU1i ~x~tn(Pia
ILXe6o3ov,ievrokv, 8t&
o binoxilvtovfrrrw nk2XrC1Xtojso0V,iC&.tps6 tiiV XPTI(v nXi0rKZO&ii
OakX6ari,iT &X"sjt
OFpifi.
Ziegler (Untersuchungenzur Septuaginta, 179) suggeststhatprolanion
mightreferto a special kind of wine press,"vielleichteine "Vorkelter"im Gegensatz
zur Hauptkelter(Xrvv6;).
In der Papyrusliteratur
ist das WortinpoX.hisjetzt m.W. nicht
aber sicherwar die "Vorkelter"dem alexandrinischenLeser bekannt."
aufgetreten;
150 JOHN S. KLOPPENBORG VERBIN

that the choice of 7cpo;rIvtov over knrv6;is a functionof the verbs,

'3n1m ("to hew")/`opiua("to dig"), which suggestthe excavationof a
vat ratherthan buildingof the entirepressinginstallation.
5:2: acKav0a(thorns):The LXX dramaticallyreconceivesthe failure
of the vineyard.Whereas the MT contraststhe owner'sexpectationof
grapes('anabim, withthe actualproduce,"stinking
MD'2U) grapes"(be'us?m),
the LXX introducesa new contrast,using aKavOa ("thorns")as the
second memberof the pair.46The contrastof grape/thornis neither
a fixedparallelpair in Hebrew nor does it appears in the MT or else-
wherein the LXX. The pair in factis barelyattestedin the Hellenistic
period,appearingonly in Matt 7:1647and Gos.Thom.4548and, much
later,in b. Pesah.49a.49
The LXX's choice of "thorns"seems to be a functionof two fac-
tors.First,the focusof the LXX has shiftedfromthe vine to the vine-
yard. While the MT repeatsthe term "vineyard"(kerem, vv. 1, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7), the complaintis about the vine itself,whichproduced rotten
fruit.In the LXX, by contrast,the focus has shiftedfromthe vine
(despiteajinrXoS; whichyieldedthorns
ocopri)to thevineyard(aCLuCrXXv),
instead of grapes. Second, the LXX's choice may be a functionof
other textsof the Tanak which indicatethat thornswere a constant
encroachmenton agriculturallands, signallingneglect (Isa 7:23-25;
32:13) and presentinga dangerof fire(Exod 22:6 [LXX 22:5]).50Thus
wherethe MT locatesthe failurein the unexpectedly corruptedgrowth
of a good qualityvine, the LXX thinksof the failureas that of the

46 The word 1'ttjCappears only twice in the MT (Isa 5:2, 4), while t23 ("stink-
ing") is found threetimes:Isa 34:3 (LXX: i 6aou, smell),Joel 2:20 (LXX: iRoatpia,
stench)and Amos 4:10 (construedby the LXX as OR3, Ev lropt).
47 Matt 7:16: llxt
CrUoXEyo0Xotv&(XIdcav0Xcv oTVta(pkX;. The IQP reconstructsQ
mainlyfollowingLuke ratherthan Matthew: nrxtn ru)k7yoD)v ? &c(XavO&0v Oi CK
oIKCa
Tpti36cov roxcapulaSg]].W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison(A Critical andExegetical
Commentary
on Matthew[3 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh:T. & T. Clark, 1988-97] 1:707) suggestthat
Matthew may have altered Q (= Luke) under the influenceof Isa 5:2 LXX.
48 Gos. Thom.45.1: Jesus says: "Grapes are not harvestedfromthornbushes, nor are
figspicked fromthistles,for theydo not produce fruit."
49 b. Pesah. 49a: "Let a man
always sell all he has and marrythe daughterof a
scholar,and marryhis daughterto a scholar.This may be compared to [grafting of]
grapes of a vine withgrapes of a vine [whichis] a seemlyand acceptable thing([tVt
'-Dpnrn R: m-13jnT '3:: I7:n "5). But let him not marrythe daughterof an 'am
ha-'ares;thismay be compared to [grafting of] grapes of a vine withberriesof a thorn
bush [whichis] a repulsiveand unacceptable thing"(~1'7 -rw, '3:023'91 'U'~. bU
1'RSI _1=)."
50 "AKaOcvat is
also used of acacia trees,oftenfound on the embankmentsof vine-
yards: see POxyVI 909 (225 C.E.), an agreementto uproot and sell the acacia trees
(&aKavOat)in a vineyard,and PLondII 214 (270-75 C.E.).
 THE CITATION OF ISA 5:I-7 IN MARK 12:1-9 151

plot itselfand, presumably,of those who should have cared for it.
Good and well-tendedland should have produced a valuable crop;
insteadit producedonlyworthless thorns.The LXX apparentlyalready
has in view the failureof human subjectswho tend the vineyard,in
distinctionfromthe MT, which studiouslymaintainsits focus on the
vineyarditselfuntilthe identification with Israel and Judah in v. 7.
5:3-6: There are several modifications and adaptationsof the MT
by the LXX in theseverses,but not all are consequentialforthe issue
of Mark's relationto Isaiah 5. The addresseesof v. 3 are reversedin
the LXX: the MT has "the one who dwellsinJerusalem"(D =ll)'Z1V)
and then "man ofJudah" (Mrn7'71 tV) (both,curiouslyin the singular),
whichthe LXX reverses:"man (&`vOpono;)ofJudah" and "inhabitants
(oi voutobvTrS;) ofJerusalem."The LXX rendersthe MT's idiom C!V
1'rn ('judge between me and x") ratherwoodenlyas Kpivct-ce
':'2 hv
egoi icai av x CL-oovtoio iicgn&OV6;gLo (judge with me and in the midst
of my vineyard).5'
5:4: In v. 4 the LXX translatesthe MT's impersonalidiom Mnn
'71DniQ. ("what more is to be done") as a first-person future:"what
more shall I do?" The word-pair pipuX1i/0cvOct
at is repeatedin v. 4,
again modifyingthe MT's 'anabi'm("grapes") and be'us-im ("stinking
grapes").
5:6: cctavijao (I will abandon): The influenceof Ptolemaic agri-
culturalpractice is again visible in v. 6, where the LXX translators
have renderedthe MT's MM 7I1fn'7Z*1 (I will make [it] a waste [?]),52
as icxxi
&vla(o rbv &tiLLh6)v&' iiou (I will abandon my vineyard). As Ziegler
notes,the LXX's verb &avtcivat is a technicaltermused in Ptolemaic
papyriused in connectionwithland leftuntilledi13
5.66 t4;('dSXEpaov(on a dryplot): In the same versethe phraseT',1U
l ntn7 ("and thornsand brambleswill grow up") is translatedas
fl'Vi
Kdi avx1PiljaetaiEi'; (xl?t6v6); di; xkpoov &Kavtax("and thornswill spring

5'
The LXX oftenrendersthe idiom 1-1i 'f'Z C1mmtas ipivstv ava gc'aov NN icai
&v& pfaoovNN (Deut 1:16; Judg 11:27; 1 Sam 24:16) or more simplyas Icpive&v &,v&"
gEaxovNN Kat NN (Gen 16:5).
52 The meaningof MMF is suggestedonlyfromthe context.The etymology is unknown.
See KB 159.
" PTebtI 60.81-81 (118 B.C.E.): cai yoii&[v]Etge'vou Ei; volia; Kai I xo(pto)vo(ji6S;)
Kc', "and 24 (arourai) of land leftuntilledforpasturageand grassland";PTebtI 72.35-
36 (114/13 B.C.E.): IcaritS; Ev triot FIV'AXECavI68pEfat
vy' (EEta)irpoaaX0CFOi_'a; &vriaoat
Ei; voJga;.See also PTebt111/2827.4 (170 B.C.E.). Ziegler notes that the LXX of Isa
27:10 rendersFT')in 711(homesteadsdeserted)withTe6Kaiouicol'4rvov ?noijivtov
&VEtgE'VOV
EUYt.XL
152 JOHN S. KLOPPENBORG VERBIN

up on it as on a dryplot").54The use of xZpooqalso pointsto an Egypt-

ian agricultural context,wherethe termregularlydesignatesland once
used foragriculturalproductionbut which had become unproductive.
Such failureswere normallydue to a collapse of the irrigationsystem
or to low levels of the Nile inundation.55 But the termmeans more
than "dryland." Xepo6; impliesthatthe land was economicallyunpro-
ductive,since in Egyptit was exemptfromtaxation.56 Vineyardswere
particularly susceptibleto failurebecause theydependedon a constant
supply of water. So common in factwas the failureof a vineyardthat
the termXepaireARXoq; was coined to referto vineyardsthathad become
unproductive.57 The LXX's use of Xepok6fitsthe context,since the
next colon refersto God's stoppingup of the clouds so as to with-
hold moisture.Hence, in addition to the MT's general image of a
fieldbeing overrunby thorns,the LXX employsa termthat would
be recognizedimmediatelyby the Egyptianreader as referring to a
specific class of unproductiveagricultural land.58
5:7: vE60vzUoq:In the concludingverse,the LXX has renderedthe
MT's neta'("planting")by vep6qi0zo;,a technicalterm used in Egypt
fornewly-planted vineyards.59
5:7: Kpia;, voi, CtOia
8aKvo K8Kayoovr,
, pa (justice, lawlessness, fairness,

54 The LXX uses a similartranslation

at Isa 7:23: ei; X?kpov ECoovxatKai eri aKcavoav
('P' n'Til 1'tr), 24 ortxEpooo;KaXi&KavOaEX1YaI
RaGa 7i n'Tn r
(prmT- ':-),
iy ntl
25 Eaait yap &anbo
Ti Xcpoou Kaicav Kal E;i KacTaMadrilgaoo;
; orrLa npopdaTou
&cv&0r p6ei
(m1tnwnt n1
nmmI nt iri MI
n-' lNn-m ).
55 Cf. POxy XII 1475 (267 C.E.), detailingthe sale of a now-dryorchard (TO...
nougaplovvuv Xv Epo(p, 1. 20) and mentioninga cisternand waterwheel, "now in dis-
repair." The term can also referto land that normallyreached by the Nile inunda-
tion, but which the flood missedin particularyears: PPetrIII 99 (Fayim; III B.C.E.);
PRylII 207a (Hermopolites;II C.E.). See Schnebel,Landwirtschaft, 9-24.
56 Schnebel, Landwirtschaft,16, quoting PLondII 401 (II, p. 12) (Pathyrites116-111
B.C.E.); PLondII 267.149, 276 (II, p. 129) (Fayfm, II B.C.E.).
57 For
example,PSI III 240 (I/II C.E.); Yi; XE?pcYargnlL?ov
Uoto[on7o] I [pouL?V]r;; PSarap
103 (125 C.E.); SB VI 9190 (131 C.E.); POxyIV 729 (137 C.E.); PRossGeorg II 19 (141
C.E.); POxyIII 506 (143 C.E.): Tobpiva&u.geXKo<i>KTri,gaToS VV {?}i 6? XepGacLtC?i[oiU];
PRossGeorg II 42 (II C.E.); PThmouis1 (170/71 C.E.); PRylII 222 (II C.E.); PRylII 427
(II/III C.E.). Dry vineyardscould, however,be used forthe raisingof grain and other
crops less demandingof water (and would, of course, be subject to taxation).
58 Similarly,Ziegler, Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta, 1934, 181: "Der letzte Begriff
[X?poo;] ist besondersaus dem Vorstellungskreis des alexandrinischenBauern heraus
zu verstehen;denn C?paoo bedeutet nicht nur das Odland, sonder im besonderen
Sinne das Brachland,das unbebautetLand, das vorherFruchtlandwar... So hat der
Ubers. ein neues Bild gebracht,das zwar nicht genau die hebr. Vorlage wiedergibt,
aber doch furden griech.Leser rechtanschaulichist."
59 PSI IV 371.11 (250/49 B.C.E.); PLondI 131.3.42, 4.83 (I, p. 166) (78 C.E.); POxy
VI 909 (225 C.E.).
 THE CITATION OF ISA 5:I-7 IN MARK 12:1-9 153

outcry).It proved impossibleto replicatethe MT's wordplaysmispdt/

mispahand sedaqah/se'adqh. Instead, the LXX simplyused the stan-
dard renderingsof mispdt as Kpiatg, seddqahas StcatooaDvn,and se'dqah
as Kpavyi. The hapaxlegomenon mipadhmay have presentedthe trans-
latorswitha problem,but theyrenderedit withthevague termavogia
(lawlessness).
A close examinationof the textindicatesthatthe translators of the
LXX adjusted the imageryof Isa 5:1-7 in a varietyof ways. Most
obvious is the conversionof the entireunit into a first-personspeech;
less obvious is the reconceptualizing of the typesof labour needed to
create a productivevineyard,the shiftof focus fromthe individual
vine to the vineyardas a whole, and the pervasiveinfluenceof ter-
minologythat reflectsthe agriculturalpracticesin HellenisticEgypt.60

Mark 12:1, 9 and Isaiah 5:1-7

It is clear that Mark 12:1 (9) alludes to Isaiah 5. What remainsto
be decided is whetherMark knows Isaiah via the MT or the LXX.
(Significant agreementswiththe LXX are underscored).

Isa 5:1-7MT Mark12:1,9 Isa 5:1-7LXX

p3 ITT C-1D&aRReXva
Frr1n &vOpomoo
, atineXovtyev,fiOr
Tz
v T v (cpiDT)euOv, cyarge:vq)EVKepaTtEv
T6ow.
...ovi.

Kai tCeptiOrKEv
ppayljb 2 Kai ppaygov teptilnica
----------------------- apKa
p ..? 1 * -T* Kai
:e(p)tE)ua auL7CXeov
oopilx
Kcalcopl)ev i)nCOiVItOV
Kal`(pKOqio8lqoeV tpyoV ical (pKoo6gola w6pyov
v
\g?oaq) adTOb
mKail pokivltov`pzoa iv
i: : ln
. T-:l p'-:i- __

~.... ?p?rva
K~aaCl tv0 7cotioat
oTa(pu,Iv,
b7oi11oav6 da&av0a; ....
_7ID. -11D
nib.l?/-n4 9 11ov zOtOin?et
06Kipto; 4 T'i Cotla?oX
it T()
Tov dt,7c?exvi
I in
DInn 3 nt 1l dlaJi7;vo;; iXei)eraat oL icKali
olcKeioiwoa
cKa a)Tx;

60 zur Septuaginta,
Similarly,Ziegler, Untersuchungen 178.
154 JOHN S. KLOPPENBORG VERBIN

Isa 5:1-7 MT Mark 12:1, 9 Isa 5:1-7 LXX

D'.2) nit'_ '.n'.pT0oE S ye?opyo6;,
&TcoXosaei t ?Etva TOI rotiioat
86101
Kat
aoTavCpii a v, e7CoiTa?Ev
:D'W' t_I 6c0aoeTOVauTrGi?Xc 86
'a'Xots. &dcavOaS.
DDn R:- -ni'ri n11 5 5 vD)v8e avayyWXco Viv
'n-?j f''u ':A--7 fl (Oi
Ti nsot!i]oo aceX
TOi)g7O

T"l TTin?iq
'l.n a"lpo
T
Tov(ppapoygv amton
:00-10i? 71,1 1-1-I?)
r7) ICKal
eo"TatEi(; 5iap7caYfIv,
iKa Kc(aeXCOTOVToiXOV

Kai eaoat Ei; KaTacad-

Tllga ...

Despite attemptsto trace Mark 12:1, 9 to a putativeHebrew or

Aramaic versionof the parable, it seems likelythat Mark is depen-
dent exclusivelyon the LXX.
First, Mark's phrase, autCnXEova
&avpopoS(; EcpiTeUo v, continues the
tendency,alreadyvisiblein the LXX, to focusnot on the vine but on
the vineyardas a whole. It was this refocusingof the imageryof the
MT that allowed the LXX to imagine thornsrather(iaKavOai)than
rottengrapes (be'usim)as the productof the vineyard(5:3, 4). In Mark
evoEV (planted)is not a`ineXoS(a vine),but a&eXLtkv
the object of sqpT6
(a vineyard)and in this respect,Mark's storyintersectsmore closely
with the LXX of Isaiah 5 than it does withthe MT.
Of course, the trope of the vineyardfunctionsquite differently in
Mark; Mark's account introduces the idea of a tenancyagreement,
which is foreignto both formsof Isa 5:1-7. It should be noted,how-
ever, that in indicatingthat the failureof the vineyardwas its being
overrunby thorns,the LXX impliesthat neglectwas involved,prob-
ably a failureto hoe and weed. Egyptianvineyardcontractsregularly
statethatthe tenantis to stakethe vines,performthe hoeing,trench-
ing, and pruning,and insure that the vines are watered properly.61

E.g., BGU IV 1122 (Alexandria; 13 B.C.E.) POxy IV 1692 (Oxyrhynchus;188

61

of reeds (forsupport-
C.E.) listsas duties of the tenant:the cuttingand transporting
ing the vines),sweepingup cut reeds and transporting them outside the walls, hoeing
around the vines,and trenching,planting(extra)vines in the necessaryplaces, cutting
of the new reedsforthe reed-work,the arrangingof the reeds,breakingup the ground,
pickingoffthe shoots,pruningthe leaves, disposal of the pruned shoots,thinningthe
foliage,and stationingguardsin the field.POxyIV 1631 (Oxyrhynchus; 280 C.E.) pro-
vides a similarlist of duties.
 THE CITATION OF ISA 5:I-7 IN MARK I2:I-9 155

Invasion by thornscan only mean that the vineyardsufferedextreme

neglectfromthose appointedto care forit.62Hence the LXX, with-
out expresslynamingtenants,has human failurein view even before
v. 7. We are still,however,far fromMark's scenarioof revolt.
One could hypothesizethat Mark's parable extrapolatesdevelop-
mentsin the LXX, reconfiguring the addresseesof Isa 5:3 LXX (the
of
"person Judah and the inhabitants ofJerusalem")or those of 5:7
("house of of
Israel, person Judah") as the rebellioustenantsof the
vineyard,this despitethe factsthat both the MT and the LXX con-
clude thatIsrael and Judah arethe vineyardand neithersuggeststhat
a rebellionis at stake.Or, one mightsuggestthata tenancystorycon-
cerninga vineyardand the rebellionof its tenantsattractedthe Isa
5:1-7 LXX, because it offeredMark (or some pre-Markantradent)the
interpretive possibilityof construingthe vineyardas Israel (or God's
domain), whose firsttenantsrefusedGod his due. In any case, there
is no contactwith the specificsof the MT in eitherregard.
Second, Mark shows no knowledgeof what is unique to the MT's
presentationof the preparationof the land, namely,the two initial
verbsof digging(pr:5) and clearingthe land of stones(IpO?). On the
otherhand, his referenceto the buildingof a palisade (Kai 7iepitOlcK v
(ppaypygq) reflects a specificallySeptuagintal addition to the MT and
mirrorsthe Egyptianviticulturalpractice that influencedthe LXX
translators.3The factthatthe MT has mesukkah in v. 5 does not help
an attemptto deriveMark fromthe MT, since Mark stillreflectsthe
LXX's choice to render mesukkdh, probably a hedge of thorns,as
(ppayc6;, a wooden or stone fence. Dependence on the LXX is here
a virtualcertainty.
It is truethatMark has effected some alterationsto clause and word
order:he combinedthe initialstatementof ownership(LXX: aiCuekXOv
yEv1i&r TXoi'ya7lF?vp) withthementionof theplantingof thevines/vine-
yard (LXX: Kaile(pUT?oa a`gineXov ocoprX)intoa singleclause (a`gce3&va
&v0pcorno;t(pTceuoev),and invertedthe order of the building of the
towerand the diggingof the vat. Moreover,in the finalthreeclauses,
he standardizedword order: where the LXX has (ppayogv 7neptE01rca,

62 See
POxy IV 707 (Oxyrhynchus;135 C.E.) for an account of legal proceedings
in regard to vineyardthat was neglectedby its formertenants.
63
M. Miller("Scriptureand Parable: A Studyof the Functionof the BiblicalFeatures
in the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen and their place in the historyof the
Tradition" [Ph.D. diss., Columbia University,1974] 62) suggeststhat the LXX's Kai
XapaKo)oa "may simplyhave been feltto be redundant."
156 JOHN S. KLOPPENBORG VERBIN

(cKo86OgloacaTpyov and 7ipoXIdvtovpipua, Mark consistentlyplaces the

verb first.It should be noted,however,that Mark is no closer to the
MT in thisrespect,whichlacks entirelythe enclosingof the plot with
a palisade and like the LXX has the object-verborder in the clause
concerningthe diggingof a vat (1'ln3''~D'-). Neitherthe LXX nor
Mark has any equivalentto the emphaticgamof the MT.
Finally,Mark agreeswiththe LXX in usinga more particularterm
in connectionwiththe excavationof the vat. As suggestedabove, the
MT's "he hewed out a yeqeb" treats the excavation of a vat as a
metonymy forthe buildingthe entirepressinginstallation.The LXX's
phrase is also metonymic, but ratherthan adoptingthe customaryren-
deringofyeqebas ;rjv6;, the LXX translatorsinterpreted it as a par-
ticularvat in the press,the nipoXrivtov. As also noted,the LXX's word
is unattesteduntilthe fourthcenturyC.E. and even then it appears
only in commentarieson Isa 5:2 LXX ratherthan in more general
discussionsof pressinginstallations. Mark's choice of ntioXiovtov
appears
simply to be the substitution of a more common term for vat and
anotherSeptuagintalism used to renderyeqeb.64
The combinationof Septuagintalisms thatappear in Mark 12:1 and
the lack of agreementwithany of the particularsof the MT make the
conclusionhighlyprobable that Mark depends on the LXX. Some
resistthisconclusion.In defendinga case that the parable is authen-
tic and that the Isaianic allusions are original,Gundry assertsthat
Mark's n7oXrivtov is closerto the MT thanthe LXX's n7poX,lvtov, argu-
ing that the latter is ambiguous(presumably, likeyeqeb/Xvo6S).65 it
But
is hardlyambiguous:7poXkiviov with opv4a must referto a vat, even
if 1cpoflviov is otherwiseunattestedin Greek literatureof the period.
The prefixn7po- suggeststhatit is a collectingvat in frontof the press.
Mark's i7no)rivtov, moreover,is dependenton a specifically Septuagintal
renderingofyeqeb.In the end, Gundryseems to agree: "in its text-
formthis quotationis primarilySeptuagintal."66
Aus strainsto avoid the conclusionthatMark dependson the LXX.67
He makes fourpoints. Firsthe stressesthat the use of thirdperson
singularverbs in Mark 12:1 are closer to the MT than to the LXX.

64 Above, n. 43. For other uses of ib)oX,/viov see Julius Pollux, Onomasticon
10.130;
POxyXIV 1735 (IV C.E.).
65
R.H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew'sGospel:WithSpecial
to theMessianicHope (NovTSup 18; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1967) 44.
Reference
66 44.
Gundry,The Use oftheOld Testament,
Aus, The WickedTenantsand Gethsemane (n. 4), 4-6.
67
 THE CITATION OF ISA 5:I-7 IN MARK 12:1-9 157

This is technicallycorrect(thoughthe LXX's TO ilyanrg{rvq) in v. lb

betrays a thirdperson) but a
hardly convincingpoint,given the MT's
constantshiftsfromthe first(v. la) to the third(w. lb-2) to the first
(w. 3-6) to the thirdperson(v. 7). And at 12:9, Mark is just as distant
fromthe LXX as fromthe MT; while theyuse the firstperson,Mark
has the third.If Mark displayeda complexitysimilarto that of the
MT, thatmightevidencethe influenceof the MT; but he does not.
His second pointis builton an elaborateconjecture:first,thatJesus
borrowedgaderfromIsa 5:5 and used this to "paraphrase" Isaiah's
1,lnp'1 7pTriW'1;then a "HellenisticJewishChristian"translatedgader
with 7n?pte91CKev(ppayg,6o,employinga phrase of the LXX. But one
hardlyneeds so elaborateand hypothetical a solutionwhen the LXX
itselfaccountsforboth Mark's verb and his substantive.
Aus's thirdpoint is that i)rcojilvtov in Mark demonstratesMark's
independenceof the LXX.68 There is a subtlenonsequitur here: Mark's
independence of the LXX indicates dependence on the MT. But this
is preciselywhat Aus failsto show-that Mark is dependent on the MT,
whichclearlyhe is not.As notedabove, btcoXl'vtov is itselfSeptuagintal.
The finalpointconcernsMark 12:9/Isa5:4-5. Aus notesthatwhereas
Mark and the LXX use the future,the MT puts the speaker'sques-
tion in the present ('': lD nlL7L-rl0). But, he argues, the MT
intendedthe future.It is difficultto see how thisamountsto a compell-
ing argumentfor Mark's use of the Hebrew versionover the Greek,
since whateverthe MT's intent,Mark agrees with the futureof the
LXX, both in 5:4 and in 5:5. Aus claims,further, thatthe use of X;L;
("to be destroyed")in 5:5 may have influencedMark's ano2kaEtin
12:9. This, however,is an argumentthatworksonlyin English: l1;L3
(or the idiom )1325 'pM,to be [destined]for destruction)is nowhere
renderedby &tcoXiWvat. Thus Aus's conjecturesappear to be baseless.
Despite his specialpleadings,the LXX is closerto Mark than the MT.
Weren makes threepoints:69that Mark agrees with the thirdper-
son verbs of the MT ratherthan the LXX, the point already made
by Aus.70Second, Weren makes much of the fact that Mark inverts
the word order of the LXX (above, p. 155). But this,like Aus's third
point,is a nonsequitur: deviationfromthe LXX does not amount to
an argumentforthe influenceof the MT. This is especiallythe case,

68
Similarly,Evans, "God's Vineyardand its Caretakers"(n. 4), 401 n. 42; Weren,
"The Use of Isa 5,1-7" (n. 4), 9.
69
Weren, "The use of Isa 5,1-7," 9-12.
71
Similarly,Evans, "God's Vineyard and its Caretakers,"401 n. 42.
158 JOHN S. KLOPPENBORG VERBIN

since the MT lacks an equivalentforteptiericeKv Mark departs

ppaygL6v;
fromthe object-verborder of the MT = LXX in the case of the
phrase concerningthe excavationof the vine vat, and the verb-object
orderin the phraseconcerningthe plantingof the vineyard;and Mark
agreeswiththe LXX andthe MT in the phrase concerningthe tower.
There are no agreementswith the MT againstthe LXX.
Finally,Weren suggeststhat Mark agrees with "some nuances in
the Hebrew textwhich are absent in the LXX": 'I will make it [the
vineyard]a waste' and 'bloodshed"' as well as the questionof Mark
12:9.71As I have already argued, the finalpoint about the question
of Mark 12:9 is vacuous, since Mark agrees with the futureof the
LXX. The conjecturethatfln mln'ltw is reflectedin Mark's drtoAtXvoct
faresno betterthanAus's suggestionconcerning'1'LM: sincethe mean-
ing of ln' in v. 6 can onlybe guessedat,72it is baselessto claim that
Mark here stands closer to the MT. The same goes for the hapaxle-
gomenon mispah,which perhaps means "bloodshed."73Obviously,the
killing the son in Mark is a case of bloodshed.But Mark does not
of
use the terma[La (blood), the usual term associatedwith bloodshed
in the Bible.74It is hard to see, then,how Mark's storyis closer to
the MT thanthe LXX, whichuses termsno less appropriateto Mark's
story-but termsalso not actuallyattestedin the story-, avotLia (law-
lessness)and Kpa-yol(outcry).
For his part, Snodgrassconcedes the similaritiesof Mark 12:1 to
the LXX, but triesto mitigatetheirforcewiththe claim: "that some
LXX wordingwas used is no proofat all [of the secondarynatureof
the quotation]since thismay reflectonly an assimilationto the LXX
in eitherthe oral or writtenperiod."75Secondaryassimilationof a quo-
tationto the LXX is, of course,a possibility.But in order to render

71
Weren, "The use of Isa 5,1-7," 11. Similarly,Evans, "God's Vineyard and its
Caretakers,"401 n. 42.
72 See
above, n. 52.
73 See above, n. 21.
74 In the more obvious
phrases having to do with bloodshed, the LXX regularly
rendersthem with alta: e.g., Isa 1:15: 1IDr DB'rI 1D'', LXX: ai yap Xe1ip giCov
a'uzXro 7nXipe?t;;4:4: nI'T D't1nl' 'rn-nI1; LXX: Kaitb
o ala 26:21:,nS[l
cKKacappt?i;
,''-nML rl"Xn;LXX: KaiavacKaXWet ?, Ty'raTc aa'Tix,;.
75 Snodgrass,The Parableof theWickedTenants(n. 4), 47. Compare Schmeller,"Der
Erbe des Weinbergs"(n. 4), 194: "Sowohl am Anfangwie am Ende des Gleichnisses
findensich deutlicheBezugnahmenaufJes. 5. An beiden Stellen begegnenAnklange
an LXX, die auf eine sekundareBearbeitungschlieBenlassen.An beiden Stellenbegeg-
nen aber auch gewisseAnklangean MT, die zeigen,daB Bezuge aufJes 5 wohl schon
zum urspriinglichen Gleichnisgehortenund sekundarverstarkt wurden."
 THE CITATION OF ISA 5:1-7 IN MARK 12:1-9 159

likelythe possibilityof assimilation,one should be able to appeal to

at least someelementsin the textthat are unassimilated,i.e., elements
whichagree withthe MT againstthe LXX or whichare closerto the
MT or some textualdevelopmentof the MT. The difficulty withthe
of
arguments Snodgrass and Weren is that Mark fails to agree with
the MT againstthe LXX at anypoint.There is thenlittlebasis forthe
conclusionthat the Isaian allusionsexistedin a putativepre-Markan
Aramaic or Hebrew versionof the parable.

To conclude. A carefulcomparisonof the MT of Isa 5:1-7 with the

versionin the LXX showsthatthe LXX has reconceivedthe scenario
of Isaiah's vineyardin various ways. For the LXX the vineyardwas
not created fromvirginsoil but probablytransformed fromexisting
agricultural the intensiveagricultural
land, reflecting exploitationof the
Ptolemaicperiod.Correspondingly, thefateof thevineyardis to become
x?po(;, unproductiveagricultural land. For the LXX, the failureof
the land has not so much to do with the initialplantinggoing bad
but withthe infiltration of the vineyardby weeds and thorns.This in
turnpointsto neglectby its caretakers.Hence, the LXX has modified
the discourseof theMT, forwhichthevineyardis Israel andJudah;the
LXX implicitly distinguishesthe vineyardfromits caretakers.Finally,
the LXX has introducedterminology thatreflectsdistinctivelyEgyptian
viticulturalpractices:the building of a (ppayj,goand the stakingof the
plot as initialtasks,and the use of such technicaltermsas veq0pT0og
and Xypooq.
In comparingMark with the two versionsof Isaiah, what is clear
is thatMark agreeswiththe LXX againstin the MT, both in the use
of (ppayg,oand in locating(implicitly or explicitly)the failureof the
vineyardin the activityor inactivity of its caretakers.Moreover,Mark
and the LXX lack any indicationthat the vineyardsin questionsare
newlybrokenplots; that is, theyreflectPtolemaicand post-Ptolemaic
agricultural patternsratherthan those of eighth-century B.C.E. Judah
assumed by the MT. In brief,Mark agrees withthe LXX, but never
with the MT againstthe LXX. If one adopts the reasonable supposi-
tion thatthe historical Jesusspoke mainlyin Aramaic or Hebrew and
f the parable is authentic,it seems doubtfulthat the originalparable
made an explicitallusion to Isaiah 5. The allusionsnow in the text
of Mark are purelySeptuagintal.