“The Haughtiness of the Priesthood” (Isa 65,5) 241 such an identification. He argues that the root çgn, together with the expressions ˚yla brq and ˚ytçdq, all occurring in 65,5, are “three of the cardinal technical terms in the priestly language”. The root çgn is attested in priestly contexts in, e.g., Exod 24,2; 28,43; 30,20; Lev 21,21; Ezek 44,5, 13, 15, while the verb brq occurs in Exod 40,32; Lev 9,7-8; 21,17; 22,3; Ezek 40,46; 42,14 etc. (18). He also interprets the expression ynp l[ in Isa 65,3 as an allusion to the temple (19). Smith criticizes Hanson’s view by pointing out that the expression ynp l[ is often used as a simple preposition “before” rather than carrying any cultic overtones. Further, while accepting that the terms çgn, ˚yla brq and ˚ytçdq are examples of priestly language, he denies that they indicate “orthodox cultic activity” in the present context (20). From a different angle, Schramm uncovers Hanson’s inconsistency, in that the latter interprets v. 5 literally while viewing the accusations in vv. 3-4 metaphorically. Instead, Schramm suggests that all the verses should be taken at face value, describing the struggle in the restoration period to establish the orthodox cult of YHWH (21). I agree with Schramm that the rituals in vv. 3-4 indicate actual religious rites which at the time were practiced by people in Judah. Given this, it is possible that some of these rituals may have been part of the worship of YHWH, as understood from the worshippers’ own perspective. As such, it cannot be excluded that the priesthood in Judah participated in them. Thus, while Schramm’s critique of Hanson’s metaphorical reading of vv. 3-4 can be sustained, an identification of the speakers in v. 5 with the priests should not be ruled out. In fact, given the similarity in content between 65,3-4 and 66,3, noted above and assumed to be an obstacle in identifying the target audience of 66,3 with the priesthood, we may actually see the parallels between 65,3- 5 and 66,3 as supporting a priestly identity in both places. In other words, the people targeted in both these places are associated with holiness, either by considering themselves to be holy or by performing holy rituals. Furthermore, they are accused of being involved in non-orthodox worship of YHWH and/ or other deities. Taking these factors together, the most likely interpretation is one of shared identity. Hence, once we acknowledge the possibility that the post-exilic clergy could have been involved in less-than-orthodox rituals, we are free to draw the conclusion that most likely, both 65,3-5 and 66,3 criticize those same priests. Concerning Smith’s objections, I agree that ynp l[ is probably not an allusion to the temple. Even so, Hanson’s identification of the priestly terms çgn, brq and çdq may remain: while çgn and brq occur in several contexts other than priestly, they carry priestly connotations in many texts and the root çdq is by its very meaning part of the cultic vocabulary. Taking them separately, (18) HANSON, Dawn 147-149. His view is adopted by E. ACHTEMEIER, The Community and the Message of Isaiah 56–66. A Theological Commentary (Augsburg 1982) 123-124. For a complete list of attested examples, see HANSON, Dawn, 149. Note, however, that he interprets ˚ytçdq as a Piel, an understanding I do not share. (19) HANSON, Dawn, 147. (20) SMITH, Rhetoric, 137. (21) SCHRAMM, Opponents, 157.