242 Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer we would not have satisfactory evidence for a clerical context, but taking the terms together, we are probably dealing with priestly language. Smith highlights yet another potential difficulty with the identification of the target audience of 65,5 with the priesthood. He states that while he is open to the possibility that priests participated in “syncretistic cults”, “it is most unlikely that the references are only to priests” since 65,1-2 appear to address the whole people (22). Smith’s critique is justified. The occurrence of the determinations µ[/ ywg in vv. 1-3 seems to indicate that the whole people, rather than a limited fraction thereof, is accused. I suggest, however, that a solution may be found in the absence of a definite article or a possessive pronoun. The people referred to are called ymçb arqAal ywg and rrws µ[, i.e. “a nation who does not call upon God’s name” (23) and “a rebellious people”, rather than “the nation” and “the people”. Thus, there is no reason why these persons should constitute the whole nation. Instead, a smaller group of people may be intended, labelled “rebellious people” (24). Concerning the case of µ[h in 65,3, I propose that in the light of the specification by the following plural participles, µ[h should be understood as “the persons” rather than “the (national) people”. In view of this, there is no reason to reject the identification of the target audience in 65,5 due to the use of the determinations µ[/ ywg in the preceding vv. 1-3. 3. Sitz-im-Leben of Isa 65,5 Having concluded on the one hand that a priestly identity of the person speaking in v. 5 is supported by both content and the clerical vocabulary of his speech, and on the other hand that there is no inherent problem with such an identification in view of 65,3-4, we shall now turn to the matter of the Sitz-im- Leben of Isa 65,5. Treating the priest’s saying as a direct quote, addressing a man in second person singular, it is natural to assume that the latter is the author himself. As such, the priest’s language may be considered a taunt at the prophet who claims that only he and his followers are the true servants of God (65,9) and the ones who will inherit His holy mountain (57,13), i.e. the temple. The priest asks him to ˚yla brq, indicating that the only place where the author can draw near to is himself rather than to God’s altar. Furthermore, instead of approaching the altar, the prophet is not even allowed to approach the priests (ybAçgtAla). Lastly, in response to a hypothetical claim of equal or even surpassing holiness, the priest answers ˚ytçdq yk, i.e, “I am holier than you”. 4. The haughtiness of holiness The two expressions “ybAçgtAla” and “˚yla brq ” in 65,5 are often understood in one of two ways. (22) SMITH, Rhetoric, 137. (23) Repointing the attested inner passive Qal arq to a perfect or an active participle Paal. This change is supported by the LXX (oi{ ouk ejkavlesan) and by the Vulgate (quae j non invocabat). (24) Similarly, I suggest that the word ywg in Isa 58,2 refers only to those speaking in 58,3 rather than to the whole people, in contrast to the references to ym[ and bq[y tyb in 58,1, which, due to the possessive pronoun and the specific bq[y tyb, refer to the whole nation.