340 Mark J. Boda merely a prophetic utterance (7), a view bolstered by the fact that the word n¢’ is also used without the word qôl (voice) to refer to uttering, speaking, reciting and in the Balaam texts of Num 23–24 is used to introduce the utterances of a prophet (with mπl, 23,7.18; 24,3.15.20.21.23) (8). One final view is that ma¢¢˝’is related to another Hebrew noun: ma¢¢’et which is used in Judg 20,38.40; Jer 6,1 to designate a fire or smoke signal. In this way a ma¢¢˝’ is “the signal of YHWH’s intentions received by the prophetic lookout” (9). It is obvious from the review above that there are many ways to explain the lexical origins of the prophetic use of the term ma¢¢˝’, testimony to the creativity and ingenuity of these many interpreters. However, using etymology to understand a word is a diachronic exercise, that is, reflection on the way a word developed through time. But such speculation is not always helpful for understanding the meaning of the word at the specific time, that is, its synchronic meaning. A review of the various prophetic passages in which the word ma¢¢˝’ appears establishes the following facts: The word ma¢¢˝’ does not always introduce a negative prophecy and thus should not be translated as a “burden” or “threat” (cf. Jer 23,33-38; Zech 9–10) (10). It is used in conjunction with various means and types of prophecy: a “word of the Lord” (2 Kgs 9,25; cf. 1 Kgs 21,17-19; Zech 9,1; 12,1; Mal 1,1); something “written in the annotations on the book of the kings” (2 Chr 24,27); answers to questions from people, possibly cult prophecy (Jer 23,33-38); something associated with, possibly juxtaposed to “vision of your prophets” (Lam 2,14); a prophetic sign act (Ezek 12,10; cf. 12,1-16); something which Isaiah “saw” (Isa 13,1; cf. 1,1; 2,1, “vision”); a vision (Isa 21,1-2); the book of vision (Nah 1,1). These observations have led some to a different type of analysis of (7) E.g., M. TSEVAT, “Alalakhiana”, HUCA 29 (1958) 119; R.E. CLEMENTS, Isaiah 1–39 (NCB; Grand Rapids 1980) 132. (8) See H. WILDBERGER, Isaiah 13–27 (Continental commentaries; Minneapolis 1997); also M.A. SWEENEY, The Twelve Prophets (Berit Olam; Collegeville 2000) 423. (9) So WEIS, “Definition”, 353-355, who says of this view in relation to other views: “mild preference at best”. (10) Contra then B.B. MARGULIS, “Studies in the Oracles against the Nations” (Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University 1967) 202, 212 who states: “it would appear that ma¢¢˝’ is the only prophetic term which is, by definition and without further qualification, an oracle of doom” and further “its meaning as a ‘prophetic oracle’ — especially an ‘oracle of doom’ — is beyond dispute and controversy”.