01_van Wieringen_481-497_481-497 10/12/15 10:10 Pagina 493 493 THE “I”-FIGURE’S RELATIONS IN THE POEM IN ISA 38,10-20 493 During his first ascent to the temple, Hezekiah does not pray him- self, but he asks Isaiah to do so; on the other hand, during his se- cond ascent, it is Hezekiah himself who prays. Whereas the length of the Assyrian defamatory tone decreases, the length of the answer to the prayer through the prophet Isaiah increases. In the second stage, this answer (twa in 37,30) is even accompanied by a sign. Whereas, at the end of the first stage, only a rumour occurs 28, in- deed provoking a reaction from Assur but not resulting in any deliv- erance for Jerusalem, the definitive deliverance from Assur takes place in the second stage at the end of the narration in Isaiah 36–37: the army is destroyed by the messenger of the Lord (vv. 36-37); and fur- ther, not without humour noir 29, the Assyrian King is killed by his own sons in the Assyrian temple of the idol Nisroch (v. 38). Whereas King Hezekiah’s contact with God results in deliverance and life, the King of Assur’s contact with his idol results in violence and death. This narrative structure serves to prepare for both the ellipsis between vv. 14 and 15 in the poem, and for the open ending of the narrative of chapter 38. The ellipsis involves the “direct” contact between the Lord and Hezekiah: the answer to Hezekiah’s prayer is present in the text without being narrated. Similarly, no direct contact is ever narrated in Isaiah 36–37. Even in the second stage, the contact between Hezekiah and the Lord is not “direct” but rather mediated by the prophet Isaiah. In this way, the mediated contact in the second stage and the direct contact in the poem via the ellipsis are parallel. The open ending of chapter 38 is easily solved, based upon the (double) happy end at the narrative conclusion of chapter 37, and based on Hezekiah’s two ascents up to the temple. An ascent up to the temple, as suggested in the form of a question at the end of chapter 38, should be able to be realized. Nevertheless, this ascent the older commentaries seem to notice the difference between these preposi- tions; see e.g. J.A. ALEXANDER, Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah (New York 1846-1847, 21874-1875, [reprint: Grand Rapids, MI 1976]) 48. 28 See also M. AVAUX, “La Mention de Taharqa en 2 Rois 19,9 ≈ Is 37,9”, AIPh 20 (1968-72) 31-43, here 39-40. 29 This black humour is already present in Isa 37,18 in the expression ~cra-taw (“and their own land”) as object along with all the lands that have been defeated by Assur, which means that Assur is destroying all lands, in- cluding its own land; cf. WILDBERGER, Jesaja, 1427.