Text-critical breakdown of Isaiah, anyone?

Does anyone know of a clear and concise breakdown of the various reasons that are imagined proposed for why Isaiah is supposed to be written by three different (at minimum) authors? Book, article, whatever...just want it to be clear and concise. I'm thinking that the reasons for this notion have to be more substantial than those outlined in the Wikipedia article "Book of Isaiah". Those "reasons" are so brittle that a polite sneeze would fracture the whole edifice into dust.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Unix

Not cheap, but for text-critical issues for the most part of Is I use Continental Commentary by Wildberger: http://www.logos.com/products/search?q=continental+wildberger+isaiah
... (the set, bundled with Hermeneia, is on a sale with a coupon code). (Among the technical commentaries, I also have ICC Isaiah 40-55 volume 2 as printed matter and it's very good, but I haven't given much thought into whether it's the best for text-critical issues as I focused on different things when I read about the fourth servant song in it.)

David Paul

Unix, thanks for the suggestion, but that is really more pick-axeing than I want to engage in. I have plenty of Isaiah commentaries which might address this issue, but I am really hoping someone might know of a good single source that focuses on and sums up this topic.

With better than 80 views and no responses, I wonder...is it because you folks don't care that Isiaiah is Proto'ed, Deutero'ed, and Trito'ed by nearly all Bible scholars? Is this because you deny the idea, or because you don't want to think about it?

I've heard the mantra of "nearly all modern scholars now admit that there were (usually) three different authors of the book of Isaiah" for many years now, but I've never found a clear presentation that lines up the supporting evidence in a clear and coherent fashion.

The problem with these 4 reasons as presented on Wikipedia is that they are not four separate kinds of evidence, they are really just one, because once one of these issues changes (prophecy), it is inevitable that the others will follow suit. Of course, it is the denial of the plausibility of prophecy that creates a veil obscuring that fact.

Has no one else addressed or confronted this issue in their studies?

Graham Criddle

Hi David

I haven't looked at this in detail but have just found that there is quite an extensive article on this in "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction" - logosres:sotintro;ref=Page.p_365;off=2083

It could be a good starting point - assuming you have this resource.

Graham

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513723#Comment_513723

Thanks, Graham. [Y]

I do have it, and I appreciate your input. I'll take a look at it.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513721#Comment_513721

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/isaiah.html

http://www.cresourcei.org/isaiahunity.html

http://www.venntheology.com/2011/old-testament-201-an-introduction-to-isaiah

etc.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513725#Comment_513725

Thank you, MJ. [:)]

Rosie Perera

The Lexham Bible Dictionary is a good starting point. Here's its synopsis of Authorship of the Book of Isaiah.

One of the main authors it discusses who argues for the multi-author view is:

Brueggemann, Walter. “Unity and Dynamic in the Isaiah Tradition.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 29 (1984): 89–107.

That is not available in Logos but I looked it up in Sage Journals Online Archive, and it does look like a useful article for answering your questions.

Good luck. I don't think you'll find him very convincing. The Lexham Bible Dictionary editors marshal plenty of other authors to support the unity view.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513729#Comment_513729

Thanks.

I don't think you'll find him very convincing. The Lexham Bible Dictionary editors marshal plenty of other authors to support the unity view.

Which begs the question of why so many people so often say that "nearly all" bible scholars accept the multiple author theory. I am really beginning to conclude that people say and write that statement only because they have heard or read that howler of a statement somewhere else. It truly seems to be a case of "if you say it long enough people will believe it's true". [Have they started teaching Mein Kampf in seminary??] I have never accepted the multiple author idea (though I don't insist it is impossible in principle) primarily because I have never sensed any difference of voice in my own reading. In fact, just the opposite...I hear one voice.

But this unceasing din of "it's practically unanimous!" regarding the three supposed authors keeps forcing me to assume they have to have SOMETHING besides the old, tired canard of "predictive-prophecy-just-can't-be!" But, from what I can tell, that's pretty much the issue. And the counter-evidence, internally and externally, against this scrawny little argument is so vast and deep, I find it astonishing that anyone who cares about their reputation would want to be stuck holding this particular poop bag.

Of course, the same issue comes up with Daniel. It's too predictive for scholarly comfort, so it must be much later than the Bible asserts. In fact, the ink on the autograph was still drying out just last week, don't ya know? Problem is, when Alexander entered Jerusalem, I tend to think the reason he spared the city was because he was actually shown a scroll that predicted his ascendancy...not that he was given some vague assurance that he would be included in a future prophetic summary of Judea's fate, "just as soon as we figure out who this iron kingdom and last beast is supposed to be. It shouldn't take more than 150 years, 250 years tops--we promise!"

Unanimous indeed.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513729#Comment_513729

support the unity view.

Unity of text / redaction is a separate issue from "unity" of authorship. Conflating them makes no argument sensible let alone convincing[;)]

Mark Barnes

This paragraph from The Message of the Prophets may help explain why you don't find the three authors view compelling:

Recently, mainstream nonevangelical Old Testament scholarship has revised its view of Isaiah significantly. Literary studies on the book of Isaiah over the last twenty years have pointed out that not only are there numerous literary themes connecting the entire book together, but the actual literary structure of the book argues for unity. At the same time, the canonical approach was also gaining in popularity among Old Testament scholars, an approach that acknowledged development in the books of the Bible but nonetheless advocated studying the final form of the text for theological meaning. Thus, by the end of the twentieth century, the standard “Three-Isaiah” view had largely been abandoned (or at least revised significantly) by most nonevangelical Old Testament scholars, especially those who specialized in the Prophets. Replacing it was the view that the book of Isaiah had developed over four centuries in numerous small stages, constantly being edited and integrated into a coherent literary unity. Sweeney, for example, writes, “Although chs. 1–39 clearly portray an 8th century historical setting much earlier than that of chs. 40–55 or 56–66, there is no evidence that chs. 1–39 ever constituted a distinct prophetic book separate from their present literary context in the book of Isaiah. Literary, exegetical, and thematic links between the various parts of the book demonstrate that, although Isaiah was composed over the course of some four centuries, it now constitutes a single literary entity.”1 This view is finding wide acceptance among nonevangelical Old Testament scholarship.

This more nuanced view can be found in Sweeney (non-evangelical), and McConville (who's an evangelical).

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513756#Comment_513756

This paragraph from The Message of the Prophets may help explain why you don't find the three authors view compelling:

Literary, exegetical, and thematic links between the various parts of the book demonstrate that, although Isaiah was composed over the course of some four centuries, it now constitutes a single literary entity.”1 This view is finding wide acceptance among nonevangelical Old Testament scholarship.

This more nuanced view can be found in Sweeney (non-evangelical), and McConville (who's an evangelical).

Hmmmm. Well, Mein Kampf might be getting plenty of "face time" in seminaries these days, but it's rather obvious that most Bible scholars have never experienced a close shave with Occam's Razor. The shenanigans, acrobatics, and hoop-jumping they engage in, and foist upon others, is comical.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513758#Comment_513758

Well, absent the comical scholars, if you simply ran Isaiah through a decent pattern matching process, and then a standard visialization, the difference is pretty obvious, whether vocabulary, or syntax patterns.

Deuteronomy is very similar to Isaiah-1 along with Amos. Isaiah-2 doesn't have a good match to later writings; it's simply differerent. When Isaiah-1 and Isaiah-2 are mapped on a time-scale of syntax shifts, they differ by about 40 years (well within a single generation).

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513826#Comment_513826

I'm not sure if Isaiah was the prophet with the longest running career in the Bible, but he is definitely in the running (with Daniel, perhaps?). He lasted through three kings over many decades. That fact, coupled with the simple fact that decades could have passed from the penning of the first chapter to the penning of the 66th (I realize he didn't create chapters) means it could have been almost half a century in the making.

Just a word about literary analysis. If I gave a collection of 300 poems to 300 literary analysis wizards and asked them to separate the works by author, I bet that NONE of them would get it right...not even close. I would love to see a study done on the effectiveness of such methods using modern writers and their works. I imagine the confidence in such methods would sink like a stone.

Well, absent the comical scholars, if you simply ran Isaiah through a decent pattern matching process, and then a standard visialization, the difference is pretty obvious, whether vocabulary, or syntax patterns.

I would love to see that kind of breakdown. That is the sort of thing you hear a lot about but rarely encounter...like bigfoot.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513950#Comment_513950

Everyone would love to see, but few put in the years. Much easier to be comical.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513950#Comment_513950

I would love to see that kind of breakdown. That is the sort of thing you hear a lot about but rarely encounter...like bigfoot.

It is very easy to pick up the software necessary to provide the raw data. Your chances of encountering it depends upon the company you keep.