Dating Deutero-Isaiah

[Doctor Steuss]

John Riches in his Oxford â??A Very Short Introductionâ? edition on the Bible (many thanks to LOAP for the introduction to this book series) while talking about how the books of the Bible were initially transmitted orally, and only later committed to written form states (emphasis mine):

Between the initial oracles, their subsequent writing down, their collection together with other similar material, and their eventual publication in the form of a prophetic book, a period of several centuries may have elapsed, as in the case of the book of Isaiah.

John Riches, The Bible: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press (Oxford, NY: 2000), pg. 12

What is the plausibility that the elements that date The Book of Comfort to approximately 545 BCE (as well as the Trito-IS aspects â?? approx. 500 BCE) were interpolations to the circa 700 BCE oral tradition, and that Isaiah as a whole is the result of a single orator with scribal additions to the secondary book(s)? Essentially, are the anachronisms the only aspect that causes the later dating, or is the overall â??voiceâ? sufficiently different as to indicate a different author/orator?

Or have I misread Riches completely (i.e., is he merely stating that the collection and publication of the prophetic book as well as the oracles that comprise Isaiah, spanned several centuries)?

[Edited to increase legnth of run-on sentences]

[structurecop]

What is the plausibility that the elements that date The Book of Comfort to approximately 545 BCE (as well as the Trito-IS aspects â?? approx. 500 BCE) were interpolations to the circa 700 BCE oral tradition, and that Isaiah as a whole is the result of a single orator with scribal additions to the secondary book(s)? Essentially, are the anachronisms the only aspect that causes the later dating, or is the overall â??voiceâ? sufficiently different as to indicate a different author/orator?

Or have I misread Riches completely (i.e., is he merely stating that the collection and publication of a prophetic book as well as the oracles that comprise Isaiah, spanned several centuries)?

I might not be answering the question you are asking, but thematically and vocabulary-wise Isaiah forms three cogent sections (as you reference Trito-IS). It doesn't seem like the sections with anachronisms are "broken into," like a significant shift in tone or vocabulary, like one would expect of those parts are merely interpolations. I would give you specific examples, but I don't have the materials with me. I could send you scans of the ABD article, tonight, if you like.

[phaedrus ut]

Second Isaiah knows about the collapse of Babylon, the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, and the rise of Cyrus the Persian leader. The distinction is made based on historical, thematic, and linguistic differences. For example, Deutero Isaiah uses a exilic vocabulary that no longer speaks of god's coming judgment but rather restoration and mercy as if the exile had already happened. The mood and writing style also change dramatically at Chapter 40 plus the name Isaiah suddenly stops being used at the same point.

Any good scholarly treatment of Isaiah should break down the details.

Marc Schindler wrote a FAIR article on the subject. He quotes the Anchor Bible Isaiah volume:

The distinction between First Isaiah and Second Isaiah is so widely accepted in modern scholarship that the argument against it need not be examined at length. The distinction between Second Isaiah and Third Isaiah is almost as widely accepted

Phaedrus

[Doctor Steuss]

I might not be answering the question you are asking, but thematically and vocabulary-wise Isaiah forms three cogent sections (as you reference Trito-IS). It doesn't seem like the sections with anachronisms are "broken into," like a significant shift in tone or vocabulary, like one would expect of those parts are merely interpolations. I would give you specific examples, but I don't have the materials with me. I could send you scans of the ABD article, tonight, if you like.

You're definitely answering the question I'm after.

So (if my reading comprehension is working todayâ?¦ damned antihistamines), the vocabulary/writing style of Proto-IS is sufficiently different from Deutero-IS (and Trito-IS) to indicate that they were done by different authors -- independent of the â??anachronismsâ??

In other words, the anachronisms are what cause the dating of PDT-IS, but the actual vocabulary/writing style/themeology/etc. is what causes the division of the books (and belief that they were done by different authors)?

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]The distinction is made based on historical, thematic, and linguistic differences. For example, Deutero Isaiah uses a exilic vocabulary that no longer speaks of god's coming judgment but rather restoration and mercy as if the exile had already happened. The mood and writing style also change dramatically at Chapter 40 plus the name Isaiah suddenly stops being used at the same point.

[...]

Thank you Phaedrus. I was wondering if it was merely the anachronistic historical aspects that were the main evidence for division of authors, or if there were literary aspects as well.

It appears that I misread Professor Richesâ?? statement.

Thanks again (and thanks be to you too, Structurecop).

-Stu

[structurecop]

In other words, the anachronisms are what cause the dating of PDT-IS, but the actual vocabulary/writing style/themeology/etc. is what causes the division of the books (and belief that they were done by different authors)?

Bingo!

[Doctor Steuss]

Bingo!

Awesome. Thanks cousin.

You're like my very own seer stone.

[structurecop]

Awesome. Thanks cousin.

You're like my very own seer stone.

Yeah, you know me, study it out in your mind then yadda yadda yadda...

[Calm]

but the actual vocabulary/writing style/themeology/etc. is what causes the division of the books (and belief that they were done by different authors)?

ARe the differences enough to rule out the same author, only older?

[William Schryver]

Of course, they're only anachronisms if you reject the possibility of their being prophecies.

I mean, Isaiah couldn't possibly have predicted Cyrus by name, right?

[Sargon]

I probably don't have anything useful to add, but I like the topic so I can't help myself.

Lord Kerry has a video in which he tosses around some ideas about an "Isaiah school" of sorts that may have retained the traditions and oral teachings of Isaiah and committed those ideas to writing sometime after the exile. This way, we have genuinely Isaianic ideas and teachings written in the personal style of another writer (a pupil). It seems Nephi would have been a member of this fanclub.

But, it's been a while since I saw that video, so I may be remembering incorrectly.

Nonetheless, it seems to me that most scholars (that I've read) take for granted the fact that there are multiple authors of Isaiah. The prophecy about Cyrus may have been the catalyst, but I wonder if it is really used as support for the idea as it once may have been. It seems other factors may be more influential than that (as structurecop and phaedrus ut have indicated).

You can hardly fault scholars for not taking prophecy into account when scientifically evaluating the bible. It isn't their job. In fact, if it truly is prophecy, it is the only one of its kind in the entire bible (that I can think of off the top of my head). I don't recall any other place in the bible where a future individual is clearly named.

Then again, I'm just a wannabe pundit!

[phaedrus ut]

Of course, they're only anachronisms if you reject the possibility of their being prophecies.

I mean, Isaiah couldn't possibly have predicted Cyrus by name, right?

Cyrus and/or the existence of prophecies has very little to do with the reason for separating chapters 40-66 from 1-39. There are many numerous reasons but here are some of the major ones.

• Deutero-Isaiah has a completely differently literary style and vocabulary.
  
• The theology in Deutero-Isaiah is very different. Isaiah writes about judgment while Deutero-Isaiah writes about salvation and a new beginning.
  
• The themes of Deutero-Isaiah are comfort and salvation under a new covenant.
  
• Deutero-Isaiah assumes that Jerusalem will fall and the people will live in exile and writes to a people in the historical setting of the Babylonian exile.
  
• Isaiah identifies the Assyrians as a threat and Babylon was viewed as a friendly nation. While Deutero-Isaiah identifies the Babylonians as the enemy.
  

Phaedrus

[David Bokovoy]

Second Isaiah knows about the collapse of Babylon, the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, and the rise of Cyrus the Persian leader. The distinction is made based on historical, thematic, and linguistic differences. For example, Deutero Isaiah uses a exilic vocabulary that no longer speaks of god's coming judgment but rather restoration and mercy as if the exile had already happened. The mood and writing style also change dramatically at Chapter 40 plus the name Isaiah suddenly stops being used at the same point.

Any good scholarly treatment of Isaiah should break down the details.

Marc Schindler wrote a FAIR article on the subject. He quotes the Anchor Bible Isaiah volume:

Phaedrus

And let us not forget that Isaiah 40 features a prophetic call narrative for the new anonymous messenger whose prophetic oracles appear attached to the pre exilic work. There would be no need for a new account of prophetic commission if the pre exilic Isaiah had received the oracles in chapters 40 and beyond. In my mind, this fact alone provides ample evidence for the existence of the prophet Deutero-Isaiah. When added to the obvious thematic and linguistic change, together with the book's anachronistic elements and historical focus, the attestation of a new exilic voice in Isaiah 40 is impossible to ignore.

[Sargon]

And let us not forget that Isaiah 40 features a prophetic call narrative for the new anonymous messenger whose prophetic oracles appear attached to the pre exilic work. There would be no need for a new account of prophetic commission if the pre exilic Isaiah had received the oracles in chapters 40 and beyond. In my mind, this fact alone provides ample evidence for the existence of the prophet Deutero-Isaiah. When added to the obvious thematic and linguistic change, together with the book's anachronistic elements and historical focus, the attestation of a new exilic voice in Isaiah 40 is impossible to ignore.

David,

Are you referring to this (NASB)?

Isa 40:1 "Comfort, O comfort My people," says your God.

Isa 40:2 "Speak kindly to Jerusalem; And call out to her, that her warfare has ended, That her iniquity has been removed, That she has received of the LORD'S hand Double for all her sins."

Isa 40:3 A voice is calling, "Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.

Isa 40:4 "Let every valley be lifted up, And every mountain and hill be made low; And let the rough ground become a plain, And the rugged terrain a broad valley;

Isa 40:5 Then the glory of the LORD will be revealed, And all flesh will see {it} together; For the mouth of the LORD has spoken."

I'm familiar with Cross's classic analysis of this passage. However, I'm unfamiliar with any ideas suggesting that it is a prophetic commission. I always thought that the responding voice in the passage was someone other than the writer of Isaiah. Can you enlighten us a bit?

Thanks.

James

[phaedrus ut]

And let us not forget that Isaiah 40 features a prophetic call narrative for the new anonymous messenger whose prophetic oracles appear attached to the pre exilic work. There would be no need for a new account of prophetic commission if the pre exilic Isaiah had received the oracles in chapters 40 and beyond. In my mind, this fact alone provides ample evidence for the existence of the prophet Deutero-Isaiah. When added to the obvious thematic and linguistic change, together with the book's anachronistic elements and historical focus, the attestation of a new exilic voice in Isaiah 40 is impossible to ignore.

I figured you'd be tempted to post on this subject. Did you ever publish your FAIR presentation on this subject? If not is it available?

Phaedrus

[Nevo]

I'm familiar with Cross's classic analysis of this passage. However, I'm unfamiliar with any ideas suggesting that it is a prophetic commission. I always thought that the responding voice in the passage was someone other than the writer of Isaiah.

Did you miss this part? (You quoted it in your blog entry.)

"In verses 6-8 an anonymous herald addresses the prophet, announcing to him his inaugural oracle, â??All flesh is grassâ?¦but the word of our God shall stand forever.â? Verse 6a is to read with the versions and the new Dead Sea Isaiah (A), â??A (herald) voice said, â??Proclaimâ??; and I said, â??What shall I proclaim?â??â? The parallel to Isa. 6:1-8 is remarkable."

Add-on: I notice that both Christopher Seitz (JBL 109/2 [1990]:229-47) and Brevard Childs (Isaiah [OTL; 2001], 295-96) reject the view that Isa 40 features a new prophetic call narrative, but they still acknowledge multiple authorship of the Book of Isaiah. For example, Seitz writes: "The vision of First Isaiah is fulfilled in the events of 587, which Isaiah saw in the days of Hezekiah. But the perspective of Isaiah 40-66 sees these events in the past: they are "former things." In sum, arguments for redactional coherence and unity in the full book of Isaiah are not arguments for single authorship by the prophet Isaiah, even in a post-critical guise" (pp. 244-45).

[William Schryver]

And let us not forget that Isaiah 40 features a prophetic call narrative for the new anonymous messenger whose prophetic oracles appear attached to the pre exilic work. There would be no need for a new account of prophetic commission if the pre exilic Isaiah had received the oracles in chapters 40 and beyond. In my mind, this fact alone provides ample evidence for the existence of the prophet Deutero-Isaiah. When added to the obvious thematic and linguistic change, together with the book's anachronistic elements and historical focus, the attestation of a new exilic voice in Isaiah 40 is impossible to ignore.

I can readily accept the notion of a prophet Deutero-Isaiah. In fact, I assume it. However, I remain unconvinced -- at present -- that he was not possibly contemporary to Nephi. I don't pretend to broad knowledge on the topic, but from my current perspective on what I have learned, this remains the question unanswered. Perhaps you can enlighten us further on that point.

[Sargon]

Did you miss this part? (You quoted it in your blog entry.)

"In verses 6-8 an anonymous herald addresses the prophet, announcing to him his inaugural oracle, â??All flesh is grassâ?¦but the word of our God shall stand forever.â? Verse 6a is to read with the versions and the new Dead Sea Isaiah (A), â??A (herald) voice said, â??Proclaimâ??; and I said, â??What shall I proclaim?â??â? The parallel to Isa. 6:1-8 is remarkable."

Add-on: I notice that both Christopher Seitz (JBL 109/2 [1990]:229-47) and Brevard Childs (Isaiah [OTL; 2001], 295-96) reject the view that Isa 40 features a new prophetic call narrative, but they still acknowledge multiple authorship of the Book of Isaiah. For example, Seitz writes: "The vision of First Isaiah is fulfilled in the events of 587, which Isaiah saw in the days of Hezekiah. But the perspective of Isaiah 40-66 sees these events in the past: they are "former things." In sum, arguments for redactional coherence and unity in the full book of Isaiah are not arguments for single authorship by the prophet Isaiah, even in a post-critical guise" (pp. 244-45).

It's been a while since I read it. I guess I should have carefully read it before I brought it up!

[David Bokovoy]

I figured you'd be tempted to post on this subject. Did you ever publish your FAIR presentation on this subject? If not is it available?

Phaedrus

No, unfortunately, right after I got home from the conference, I accidently dropped my laptop while it was running and lost my hard drive. I was never able to locate the paper on an external drive. It just so happens that today I accidently knocked the same computer off the counter and now the screen is broken in the bottom right hand corner.

If anybody has any ideas on how a longtime doctoral candidate with no practical skills whatsoever can make enough money to buy a new laptop via a knowledge of Akkadian and the attestation of Deutero-Isaiah in the BofM be sure to let me know.

[e=mc2]

No, unfortunately, right after I got home from the conference, I accidently dropped my laptop while it was running and lost my hard drive. I was never able to locate the paper on an external drive. It just so happens that today I accidently knocked the same computer off the counter and now the screen is broken in the bottom right hand corner.

If anybody has any ideas on how a longtime doctoral candidate with no practical skills whatsoever can make enough money to buy a new laptop via a knowledge of Akkadian and the attestation of Deutero-Isaiah in the BofM be sure to let me know.

Well, the first order of business is the class "Clumsiness Prevention 101."

[Zakuska]

Cyrus and/or the existence of prophecies has very little to do with the reason for separating chapters 40-66 from 1-39. There are many numerous reasons but here are some of the major ones.

• Deutero-Isaiah has a completely differently literary style and vocabulary.
  
• The theology in Deutero-Isaiah is very different. Isaiah writes about judgment while Deutero-Isaiah writes about salvation and a new beginning.
  
• The themes of Deutero-Isaiah are comfort and salvation under a new covenant.
  
• Deutero-Isaiah assumes that Jerusalem will fall and the people will live in exile and writes to a people in the historical setting of the Babylonian exile.
  
• Isaiah identifies the Assyrians as a threat and Babylon was viewed as a friendly nation. While Deutero-Isaiah identifies the Babylonians as the enemy.
  

Phaedrus

You know it seems to me this has all happend once before... You get the same kind of thing when comparing 1+2 Kings with 1 + 2 Chronicles. One of them says it was God who told Moses or Joshua or whom ever it was to number Israel... while the other says it was the Devil who made them do it.

The funny thing is its almost as if... in One writing its the People / Prophets of God... and in the other its the Anti-Hebrews who are writing the same history and attributing every thing to Satan. It reminds my of CARM. Everything a Mormons writes the Devil made him do it... Everything a Christian writes the sun is shining and everything is hunky-dori.

[David Bokovoy]

Did you miss this part? (You quoted it in your blog entry.)

"In verses 6-8 an anonymous herald addresses the prophet, announcing to him his inaugural oracle, â??All flesh is grassâ?¦but the word of our God shall stand forever.â? Verse 6a is to read with the versions and the new Dead Sea Isaiah (A), â??A (herald) voice said, â??Proclaimâ??; and I said, â??What shall I proclaim?â??â? The parallel to Isa. 6:1-8 is remarkable."

Add-on: I notice that both Christopher Seitz (JBL 109/2 [1990]:229-47) and Brevard Childs (Isaiah [OTL; 2001], 295-96) reject the view that Isa 40 features a new prophetic call narrative, but they still acknowledge multiple authorship of the Book of Isaiah. For example, Seitz writes: "The vision of First Isaiah is fulfilled in the events of 587, which Isaiah saw in the days of Hezekiah. But the perspective of Isaiah 40-66 sees these events in the past: they are "former things." In sum, arguments for redactional coherence and unity in the full book of Isaiah are not arguments for single authorship by the prophet Isaiah, even in a post-critical guise" (pp. 244-45).

I actually like Christopher Seitzâ??s ideas, though Iâ??m not fully convinced. Seitz also published a very interesting piece on the issue in 1990.

He acknowledges the fact that Isaiah 40 presents a story of prophetic commissioning in the divine council but suggests that the voice in verses 6-7 could possibly have been designed by a later author to represent the pre-exilic Isaiah of Jerusalem.

However, as I read the article, Seitz seems to maintain that most likely, the anonymous voice simply belongs to a non specified member of the divine council reflecting on the events following 587 BCE. Seitz suggests that this exilic portion of the book presents a view in which God speaks to Judah directly through the council without the need of a prophet; in â??The Divine Council: Temporal Transition and New Prophecy in the Book of Isaiah,â? JBL 109 (1990): 229-247.

Interesting ideas, but again, Iâ??m not entirely convinced.

[David Bokovoy]

I should also add here that I'm fascinated by the connections between the modern scholarly view of Isaiah 40 and Joseph Smithâ??s revelation concerning the Restoration presented in D&C 128:

"Now, what do we hear in the gospel which we have received? A voice of gladness! A voice of mercy from heaven; and a voice of truth out of the earth; glad tidings for the dead; a voice of gladness for the living and the dead; glad tidings of great joy. How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of those [plural] that bring glad tidings of good things, and that say unto Zion: Behold, thy God reigneth! As the dews of Carmel, so shall the knowledge of God descend upon them!" (D&C 128:19)

The final section of verse 19 specifically invokes Isaiah 52:7:

"How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him [singular] that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!" (Isaiah 52:7).

The repeated theme of voice that appears in both Isaiah 52 and D&C 128 derives from Isaiah 40, a chapter that marks a pivotal transitional section for the book of Isaiah:

The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness (Isaiah 40:3)

The voice said, Cry. (Isaiah 40:6)

O Zion, that bringest good tidings, get thee up into the high mountain; O Jerusalem, that bringest good

tidings, lift up thy voice with strength (Isaiah 40:9)

With its emphasis upon the word â??voice,â? together with a double reference to â??in the wilderness,â? D&C 128:20-21 specifically reflects Isaiah 40:

"And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfillment of the prophetsâ??the book to be revealed. A voice of the Lord in the wilderness of Fayetteâ?¦ The voice of Michael on the banks of the Susquehannaâ?¦ The voice of Peter, James, and John in the wildernessâ?¦ the voice of God in the chamber of old Father Whitmerâ?¦and of divers angels, from Michael or Adam down to the present time, all declaring their dispensation, their rights, their keys, their honors, their majesty and glory, and the power of their priesthoodâ?¦ giving us consolation by holding forth that which is to come, confirming our hope!" (D&C 128: 20-21).

Isaiah 40 is a very intriguing source for D&C 128 to create an intertextual link. The chapter begins with series of undefined masculine plural imperatives:

Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.

Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her (v. 1-2)

In Isaiah 40, God addresses an undefined plural audience through the dual mandate comfort/comfort and speak/cry.

Several biblical scholars have explored the possibility that Isaiah 40 features a prophetic commission in which God calls upon the members of his council to comfort, speak, and cry to Israel; see especially Frank Moore Cross, Jr., â??The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah,â? Journal of Near Eastern Studies XII (1953), 274-277; Stephen A. Geller, â??Were the Prophets Poets,â? The Place is Too Small for Us: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 154-165; and Christopher R. Steitz, â??The Divine Council: Temporal Transition and New Prophecy in the Book of Isaiah,â? Journal of Biblical Literature 109/2 (1990), 229-247.

In his analysis, former Harvard professor, Frank Moore Cross observed that Isaiah 40 reflects the prophetic commission described in Isaiah 6, an occasion in which Isaiah was â??permitted to become, in effect, a malâ???k or herald of Yahwehâ??s council and, like the supernatural herald, to mediate the divine pronouncementâ?; Cross 275.

Therefore, according to many scholarly interpreters, the command to comfort and cry is a command given by God directly to the members of his heavenly assembly. The voice that cries unto the prophet is the voice of one in the council.

Amazingly, with its textual allusions to Isaiah 40, D&C 128 appears to pick up on this subtle scholarly reading, associating the responsibility to cry and even to comfort with the members of Godâ??s heavenly assembly:

"And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfillment of the prophetsâ??the book to be revealed. A voice of the Lord in the wilderness of Fayetteâ?¦ The voice of Michael on the banks of the Susquehannaâ?¦ The voice of Peter, James, and John in the wildernessâ?¦ the voice of God in the chamber of old Father Whitmerâ?¦and of divers angels, from Michael or Adam down to the present time, all declaring their dispensation, their rights, their keys, their honors, their majesty and glory, and the power of their priesthoodâ?¦ giving us consolation by holding forth that which is to come, confirming our hope!" (D&C 128: 20-21).

As a divine council text in which God invokes the members of his heavenly assembly to â??comfortâ? Israel, the imagery in Isaiah 40 directly reflects the themes of speaking and consolation associated with the heavenly host in D&C 128: 20-21. In Joseph's revelation, Moroni speaks, the Lord speaks, Michael speaks, Peter, James, and John speak, God speaks, and divers angels from the heavenly assembly speak and give comfort/consolation through the Restoration.