Loading...Divisions of the Book of Isaiah
Before using the book of Isaiah to explain the kinds of things the Hebrew prophets generally proclaimed, I need to say something about the peculiarity of this long, 66-chapter writing in particular.
A number of the books of the Bible appear to have been edited by later redactors — for example, by someone who added a conclusion in light of the new situation in which he was living. In the case of Isaiah, however, we are dealing with a situation that is far, far more extreme. For well over a century scholars have recognized that major portions of the book do not actually derive from Isaiah of Jerusalem. The evidence is that a number of passages do not fit into Isaiah’s own historical context.
Evidence of Multiple Authors
Most of the first 39 chapters of Isaiah clearly date to the ministry of Isaiah of Jerusalem in the eighth century b.c.e. This is obviously true of the very end of the section, written when Hezekiah was king of Judah and was feeling threatened by envoys who had been sent to him from the surging power of Babylon. Isaiah tells Hezekiah that it is true that in the future, the Babylonians will indeed wreak havoc in Judah—but it will not be in Hezekiah’s own time (39:5–8). Immediately after this declaration, rather than continuing with a proclamation of eventual doom, the text shifts drastically in an effort to comfort the people of Judah who have now already suffered for the sins they have committed. This portion of the book appears to have been written
This is one of those fundamental discoveries of biblical scholarship that most people have never heard of. Want to learn more? Join the blog! It’s easy and inexpensive, and every bit of all the membership fees go straight to charity. Click here for membership options
Looking across all the prophets, minor and major, does it appear that any of them were aware of the works of their predecessors? Not just general themes and approaches, but specific passages.
YEs, in some places, but not many. DAniel, for example, knows Jeremiah (See DAniel 9:2)
What was the goal of combining these later writings with the original prophecies of Isaiah? Was the redactor simply trying to lend credibility to them by associating them with an older, recognized prophet?
That’s one of the theories. Another is that he saw a string of related writings that altogether presented a full and intriguing picture. I suppose one could come up with other options.
Great post as always, Bart, and on a Sunday morning none the less. I know you’re not at church but maybe next week you could sleep in and have some mimosas with Sarah or something so I don’t feel so lazy.
Ah, two of my favorite activities.
I’m no scholar but when reading Isaiah I recognized the obvious change from chapter 39 to 40. The transition from 55 to 56 is not so obvious, though.
I agree. But when you get into 56-66, it becomes increasingly clear.
I have previously considered two authors, groups, perhaps Isaiah before exile 1-39, and some after exile 40-66.
Could I ask you, from a scientific point of view, what is the material difference between verses 40-55 and 56-66 next to the shift in the narrative which makes the scholar to suspect that it is by 2 (group of ?) authors?
It has to do with what has happened and is expected to happen to the community. IN 40-55 a prophet is encouraging the exiles that they will soon be allowed to return to their homeland; 56-66 presuppose that they have returned (in 539 BCE) and are not living the way a (later) prophet thinks they should; he is exroting them to behave properly.
Thank you!
In any case, it is exciting and challenging to understand the process that led to the religious scholars of that time allowing the additions in the schriptures of the supposedly highly regarded prophet at that time. As far as I have understood the jewish religious community and how thay handled their scriptures, it would probably not have been an easy task to make changes/ great additions to the original text of a higly recognized prophet at that time.
It would have been very interesting to know what went through the minds of those who allowed such things.
Isaiah 40 was my Haftarah or “reading” for my bar mitzvah.
Reading it here in English was a first for me.
I hold these passages dear to my heart, even as secular man. They comfort me
Reading through the long stretches of highly accomplished poetry in the first section of Isaiah I wonder how likely it was that any of this was first delivered orally? (I’m reacting to the view of the prophets as essentially preachers whose oral pronouncements were subsequently written down.) Isn’t it likely that the poetry was composed and delivered to its audience in written form perhaps to then be read aloud in some forum?
Great question. I don’t know how we would be able to tell.
Does Isaiah 65:17-25 refer to the “messianic kingdom”, or that which is to come upon the advent of the messiah?
It certainly seems to describe a utopian world to come that a later apocalypticist would completely resonate with. But it doesn’t appear to envision a messiah figure; God appears to be doing this directly himself. There will be peace and armony all around, without a ruling figure.
Quite a bit of the last few chapters of “1st Isaiah” (ch’s 37-39) contain identical material as 2 Kings 18-20. Isaiah 39 seems to (miraculously?) predict the Babylonian exile… But because this chapter is identical to 2 Kings 20:12ff, should we suspect that someone copied material from 2 Kings, and added them much later? Or is there reason to think that 2 Kings borrowed material from Isaiah?
Since 2 Kings was written after the fall of Judea to Babylon, I believe it is usually thought that its author picked up the story from Isaiah.
In addition to being set in the sixth Century BC or later… 2nd and 3rd Isaiah contain certain passages that don’t make sense if written in the 8th Century BC. For example, Isaiah 56:8 states that God will gather more exiles, to those who have already been gathered. Because there was no regathering in the eighth century BC, this passage only makes sense after 539 BC. the start of the Babylonian regathering. Is that a legitimate argument for multiple authorship?
Yup!!
This is a tangential point, but I thought that in Hezekiah’s day the threat came from the Assyrians, not the Babylonians. Do you think the redactor may have put in references to the Babylonians because they were the threat he would have been familiar with in his own day? Or am I overthinking this–did Isaiah maybe just call them all Babylonians since the Assyrians were in charge of Babylonia anyway?
THat’s right — up to the end, when the BAbylonian envoys came (2 Kings 20). (Did I misspeak?)
What I find noteworthy is Isaiah 39:6–7: “All that is in your house, and that which your ancestors have stored up until this day, shall be carried to Babylon; nothing shall be left, says the Lord. Some of your own sons who are born to you shall be taken away; they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.” That seems like it would have been a strange thing to say at a time when the threat came from the Assyrians and not from the Babylonians at all.
Yup, it’s pretty specific. But Babylon too was a powerful and rising nation (overthrew Assyria in the early decades of the 7th c.). And as I say, it’s hard to know which parts of Isaiah have been touched up by later editors and which might be him reading the writing on the wall.
This book is so, so difficult even as the OT goes—I think I remember even Augustine commenting on its density (must have been in Confessions?). A scholar once suggested that the reason it’s hard to read is that it lacks some of the “fireworks” that appear in the others—the creaking visions of large machines, the occult intrusions of disembodied hands, and particularly the heavy descriptions of Yahweh and its court. The speculation was that Isaiah ran in rarefied circles for an Israelite prophet so he wasn’t hung up on the visual aspects of royal life and instead jumped right to the message, whereas others would spend whole passages gawking at angels and throne rooms.
Dr. Ehrman,
Recently, I have read about indications that the Quran seems to account for stories about Jesus from non-biblical gospels (Tom Holland). Is this something that you have explored?
Best regards,
Harry (UNC ’85)
I haven’t read the scholarship on it, no; some of the basics (Jesus making birds from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas; JEsus not really being crucified from possibly the Gospel of BAsilides, etc.) would seem pretty obvious, but I don’t know what Holland argues.
Dr Ehrman,
Just-born-Baby Jesus introducing(speaking) himself as a Servant of God while lying in his cradle to Jewish leaders is another Quranic reference. Is it in any of Non Canonical gospels?
e
Not in any that still survive (a lot, of course, don’t) But it may be related to the story of jew-born-Jesus inthe Proto-Gospel of James, where right after he’s born he walks and convinces Jewish midwives who doubted him (then heals one of them)
Great introduction! On this topic Dr. Ehrman, I was wondering if you’ve read/have any opinions on John Van Seters’ work which seeks to problematize ‘redactor’ as a scholarly anachronism for (OT in particular) composition history. If so, do you think his counter model (If I remember right I think he substitutes editor/redactor with a kind of creative ‘ancient historian’ … something he gets from Von Rad I believe) has any relevance for understanding how these different writers came to be grouped together as Isaiah? Hope that makes sense!
Ah, Van Seters was my colleague for years — in fact he hired me at UNC and was a mentor. I don’t recall ever having that conversrsation with him or reading his work on it. Sorry!
In the last post you named Tiglath-Pileser one of the great names of history. Could you list off a couple more please? 🙂
Maher-shalal-hash-baz is my favorite.
What a mouthful! lol
BDEhrman: “Maher-shalal-hash-baz is my favorite.”
I like Pele-joez-el-gibbor-abi-ad-sar-shalom from Isaiah 9:5. Progenitor of the great Brazilian soccer legend?
In your view how historical is the passage Matthew 15:21-28 involving Jesus and the Canaanite woman? Or is it close to the teachings of the historical Jesus?
I doubt if it’s historical;it appears to show that Jesus’ message will go eventually to outsiders, even though he came to bring salvation to Jews.
Seems like an odd story to invent to make that point. The statement in Matt 10:18 is clear enough and direct. Jesus knows full well the gospel will be presented to Gentiles in the coming years. Further, the writer affirms this mission to Gentiles as fulfilling prophecy and thus confirming God’s purposes are advancing in Jesus in part because many Gentiles have come to hope in Jesus. If the story in Matt 15 was invented to present Jesus retroactively as an example of this ‘future’ witness, his cold reluctance and demeanor toward the woman’s suffering are gratuitous. And why invent the disciples as more willing to fulfill her request than Jesus?
Matthew is stressing what, for him, was a very important point (which Luke shared with him): Jesus came to his own people as the messiah and he was interested ONLY in his own people; but they rejected him. Thereofre the message has to go to the gentiles.
One thing that always confused me about 2nd and 3rd Isaiah (and maybe 1st Isaiah, and other prophets like Ezekiel and Jeremiah) is that they frequently speak of their homeland (Jerusalem and it’s towns, and Judah or Israel) as being desolate and without inhabitant. See Isaiah 62:1-4 for example.)
Yet apparently most of the inhabitants were never exiled. Do you think this is hyperbole? Were they mistaken? Or do you think that complete desolation was the actual expectation of these prophets?
It’s like the upper crust Londoner going to the theatre and at the intermission announcing to his partner, “Dawlin, there is simply *nobody* here….”