4'2 Source Criticism of the Book of Isaiah

1
4.2 Source Criticism of the Book of Isaiah

• 1, 2, or 3 . . . the Academic Debate

2
I. General Considerations

• 1. Name of the Book
• 1.1 It was named after the prophet himself the
  form hyfy occurs in the title, probably as the
  result of Talmudic influence (this form also
  occurs in 1 Chr 3.21 Eze 8.17, 19 Neh 11.7),
  but the text of the prophecy itself has the
  variant spelling whyfy. Harrison, Introduction
  to the Old Testament, 764
• 1.2 Occasionally in references to the book
  fuller titles are found, such as Isaiah the
  prophet (Acts 8.30, Hsai,an to.n profh,thn), the
  book of the prophet Isaiah (Luk 4.17, bibli,on
  tou/ profh,tou Hsaiou).... Gray, ICC Isa
  I-XXVII, xxiv-xxv

3
I. General Considerations

• 2. Place in the Canon
• 2.1 Isaiah has been place in the Hebrew Canon as
  the first of the Latter Prophets (Isaiah,
  Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve).
• 2.2 In the LXX the latter prophets are
  separated from the former prophets, by
  inserting Chronicles and other books which in the
  MT are found in the Kethubim.

4
I. General Considerations

• 2.3 Baba Bathra 14b
• Our Rabbis taught The order of the Prophets is,
  Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
  Isaiah, and the Twelve Minor Prophets. Let us
  examine this. Hosea came first, as it is written,
  God spake first to Hosea. But did God speak first
  to Hosea? Were there not many prophets between
  Moses and Hosea? R. Johanan, however, has
  explained that what It means is that he was the
  first of the four prophets who prophesied at that
  period, namely, Hosea, Isaiah, Amos and Micah.
  Should not then Hosea come first? Since his
  prophecy is written along with those of Haggai,
  Zechariah and Malachi, and Haggai, Zechariah and
  Malachi came at the end of the prophets, he is
  reckoned with them. But why should he not be
  written separately and placed first? Since his
  book is so small, it might be lost if copied
  separately.

5
I. General Considerations

• 2.3 Baba Bathra 14b
• Let us see again. Isaiah was prior to Jeremiah
  and Ezekiel. Then why should not Isaiah be placed
  first? Because the Book of Kings ends with a
  record of destruction and Jeremiah speaks
  throughout of destruction and Ezekiel commences
  with destruction and ends with consolation and
  Isaiah is full of consolation therefore we put
  destruction next to destruction and consolation
  next to consolation.

6
3. Texts and Versions

• 3.1 Masoretic Text (MT)
• "By and large, the original Hebrew text of Isaiah
  has been well preserved. While there are a number
  of instances where obscure statements suggest the
  possibility of textual corruptions, these are
  remarkably few in proportion to the whole."
  Oswalt
• "Most of the difficulties with the Hebrew text
  arise from the language itself including the high
  incidence of hapax legomena, but there are also
  numerous textual problems." Blenkinsopp

7
3. Texts and Versions

• 3.2 Septuagint (LXX)
• -". . . generally dated to around the middle of
  the second century B.C.E. Since this version is
  very free, paraphrastic, and interpretative, some
  scholars have suspected a Vorlage significantly
  different from MT, but the tendency today is to
  explain variants as the result of a conscious
  process of contemporizing and actualizing by the
  translator." Blenkinsopp

8
3. Texts and Versions

• 3.2 Septuagint (LXX)
• -"The fact that LXX has few readings in common
  with 1QIsaa against MT points in the same
  direction. Comparison with MT shows a few minuses
  (2.22 38.15 40.7 56.12) and even fewer pluses
  it is quite different therefore from LXX
  Jeremiah, which is roughly one-eighth shorter
  than MT Jeremiah. At several points the
  translator shows an interest in bringing the text
  to bear on current issues and situations, a
  tendency characteristic of the Targum."
  Blenkinsopp

9
3. Texts and Versions

• 3.2 Septuagint (LXX)
• -"As has been argued first of all by I. L.
  Seeligmann, LXX Isa contains passages which
  reflect an understanding of the prophecies of
  Isaiah as predictions of what happened in the
  time of the translator. This means that LXX Isa
  may be read and understood (i.e. decoded) as a
  collection of prophetical oracles like Daniel 11
  or Book III of the Sibylline Oracles." van der
  Kooij, "The Old Greek of Isaiah in Relation to
  the Qumran Texts of Isaiah Some General
  Comments"

10
3.3 Qumran Scrolls

• General Comments
• The book of Isaiah was one of the most popular
  biblical works at Qumran Only Psalms (37
  scrolls) and Deuteronomy (30 scrolls) out
  numbered Isaiah (22/23?)
• There is no sign that the Qumran scrolls
  identified any divisions at chp. 39 or 55.

11
3.3 Qumran Scrolls

• 3.3.1 1QIsaa a different recension from LXX, the
  only complete Isaiah scroll, dated the late 2nd
  century BCE. (Radiocarbon 335-122 BCE See
  Flint)
• One of the first scrolls discovered, therefore
  much early scholarly work done.
• Argued by earlier Qumran scholars as filled with
  errors, written by a "careless" scribe/s
• Recent works by Abegg, Flint, Pulikottil, et. al.
  argues that 1QIsaa has much more to offer.

12
(No Transcript)
13
http//www.ao.net/fmoeller/qumdir.htm
14
3.3 Qumran Scrolls

• 3.3.2 1QIsab ". . . a manuscript with extant
  fragments ranging from Isaiah 7.22-66.24,
  totaling about twenty per cent of the overall
  text. The style of the scribal hand dates the
  scroll to the Herodian period." Abegg, 2002
• Although thought to be close to MT, recent
  scholarship wonders if it is not closer to the
  Cave 4 Isaiah scrolls and therefore a Qumran or
  non-aligned textual category. Tov Abegg

15
I. General Considerations

• 3.3 4QIsaa-r fragments of 17 scrolls dating from
  between 150 BCE and 70CE, the variants reflect a
  position between 1QIsaa and 1QIsab.
• 3.4 5QIsa a tiny fragment from 1st century CE.
  

16
II. The Unity of the Book

• A. Arguments for a dual or triple authorship
• The historical setting of chapters 40ff.
• The striking differences in language, style and
  concepts between the first and second parts of
  the book.
• The role of the Hebrew prophet involved
  addressing the people of his/her day with
  contemporary issues in the light of Gods
  commands.
• The differences in theological concepts between
  the first and latter parts of the book.
• Issues concerning anonymity
• Childs, IOTS others

17
II. The Unity of the Book

• B. Trito-Isaiah (? )
• (1) The setting of 40-55 is Babylon, that of
  56-66 is Palestine.
• (2) The mood of 40-55 is one of excited
  expectation of an imminent return, that of 56-66
  is one of bitter controversy and disappointment
  after that return has already occurred.
• (3) In 40-55 the entire nation is object of the
  promise of salvation, whereas in 56-66 salvation
  is reserved for one segment of the nation. This
  is reflected, e.g., in the reinterpretation of
  the servant Israel of Second Isaiah as the
  servants comprising only the faithful remnant.

18
II. The Unity of the Book

• (4) In 40-55 the polemic against idolatry is
  carried on in a humorously ironical manner, while
  in 56-66 that polemic become sardonic and bitter.
• (5) As closer examination will illustrate, 56-66
  represent a point more advanced on the typology
  of prophetic genres, as well as on the continuum
  from prophetic eschatology to apocalyptic
  eschatology.
• (6) Stylistic and metric differences are in
  evidence, as will also be demonstrated below.
  Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic, 36-37

19
II. The Unity of the Book

• C. Arguments against multiple authorship
• The present literary context attributes the whole
  book to Isaiah
• There are enough similarities in language and
  concepts to maintain unified authorship.
• Geographic Issues
• The supernatural quality of the prophecy is
  jeopardized if chapters 40ff., were written in
  the sixth century rather than the eighth.
• Response to the historical situation argument.
• Response to the theological differences argument.
  
• Childs, IOTS Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah

20
III. History of Critical Research

• 1. Ben Sira, Ecclesiasticus (Ecclus. 48.24-25)
• By the spirit of might he saw the last things,
• and comforted those who mourned in Zion.
• He revealed what was to occur to the end of time,
• and the hidden things before they came to pass.
• ". . . foretelling of the future that was yet
  hidden (i.e., What is in Deutero- and
  Trito-Isaiah)." Perdue, "Ben Sira and the
  Prophets"
• Dependent on Isa 48.5, 6 51.3 61.2, 3 Whybray

21
III. History of Critical Research

• 2. Talmud Baba Bathra 15a
• Hezekiah and his colleagues wrote Isaiah,
  Proverbs, the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes . .
  . .
• 3. Moses ben Samuel Gekatilla Ibn Ezra
• 2nd Century C.E. The later sections of the book
  as coming from the Second Temple era.
• 10th Century) 40-66 as being from someone other
  than Isaiah of Jerusalem

22
III. History of Critical Research

• 4. Döderlein (1775) Isaiah as two distinct
  works.
• 5. Eichhorn (1780-83) J. G. Eichhorn popularized
  the two work thesis and beings to use the terms
  inauthentic and secondary over against
  authentic and primary.
• 6. Gesenius (1821) Gesenius listed chs. 13, 14,
  34 and 35 as later than chs. 1-39. He also calls
  chs 40-66, Pseudo-Isaiah.

23
III. History of Critical Research

• 7. Bernhard Duhm (1892) Duhm was the first to
  argue for a Trio-Isaiah (chs. 56-66). He also
  saw chs 1-39 as consisting of several originally
  small collections, i.e., chs. 1-12, 13-23, 24-27,
  etc.

24
III. History of Critical Research

• 8. Resent Trends
• 8.1 Form-Criticism
• 8.2 History of Tradition von Rad
• 8.3 Redactional Approaches
• 8.4 Canonical or Final Redaction Approaches