Higher criticism

[Sayre]

Sayre, what would You like to know?

I believe, but I really have NFI what to do with that belief. I guess I'm just testing out where I fit.

 

[childofdust]

I'm sorry...I just do not get this...let's say they were really, truly, and honestly, trying to examine the texts and think about them! They say the first 39 books are most likely written by the first Isaiah and the last 27 are written by scribes of the Isaiah School centuries later who more than likely assigned his name to the later addition, to give it the appearance of actually being Isaiah's. But based on what? For example, where did they even get the idea of an Isaiah School?!? Shouldn't alleged "historical criticism" be based at least partially on actual historical record or implication?

Ebia...they made it up! the reality is that there is not one iota of evidence, not even the commentary of another commentator's comment that indicates this. To say we are accusing THEM of trashing the Bible is ludicrous...they totally make stuff up!?! It is the truth, not an opinion.

Wow. I don't believe I have read something so completely misinformed and utterly uneducated as this in a long time. And I can prove it instantly. Shall I? I think I shall!

“I'm sorry...I just do not get this...let's say they were really, truly, and honestly, trying to examine the texts and think about them!”

Higher Critics really, truly, and honestly have been spending most of their entire lives trying to examine the texts and think about them. That's right! They really do! AND THEY DO SO IN BOTH ORIGINAL AND COGNATE LANGUAGES - something that you have never done and never will. They spend all their time learning and growing in every way possible because their care and devotion to the biblical texts is that deep and strong. I know about a half dozen of them personally at three different top tier institutions across the US alone. I am on a first name basis with them all. I am awed by their commitment because it puts almost everyone else's I have ever met to shame—including yours. You obviously don't know any higher critics at all. I can get one on speed dial right now if I wanted. I would be surprised if a single higher critic even knew your name.

“They say the first 39 books are most likely written by the first Isaiah”

Higher Critics no longer make such claims. In fact, they have not made such claims for some time. Strange that someone who supposedly “studied the work of the higher critics for a decade” should have no clue about this reality! The idea that the prophet Isaiah himself might have written most of Isaiah 1-39 is an old and disregarded idea – and everyone who knows biblical scholarship knows about this. If you'd like to know why, you can find out by actually reading their works (since you obviously haven't).

Higher Critics DENY that the prophet Isaiah wrote most (if not all) of chs. 1-39. Why do they say that? It is precisely because, for one thing, they DO base what they say on actual historical record or implication. That's right! They're NOT making it up! They are basing what they say on what they can see with their own eyes and that can be tested and verified by others! (Holy Mother Mary...I can't believe I'm having to spell out the simple fact that the basic foundation of the entire discipline of modern biblical studies is that you base what you say on evidence instead of simply making things up. What world are you living in where you have no conception of the reality that the discipline has operated under since the Enlightenment?)

Over the past century, our knowledge of the ancient world has grown in leaps and bounds thanks to archeology and the discovery of entire libraries of ancient tablets, scrolls, texts, and the decipherment and/or analysis of their languages and the cultures which produced them. And one thing we have found is that in the ancient world, prophets did not write their own prophecies! Their prophecies were written down by others—by SCRIBES. The prophetic texts of the bible themselves tell us this—the scribe Baruch, for instance, is the one that the scroll of Jeremiah says wrote down Jeremiah's prophecies, not Jeremiah himself. And by actually looking at written prophecies from all over the ancient near eastern world, we can see how that was done and why it was done. We can see, that, for instance, the person who wrote down a prophecy did not write down exactly what the prophet said. We know this because we have copies of the same prophecy written down by different people and their content is different! We know this because we are studying the evidence of actual scribal practice in ancient Egypt, Israel, Mesopotamia, and elsewhere! We know this because there are copies of the same prophecies written in the Hebrew Bible itself, and they are DIFFERENT. And we know from sociological studies of prophets in the ancient near eastern world—from the words of those who recorded the prophet's words themselves—that prophets were a class of people who usually did not have the capability to write down their own prophecies anyway.

“where did they even get the idea of an Isaiah School?!?”

This question is simply more evidence of the fact that you don't have a clue about anything higher critics are saying and why. They get the idea FROM ISAIAH ITSELF. And from many other texts themselves. They get it from the evidence that is right there in front of your nose! Yet you don't have a clue it's there. Probably because you haven't spent as much time looking at it as they have. I haven't even spent as much time looking at it as they have, and I have translated a third of the entire book of Isaiah! How much of Isaiah have you translated? Probably none of it.

In Isaiah 8:16, the prophet Isaiah (supposedly) is speaking. The Hebrew states צור תעודה חתום תורה בלמדי, which I translate, “Wrap up the attestation. Seal [the] instruction among MY DISCIPLES.” Obviously, this was written as if Isaiah were speak to a group of people who followed him, were taught by him, and could do what he asked (the word למדי coming from the root meaning “to teach” and referring to one who is “taught” with a first-person singular pronominal suffix attached). The idea wasn't created out of thin air. It was a reality that we know of from the ancient world. Though Higher Critics might call these disciples a “school,” they might also preface such language by noting that actual schools as we think of them today did not exist in ancient Israel or elsewhere. Most higher critics today do not use the term “school” anymore, but the reality still exists, as attested right here in Isaiah itself, that prophets would have had people under their wing who directly handled their prophecies and took charge of them for the future. Where else do you think scholars got the idea?

and the last 27 are written by scribes of the Isaiah School centuries later who more than likely assigned his name to the later addition, to give it the appearance of actually being Isaiah's. But based on what?

Let's start with the latest and greatest of the commentaries on Second Isaiah that now exists: John Goldingay and David Payne's Isaiah 40-55: Volume 1, part of the International Critical Commentary series (one of the best commentaries of higher criticism in existence next to the Anchor-Yale Bible series and Hermeneia). This is what these higher critics base their assessment that Second Isaiah is a later edition to First Isaiah on:

1. The biggest reason why 40-55 comes from a different author (or authors) than 1-39 is because the prophecies directly address people living in the exile or afterwards, not those in the 8th Century when the prophet Isaiah lived. To quote them:

“The Babylonian period is spoken of not as future, as if Isaiah were prophesying it, but as present, as if the prophecies (chs. 40-55) come from someone who is contemporary with it.”
p1-2

“It is the fact that they (chs. 40-55) address people for whom the fall of Jerusalem is long past that remains the conclusive indication that they come from the sixth century BC (or later).”
P2

Second Isaiah, for example, commands the people to leave Babylon (48:20) as if they were already there. This makes perfect sense of a prophecy written to people who were in Babylon. Other passages that suggest a Babylonian setting: 41:2; 43:14; 44:28; 45:1; 48:14.

Now, sure, that alone would prove nothing. And nobody is saying it does. The Higher Critics themselves acknowledge that. That is why their arguments are based on a lot of other evidence and are often prefaced by cautions, ambiguities, and uncertainties. So how might one get a better idea whether it is true or not? Well, one way might be to compare it to Isaiah chs. 1-39...

2. Second Isaiah directly contradicts the way the prophet Isaiah speaks in chs. 1-39 of Isaiah. We do not see the prophet Isaiah ever prophesying in a way that spoke directly to a different audience at a completely different time period than the one he was supposedly living in. When the prophet Isaiah prophesied about the future, he did so speaking to his current audience about that future, not to that future audience itself. This makes most sense of a person living at that time talking to that audience.

Now, it could be possible that the entire way of speaking suddenly changed between chs. 1-39 and 40-55. A writer or author could do that. So how does one go about finding evidence? What is the basis for deciding? Obviously, one needs to use more criteria to know for sure. And there are more, like...

3. Idealogical or theological characteristics of the piece. There are NUMEROUS ideas that characterize Second Isaiah, which are COMPLETELY different than the ideas that characterize chs. 1-39.

One example, for instance, there is no hope or trust in the Davidic monarchy in Second Isaiah. There is mention of the promise to David (55:3-5), but this is re-applied to the people as a whole, not to a Davidic monarch. In fact, the Davidic Monarchy doesn't seem to exist because a pagan, who doesn't even know YHWH (Cyrus), will become YHWH's anointed king! This could only be a historical reality in the late exilic or early post-exilic period when Davidic kings were no longer around. And the idea conflicts entirely with the perspective in chs. 1-39 in which the prophet Isaiah supports the Davidic monarchy and tells it, again and again, that God will fight for it and not let tyrants throw it down.

Now, alone, this doesn't prove anything. But when you begin to add one inconsistency like this after another, they build up, and the result is a very good reason to think that Second Isaiah is a late exilic or early post-exilic text. What other things might we look for to help us out?

4. Second Isaiah quotes from and has textual links directly to other literature that did not exist until after the exile had ended (and thus long after the prophet Isaiah was dead), such as Zechariah, a text which itself states that it was written after the exile. For more on this, see Sommer, B. D. “A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66,” Stanford, 1998.

That is just the tip of the iceberg. Higher Critics have spent their lives studying these things and they have very good reasons for thinking Second Isaiah was written in a time and by a person other than the one who wrote First Isaiah. That doesn't mean they are correct. No higher critic is claiming to be speaking truth with a capital T. But what they are claiming, if you actually took the time to read them, is that they have good reasons backed by evidence to support what they say and why they say it. And most people tend to agree with people who make good arguments over bad ones.

they totally make stuff up!?! It is the truth, not an opinion.

I have proven above that your statement is not the truth—it is a false statement arising either from complete and utter ignorance or from godless dishonesty. You decide.

 

[pshun2404]

Like I said CoD they made it up....it is simply an opinion with no historical basis (they call their method the historical method)...nothing you just said demonstrates otherwise...I have writings that cover different subject matter and even touch on and include different genre. I draw from all sorts of linguistic nuances. Jesus says "and that same Isaiah said" (John 12) drawing one passage from the latter part of the book and another from the early part. He declares Isaiah the one author not two or more or a latter school who penned the prophets name. Am I going to believe some moderns who approach every book with the same preconceived mantra or Jesus Christ? Hmmm? Let me see? A-h-h-h....Christ! Now who will you believe?

And just because I do not swallow the modernist commentaries does not mean I haven't read many of them or that I am uneducated or ignorant or antiquated or superstitious (that also is their mantra regarding all who oppose them). Many learned men and women do not agree with them but the most important critic of their view for me is Jesus. so call me names or insult me if you wish but I will place my bets with Him.

And David's monarchy was already divided and Zechariah borrows from Isaiah not the other way around...yes Isaiah speaks of things after the exile (but from long before it) it is called "prophecy". You should know that Hebrew only speaks in completed actions and uncompleted actions....the Holy Spirit speaks in completed actions regarding things that have not occurred yet in the temporal because He knows the end from the beginning (already knows exactly what will happen)...unless you believe there is no such thing as supernatural (another HC mantra)...

Believe Jesus...

In His love

Paul

 

[pshun2404]

deleted

 

[Unix]

pshun2404, I'm not going to insult You, but doesn't the Continental commentary volumes by Wildberger from the '70s speak about multiple authors of Is 2-39? childofdust, do You have an of those volumes by Wildberger or have utilized them earlier on?:

And just because I do not swallow the modernist commentaries does not mean I haven't read many of them [..] so call me names or insult me if you wish but I will place my bets with Him.

 

[pshun2404]

pshun2404, I'm not going to insult You, but doesn't the Continental commentary volumes by Wildberger from the '70s speak about multiple authors of Is 2-39? childofdust, do You have an of those volumes by Wildberger or have utilized them earlier on?:

And this constitutes authority for you? Christ was wrong then, is that it? He was not as learned perhaps! Where is there even one comment from even one commentators commentaries or complaints stating otherwise until a few hundred years ago? Even the enemies of Judaism and 1st and 2nd century heretics never made such a claim. Why? Because it was not so, thats why.

Isaiah was always one book by one author...show me one historical reference (in or out of the Bible) from even near the time (5 or 10 centuries will do fine, that should provide lots of wiggle room) that speaks about an Isaiah school or any other prophet for that matter...there was no such thing. Even the LXX from 300 years before Christ has Isaiah as one book (which comes from the even earlier history and tradition)...pishtosh...do not be fooled by these wolves hiding behind their modernist sheepskins (believe God).