The Book Called Isaiah

Abstract

The book analyses and assesses the various methods and approaches used by nineteenth‐ and twentieth‐century scholars researching into the theme of the unity and diversity of the compositional structure of the Old Testament book of Isaiah. It considers the differences between the traditional, historical–critical, form of Old Testament study and the more modern, post‐critical literary reading, and argues that a more intensive application of the traditional methods would be of great value in studying the unity of the book of Isaiah and in interpreting its message. Focusing on one particular phase in the composition of Isaiah and on the relationship of the central section, known as ‘Deutero‐Isaiah’, to the other parts of the book and to other Old Testament writings, it investigates the literary influences on Deutero‐Isaiah and analyses his subsequent editorial contribution to the continuing prophecy of the judgement and salvation of Israel, thereby reinforcing the argument that critical analysis must precede interpretation.

The Literary Logic and Meaning of Isaiah 38

“…First, let it be noted that Williamson's objections amount to this: that the presentation in Isaiah suffers by comparison to that in Kings, where 'the sign is both speci ed and linked to the promise of a healing miracle, with entry to the temple thereafter as consequential'. 73 This does not, however, prove 'the secondary nature of verse 22'. 74 All it proves is that the arrangement in Isaiah is different than that in Kings and has a different purpose and design.…”

“…73 This does not, however, prove 'the secondary nature of verse 22'. 74 All it proves is that the arrangement in Isaiah is different than that in Kings and has a different purpose and design. Secondly, Williamson refers to standard priestly regulations, which can be found in Leviticus 13-15, but Hezekiah has not yet recovered.…”

“…21-22 does not strike him as at all convincing. 60 It is equally possible, according to Williamson, that the scribe who copied 1QIsa a omitted vv. 21-22 unintentionally, his eye jumping from at the end of v. 20 to at the end of v. 22.…”

“…71 Seitz correctly, I believe, understands the verse as a further indication of the king's piety and maintains that the sign is quite separate from that mentioned earlier in the chapter. Williamson's voiced objections are as follows: 72 (1) Seitz does not explain why a sign should be required for what was a matter of standard priestly regulation; (2) Seitz fails to comment on the oddity that no indication is given of what the sign was or whether it was granted. I will attempt to supply what Williamson nds lacking in Seitz.…”

The Role of Redaction Criticism in the Evaluation of a Textual Variant: Another Look at 1QIsaª XXXII 14 (38:21–22)

“…82 As Ackroyd notes, this would explain why the Isaiah version, though being lifted from Kings, ends "prematurely" with the announcement of the exile rather than with the conclusion in what follows at 2 Kgs 20:20-21-the summary of Hezekiah's reign and the account of his death. 83 (ii) Also in support of Beuken's interpretation is a pattern in the book noted by Melugin regarding the use of the "sign" ‫:)אות(‬ The sign is crucial in the Syro-Ephraimite war (7,11.14; 8,18); it appears thrice in the narratives about the latter part of Hezekiah's reign, a group of narratives which are pivotal in the collection (37,30; 38,7.22); the carefully arranged kerygmatic unity composed of chapters 40-55 ends with a reference to a sign (55,13); at the end of Isaiah (66,19) the redactor has chosen to speak of a sign. 84 The editor of 38:22 appears to have been very much interested in recasting the sign Hezekiah requested so that now it emphasized his desire for a return to the temple.…”