Are the Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 40–55) and others like it considered the Word of God?

[patrick457]

I’m bad with acronyms, but no, it’s not an English translation. It’s an European one. Anyway, this one Bible reduces the whole OT to nothing but mythology. Reading it gave me more questions than answers… anyway, do you disagree with the textual critics opinion?

The Jerusalem Bible (the French version thereof)? Or some other European-language Bible?

 

[minichibi]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Friars_Minor_Capuchin

This version. The OFM Cap Version.

 

[patrick457]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Friars_Minor_Capuchin

This version. The OFM Cap Version.

Is it in English? You don’t have to put it in acronyms, but can you provide us with the actual name, if possible?

 

[minichibi]

Is it in English? You don’t have to put it in acronyms, but can you provide us with the actual name, if possible?

Order of Friars Minor Capuchin, from Portugal. Here is a website with an online version of this Bible I own www.capuchinhos.org/biblia. Although I don’t think it will be of muc help.

 

[minichibi]

This Bible divides Isaiah in 3 Isaiah: 1 Isaiah 1-39, an annonymous Isaiah (40-55), said to be a “disciple of Isaiah”(or Second Isaiah) dated from the Exile, and Third Isaiah (55-66), dated from post-Exile, and another Isaiah supposedly wrote 24-27 and 34-35.

As for Daniel, this Bible places the Book in 165-164 B.C., giving the readers the following reason (sorry about the bad translation): “since Antiochus IV Epiphanes forced all his people to adopt the religion of the greeks, he provoked the rage of the Maccabeans, and Daniel publishes an apocaliptic book to cheer up his comrades in their fight.”

 

[COPLAND_3]

I’m bad with acronyms, but no, it’s not an English translation. It’s an European one. Anyway, this one Bible reduces the whole OT to nothing but mythology. Reading it gave me more questions than answers… anyway, do you disagree with the textual critics opinion?

Textual criticism is great stuff, but textual critics who go out of bounds of their expertise to be exegetes usually are very nontraditional. Comparing textual readings and editing and so forth is a wonderful skill, but its not a gift that seems to me to be very beneficial to interpreting Scripture or weighing evidence concerning authorship. In my opinion, ancient tradition is the best way to trace authorship and insightful exposition on Scripture. Translation teams, textual critics and editors do not impress me with their footnotes and introductions, they need to leave that to those who are gifted in explaining Scripture.