Were There Two or Three Different Isaiahs?

[Joe_5859]

I once took a class on just Isaiah 40-66.

This is one of those areas where Catholics are free to come to different conclusions.

There is a lot of textual evidence that places the composition of Isaiah 40-55 in the 500s. There is also a lot of textual evidence that implies different people wrote both portions of Isaiah (e.g. specific words that appear scores of times in one section don’t appear at all in the other). Ultimately, it’s not proof, just evidence in support of a theory.

Personally, I don’t think it’s all that necessary for the vast majority of Catholics to get overly hung up on the minutiae of biblical criticism. Whether Isaiah was written by one guy named Isaiah in 700 or whether is was written by dozens of guys in the “Isaiahan school of thought” over the course of centuries, what matters most to us as Catholics is the book as it is right now. It may be interesting to parse out how the book was put together, but it’s ultimately speculation (even if it is fairly informed speculation).

I would say that it’s not accurate to define “prophecy” solely as “foretelling the future.” Ultimately, prophecy involves being a mouthpiece for God. That can involve spelling out what will take place in the future if people don’t change course from their current trajectory. But that isn’t fundamentally what prophecy is about. It’s about speaking the truth for the purpose of effecting conversion of heart.

 

[FishyPete]

I once took a class on just Isaiah 40-66.

This is one of those areas where Catholics are free to come to different conclusions.

There is a lot of textual evidence that places the composition of Isaiah 40-55 in the 500s. There is also a lot of textual evidence that implies different people wrote both portions of Isaiah (e.g. specific words that appear scores of times in one section don’t appear at all in the other). Ultimately, it’s not proof, just evidence in support of a theory.

Personally, I don’t think it’s all that necessary for the vast majority of Catholics to get overly hung up on the minutiae of biblical criticism. Whether Isaiah was written by one guy named Isaiah in 700 or whether is was written by dozens of guys in the “Isaiahan school of thought” over the course of centuries, what matters most to us as Catholics is the book as it is right now. It may be interesting to parse out how the book was put together, but it’s ultimately speculation (even if it is fairly informed speculation).

I would say that it’s not accurate to define “prophecy” solely as “foretelling the future.” Ultimately, prophecy involves being a mouthpiece for God. That can involve spelling out what will take place in the future if people don’t change course from their current trajectory. But that isn’t fundamentally what prophecy is about. It’s about speaking the truth for the purpose of effecting conversion of heart.

Wow, that was a remarkably concise, clear and informative answer. Thank you!!!

 

[Joe_5859]

Wow, that was a remarkably concise, clear and informative answer. Thank you!!!

:tiphat: Happy to help. If you want more details from me, you’ll have to give me time to check my course notes.

 

[FishyPete]

:tiphat: Happy to help. If you want more details from me, you’ll have to give me time to check my course notes.

Sure, if you ever get the chance i’d love to hear more… But if not, thanks again!

 

[Neofight]

Let the message of scripture be more important than the genre, literary style, etc…otherwise you may drive yourself crazy!

Questions by theologians abound, that are fun from an academic and scholastic standpoint, but if you get too wrapped up with the theories, you could miss the messages and have your spiritual head screwed with!

For instance…

Perhaps Luke and Acts were one big writing projected, divided into two books later, with the prologue added to Acts mentioning the first book…

And, perhaps, the beginning of Revelation was inspired by the oral tradition of John the Baptist (chapters 4-11) about the soon to come Messiah, and the second part was a 1st century Christian perspective proving Jesus was the Messiah John the Baptist spoke of (Chapters 12 onward)…

And perhaps, the Canticle of Mary (in Luke’s gospel), although proclaimed by Mary, may have been inspired within her heart from what she read in 1 Samuel Chapter 2 when Hannah was praising God for giving her a son.

So, concentrate on what the Word is telling you, and not so much the mechanics of the writing!

Peace and all Good!

 

[FishyPete]

Let the message of scripture be more important than the genre, literary style, etc…otherwise you may drive yourself crazy!

Questions by theologians abound, that are fun from an academic and scholastic standpoint, but if you get too wrapped up with the theories, you could miss the messages and have your spiritual head screwed with!

For instance…

Perhaps Luke and Acts were one big writing projected, divided into two books later, with the prologue added to Acts mentioning the first book…

And, perhaps, the beginning of Revelation was inspired by the oral tradition of John the Baptist (chapters 4-11) about the soon to come Messiah, and the second part was a 1st century Christian perspective proving Jesus was the Messiah John the Baptist spoke of (Chapters 12 onward)…

And perhaps, the Canticle of Mary (in Luke’s gospel), although proclaimed by Mary, may have been inspired within her heart from what she read in 1 Samuel Chapter 2 when Hannah was praising God for giving her a son.

So, concentrate on what the Word is telling you, and not so much the mechanics of the writing!

Peace and all Good!

your post has pegged me well. my head is spinning. and I have taken your advice to heart.

thanks.

 

[mdgspencer]

The important thing is that the Book of Isaiah is the word of God. Catholicism see this book, like the rest of the Bible, in this way. When I read the Book of Isaiah, as I frequently have, I respond to it as the word of God. Whether the book was written by one author or several isn’t a matter that comes to my mind then, and is pretty irrelevant to myself as I read it.
In ancient times they had rather loose ideas of authorship, and someone could have added sections to the Book of Isaiah. But I really haven’t bothered to try to decide about this for myself as not helpful when I read it. I chalk this up in my mind to another theory originating from Protestant and secular writers on the Bible over the last 200 years who may or may not be right in this case.

 

[FishyPete]

The important thing is that the Book of Isaiah is the word of God. Catholicism see this book, like the rest of the Bible, in this way. When I read the Book of Isaiah, as I frequently have, I respond to it as the word of God. Whether the book was written by one author or several isn’t a matter that comes to my mind then, and is pretty irrelevant to myself as I read it.
In ancient times they had rather loose ideas of authorship, and someone could have added sections to the Book of Isaiah. But I really haven’t bothered to try to decide about this for myself as not helpful when I read it. I chalk this up in my mind to another theory originating from Protestant and secular writers on the Bible over the last 200 years who may or may not be right in this case.

Great points. thanks.

 

[Contarini]

Can you explain to me in a nutshell what the paragraph above means? And in terms a layman/simple-man like me can understand?

Higher criticism (more properly called “historical criticism”) means that you analyze the Biblical text in the same way a historian would analyze any ancient text. You ask critical questions instead of just taking it at face value or trying desperately to harmonize everything.

The Catholic Church doesn’t have a problem with this as long as it isn’t taken as the final word on how to interpret Scripture, and as long as it doesn’t smuggle in assumptions that are contrary to the Faith. So, for instance, in the present case a lot of historical critics are working from the assumption that real prophecy can’t exist. An orthodox Catholic can’t work from that basis or accept scholarship that depends on that assumption. God could have inspired Isaiah to speak of Cyrus by name before he was born. But did He?

In my opinion, probably not. And as far as I can see, that’s an orthodox option within Catholicism–that God inspired an author at the time of the Exile to predict return from exile through a king of that time. I think it’s the most reasonable way to interpret the text. But I don’t rule out the possibility that Isaiah did predict the whole thing 200 years earlier.

Edwin

 

[FishyPete]

Higher criticism (more properly called “historical criticism”) means that you analyze the Biblical text in the same way a historian would analyze any ancient text. You ask critical questions instead of just taking it at face value or trying desperately to harmonize everything.

The Catholic Church doesn’t have a problem with this as long as it isn’t taken as the final word on how to interpret Scripture, and as long as it doesn’t smuggle in assumptions that are contrary to the Faith. So, for instance, in the present case a lot of historical critics are working from the assumption that real prophecy can’t exist. An orthodox Catholic can’t work from that basis or accept scholarship that depends on that assumption. God could have inspired Isaiah to speak of Cyrus by name before he was born. But did He?

In my opinion, probably not. And as far as I can see, that’s an orthodox option within Catholicism–that God inspired an author at the time of the Exile to predict return from exile through a king of that time. I think it’s the most reasonable way to interpret the text. But I don’t rule out the possibility that Isaiah did predict the whole thing 200 years earlier.

Edwin

Thank you, I appreciate the insight.

I think my question has been answered by some fantastic people here (you included).

thanks again to all.

Peace be with you.