Talk:Book of Isaiah

Rewrite desirable?

Following the discussions with user Xj5115, I'd like to propose a rewrite of the article. This is because I think Xj5115 is right about the way the article seems to suggest that Isaiah is three separate books laid end to end. I don't think any modern scholar would support that view.

There's an informal standard layout followed for many of the Old Testament books - it's not formalised and not obligatory, but it's used in about half the books and most of the major ones - at Book of Genesis, for example. It has four major section-headers: Structure, Summary, Composition, Themes. Within those there's not really any set sub-headings. Structure deals with the way the book itself is structured, and is always taken from one or two important biblical commentaries (they usually tell you whether there's a recognised structure, and what it is). Summary is simply a summary of the contents, also taken from a major commentary if possible. Composition deals with how when where and why the book was composed, and by whom, mentioning traditional authorship in a single line or clause. (This is an encyclopedia, and readers sometimes like to know this information - we aren't endorsing anything, just informing). Themes is essentially everything else - what the book's about, essentially. Thois is the most important part of the article, usually, because far too many wiki-editors are preoccupied with authorship and forget that the books of the bible are all actually about something.

This article at present has three major sections (as opposed to sub-sections) on the three main parts. I think this skews the whole article - that sort of thing should be divided between the standard sections, Composition and Themes in particular.

The section on Influence on Christianity can probably stay, but could easily be longer (Isaiah is quoted in the NT more often than any other OT book, and seems to have been very important to Jesus himself, so far as anyone can tell); the little piece about JW can also stay, but should be rolled into the Christianity section (I just don't like very short sections in articles).

And finally: I don't want to do this myself, I have other things to do with my time. If someone else would like to have a go I'll watch and comment, but not much more. PiCo (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I fully support all of these changes. Isaiah is a book rich with wonderful themes (e.g., messianism, kingship, servanthood, God as creator, second Exodus, new creation, international politics, etc.). Concerning structure, it will be difficult to narrow it down to one or two proposals since there are so many on the market. A section on Isaiah in the NT is an excellent suggestion (I think Psalms is the book most quoted, followed by Isaiah, and then Deuteronomy).

As for composition, it is necessary that some discussion of the three divisions remain, but modern scholarship has moved to 1) challenge whether Deutero and Trito Isaiah are really distinct sections, and 2) emphasize the unity of the book. Thus, these two facts (especially no. 2) need to comprise a much greater proportion of the content.

I also don't have a lot of spare time. I will do what I can, but someone else will probably need to do the bulk of the revisions. Xj5115 (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I've restructured the article by moving material around - which has thrown up the areas that need extra work, mostly the Themes section. I really don't feel like doing this, but if anyone else likes to take it up, you're most welcome. The Brevard Child book is a useful place to start. PiCo (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Rewrote the article

Following the previous discussion, I've rewritten the article using (mostly) the most recent sources I could find. Others might like to comment and make direct edits if I've gotten anything wrong or left material out or given undue weight anywhere or misused my sources. PiCo (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

To my mind there is some redundancy in the article's lead and later sub-sections Structure etc. Maybe the lead could be shortened using a briefer summary. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Misleading conclusions

Someone wrote that there is ample evidence to suggest that isaiah was composed during the babylonian captivity and cites footnote 3, page 79 of Sweeney 1998. I looked that page up and no where is that conclusion suggested by what is written there. That page only talks about breaking down the text into different narrative divisions, with no such conclusion being drawn from that fact. That comment should be removed until properly sourced, and then the evidence should be plainly stated for the reader. If the only evidence you have for concluding that isaiah was written during the babylonian captivity is the fact that it is mentioned prophetically then you must plainly state that for the reader to draw their own conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.173.194 (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence of the second para of the lead says that, but it cites Sweeney page 76, not page 79, and doesn't mention a footnote. I checked page 76 and that is what it says. Is there another mention somewhere else? 103.23.133.92 (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Era-style consensus

The article is inconsistent in era-style. A consensus is necessary whether it be BC/AD or BCE/CE. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm a firm believer that out of respect for Jewish readers, all articles on Hebrew Bible topics should be BCE/CE format. Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Aristophanes68. Debresser (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The book is clearly in the Christian canon as well as the Hebrew. BCE/CE can be seen as a denial of what BC/AD implies as much as the other way around. The question revolves around who takes offense to what. Personally, I would not insist on either, because I would argue that it is best not to take offense. I do not see a need for a consensus, nor for consistency. I do see a need for objecting to meaningless controversies like this that do nothing but raise the possibility that editors will begin to fight. I wonder to think that any Christian, or any Jew, would take this seriously. Of course we would disagree about whether or not Jesus was the Messiah. But dating labels cannot settle that matter, and squabbling diminishes all. Yet significantly, I do not see Christians and Jews arguing. For whom then is this an issue? Evensteven (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Users Aristophanes68 and Debresser and somewhat even with Evensteven. No need to rock the boat. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The article was extensively re-written about a year ago, at which point it was BCE out of respect for the Jewish origins of the book. Any inconsistencies must have come in after then. PiCo (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with PiCo. BCE is more appropriate for Hebrew Bible articles, as well as being in keeping with scholarly usage. --Rbreen (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Can't agree with Evensteven. It's not about offense, it's about respect. Argument is only bad when it becomes circular. If we can't argue, we can't reach any meaningful consensus. On the other hand, consistency good. I think it's all BCE now. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Can't agree with Fiddlersmouth. Argument is generally unconstructive, unless it can be prevented from being argumentative. What we want to do to achieve consensus is to discuss, which is definitely about respect. BC vs BCE could not help but be circular. But I am very glad to see a consensus forming without a meaningless battle. Evensteven (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I support BCE/CE for educational purposes. I am Christian, and I do not believe selecting BCE/CE is offensive. In fact, (WP:ERAS) actually favors Christianity by allowing Anno Domini to be placed in articles not based on Christianity or Christian texts. BCE/CE is just used for scholarly purposes and arguments but not actually representing religious groups. Only BC/AD represents one religious sect. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

As a Christian, I support BCE/CE for practical reasons, so as not to offend, though I would say the same if BC/AD were practical. Neither do I find either offensive. But I think there are others who disagree. Of the offended, however, I expect that relatively few Christians or Jews are among their number, and that the issue is inflated from the outside, and again by relatively few. It has nevertheless become commonplace to accept the idea that use of BCE/CE is for the sake of respecting Jews. I think that represents a bit of back-handed disrespect for them, a way of saying they are not big enough to recognize BC/AD contains no intended slight, and I have much more confidence in the Jews that I have known than to countenance that. Neither does WP:ERAS favor Christianity; it simply recognizes the context in which BC/AD arose and was used for so long as a commonplace. Yet if anyone takes a different view, I yield and wish them well, for it is a small thing for me to do so. But fighting about small issues for which there is no answer? The fighting I will ever oppose. And I regard this discussion as a blessing in that no fight has arisen, for I have witnessed fights on WP about matters even smaller. Evensteven (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Evensteven...Please remain civil as your sarcastic response is a bit unnerving for the stability of this discussion. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Sarcastic? Evensteven (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

So,as far as I can tell, everyone here supports using BCE/CE? Editor2020 17:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

That's how I read it. Evensteven (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Internal Inconsistencies

There are a few internal inconsistencies within the Isaiah article. First, the supposed division between Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah is alternatively stated as 40-55/56-66 (in the Introduction and "Structure"), and 40-54/55-66 in "Summary," and implied in "Authorship"). My understanding is that the latter division is the preferred, but perhaps there are different camps on that. Bottom line is that there should be consistency within the article, with minority/majority positions noted if appropriate.

Second, I understand from previous posts that the article has been at least partially rewritten, with an implicit preference given for the "current research" dividing the book between 1-33/34-66, rather than Proto/Deutero/Trito-Isaiah. However, in that context, statements such as "Deutero-Isaiah addresses himself to the Jews in exile," "Deutero-Isaiah's predictions of the imminent fall of Babylon ... dates his prophecies to 550-539 BCE," and "Proto-Isaiah speaks of Israel's desertion of God and what will follow," are in conflict with those portions of the article that implicitly reject the tripartite division. Perhaps we should simply cite to the chapter/verse at issue, rather than the disputed shorthand of Proto-Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, etc.

Perhaps a more fundamental issue is that the emphasis on the "newer approach" of 1-33/34-66 appears to be built on a slender reed, with almost exclusive reliance on Sweeney, 1998. Citation to a single source does not seem to justify the inference that the "newer approach" has supplanted the tripartite division. Either Sweeney should be supplemented with several additional sources, or the article should be revised in a way that no preference is given among the scholarly theories.

Finally, the "Structure" and "Summary" sections exhibit too much overlap. Much of what is now in "Summary" really needs to be merged into "Structure." Unlike the structure, the summary should not substantially vary based on whether we are following the "newer approach," the "tripartite" division, or a unitary approach. Summary should focus on what the book is about, regardless of where various scholars divide it up.

BenEsq (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead and edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.23.132.194 (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I will attempt to do so, time permitting, and I want to thank Evensteven for monitoring and reversing apparent vandalism to a few of my sourced edits from last week.

BenEsq (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Major rewrite needs consensus

Calling POV what is taught as fact in all major universities is too radical a change to be allowed without obtaining consensus first. Even then, consensus does not supersede policy. E.g. dividing the article into biblical criticism and not biblical criticism is hypocritical and arbitrary when we realize that more or less the same authors are quoted as both being modern critics and as not being modern critics. I.e. the other facts stated in the rest of the article are still verified to biblical critics, but without calling a spade a spade. Also, the sources which provide academic consensus make pretty sweeping comments about the amount of available evidence and about virtually no contemporary scholar any longer believing in the traditional authorship claim. It follows that the major rewrite fails according to both WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE by leaving the reader with a false impression that the traditional attribution would still be academically acceptable and that biblical criticism would merely be a POV among other biased POVs, creating thus false balance in respect to traditional attribution and contemporary academic research. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

in rebuttal

User Tgeorgescu reverted my recent attempt to clean up the lead of this article and move a whole lot of "Biblical Criticism" POV to its own section. His comment in support of the revert is "calling POV what is taught as fact in all major universities is too radical a change, take it to talk page according to WP:BRD", so I guess that would be the subject of this discussion. To wit:

• compare what I proudly describe as my spare, neutral, clearly written lead to the article with the three paragraph -insert-adjective- of the revert.
• "calling POV what is taught as fact in all major universities is too radical" - or is it? Even prior to my changes, the structure of the article included a section for "Later interpretation and influence", with sub-sections "2nd Temple Judaism", and "Christianity". This indicates to me that the prior editorial consensus was that the neutral tone was something chronologically prior, and that 19th and 20th century academic scholarship should find its proper place in that section.
• while my edit presents an intial neutral tone, and then proceeds to discuss the interpretative developments in chronological order, Tgeorgescu leaves the reader with a confused mix of chronologies and interpretations. In his revert, all intellectual developments and insights are viewed through the lens of the current "what is taught as fact in all major universities" (as opposed to last decade's/century's "what is taught as fact in all major universities").

—Boruch Baum (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Everything we state as fact inside Wikipedia is based upon reliable sources. By definition dated research does not constitute a reliable source. The objection to the argument about last decade's/century's academic consensus is already stated at WP:FLAT (search for Galileo). There it is stated that Wikipedia reflects present day academic consensus, not the academic consensus from a century or two ago, nor the academic consensus 100 years in the future. As a consequence, everything Wikipedia states about the past should be based upon mainstream contemporary scholarship, so even the sections about the Second Temple Judaism and Christianity are sourced according to mainstream contemporary scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, I think that you should read WP:LEAD. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Unless you have been to 'all major universities' I can't see how you can possibly make that claim. Which ones would you describe as major for a start?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.131.177.78 (talk • contribs)

The article cites high-quality academic sources. You have cited none to indicate that there's a POV problem. And before you try, they need to be academic sources, not devotional ones. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

About "all major universities" we have an opinion piece written by an academic at [1] which verifies the statement. The statement isn't controversial for academics, it is only controversial for conservative churchgoers and fundamentalists, who (most of them) actually don't know what the top 100 US universities teach as Bible scholarship. But indeed Wikipedia has a "bias", see Wikipedia:Academic bias. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Rewording

I've rephrased the lead a bit, which aimed at greater economy. A few things that are rather detailed for the lead (for instance how Isaian notions of righteousness compare to earlier prophets) have been removed as well. I also noticed that the penultimate sentence in the first paragraph had almost the same wording as the source. Darth Viller (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

John the Apostle

John the Apostle was illiterate and could not read anything, let alone write texts using advanced rhetoric in a foreign language. He was magically enabled to read and write any language he wished won't do. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

AD/CE BC/BCE

This is covered by MOS:ERA. TomS TDotO (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Acts of Uziah

The article states that "This manuscript is sometimes called Second Isaiah or The Book by the prophet Isaiah. Besides the problem with the word "manuscript" as applied to a lost text, this just seems wrong. It was sourced to this anonymous web page which I've removed as failing WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 13:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Maid or Maiden?

I believe that the Septuagint (Greek translation) of 'Isaiah' says that the Messiah will be born of a virgin, but the Tanakh (Hebrew version) says that the Messiah will be born of a young woman. I think that there should be more of a discussion on this, as it is of great relevance to both Judaism and Christianity. One issue that might be of importance is whether or not we have surviving copies of the Tanakh from before the Septuagint was written that say that the Messiah will be born of a young woman, indicating that the Septuagint did indeed mistranslate the Hebrew into Greek (it is also possible that the Septuagint faithfully translated the Hebrew of the ORIGINAL Tanakh into Greek, but that later Tanakh versions changed the wording, perhaps to discredit Christianity). User: Draxacoffilus —Preceding undated comment added 09:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

First remark: read WP:OR carefully. Second remark: see Isaiah Scroll. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

User: Draxacoffilus - we have articles on Isaiah 7:14, almah, and Virgin birth of Jesus, which you might find useful if you want to know more on this topic. Please don't rely on Wiki articles though, use them as summaries and use the article bibliographies. As for putting more on the "virgin" prophecy in this article, it would be a severe case of undue weight.PiCo (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

(P.s. - the Hebrew Tanakh word "almah" shouldn't be translated as "young woman" but as a young girl who has reached childbearing age but has not yet given birth to her first child. There's a subtle difference.)PiCo (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Yup, a female teenager younger than 13 years. That's what almah means. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Monotheism

Could someone point me to a scholarly work which discusses the apparent implication of monotheism in Isaiah 44:6? I ask because the word used in the KJV was 'beside', not 'besides', and in the context of the preceding verses, it seems much more to me that the writer was quoting God to be saying "I did these thing alone, no other god stood beside me while I did them". Also, I assume this has been well-debated by persons more-educated than myself...

Given that this seems like a potentially controversial interpretation, I think the line "Isaiah 44:6 contains the first clear statement of monotheism" very much needs a reference to such a learned debate or scholarly work, if one can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtHLarson (talk • contribs) 04:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

As for a scholarly work, see e.g. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism by Mark Smith, page 180. I wouldn't put to much weight on the specific English word in one single (very dated) translation, especially since the surrounding chapters of Isaiah contain many similar statements of monotheism. If you look at Hebrew lexicons, the word translated in the KJV with 'beside' (בלעדי bil`adey) has the general meaning of "except for, apart from". All the modern translations I looked at translated it with 'besides', 'apart from' or 'but' in Isaiah 44:6. - Lindert (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I wonder if it would be better to use one of the more-modern translations and cite it, or to keep the existing KJV quote with a reference to Smith's book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtHLarson (talk • contribs) 17:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The suggestion that "Isaiah 44:6 contains the first clear statement of monotheism" relies on an enlightenment conception of monotheism alien to the text of Isaiah. If monotheism is understood in a more historically appropriate way, Isaiah 44:6, and indeed Isaiah 40-55 as a whole, is better understood as in broad continuity with earlier Jewish texts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.253.111 (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Chuck Missler

Chuck Missler wasn't:

1. a Bible scholar (had no degree therein, was an amateur);
2. an academic (e.g. professor).

Why would we regard him as an authority upon the Bible? Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

First clear statement of monotheism?

A very cursory search turns up"

"When the second Isaiah continually emphasizes the uniqueness of Yahweh: "I am the First and I am the Last; beside me there is no God" (Isa 44:6; cf. 43:10; 45:5, also Deut 4:35; etc.), although one can find a monotheism expressed in such words, it should be remembered that the message of the prophet of the Exile is not aiming for a theoretical insight but for trust in that God who "alone" is creator and Savior (Isa 44:24) and is therefore able to help (43:11; 45:21; etc.). In various spheres of literature at the time of the Exile can be found monotheistic statements as well as ones that sound that way (Gen 1:1 P; Deut 4:39; 32:39; 2 Sam 7:22; 2 Kgs 5:15; Second Isaiah; etc.)."[2] Old Testament Introduction by de:Werner H. Schmidt. Hopefully others can find more. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll bow to your judgment Doug Weller - I was concerned at the removal of sourced content based on what appeared to be an editor's opinion rather than reference to a source; if you're satisfied that the content is dubious, I'm happy for it to stay out - thanks for checking, and apologies to the IP editor. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Dated

This person: http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no92023303/ wrote dated books. Why? Because he died in 1958, and we should generally stick to quoting mainstream Bible scholarship books no more than 20 years old. Exceptions could be made for books which are still considered the best works on the topic by the standards of the year 2021, e.g. Raymond Brown's Birth of the Messiah. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)