Talk:Book of Isaiah

Photos

It would be wonderful if we could find some good copyright free or public domain photos of the book of Isaiah. There are many out there but I am unsure of their copyright status. Although I haven't done too much looking yet. fischersc 16:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Misc

I started a bibliography, but more sources on Isaiah 1-39 are needed. --db

I just updated this page with much more detail. Some of the original content was preserved.

Nathan Hill

Does the Dead Sea Scrolls contain the whole of Isaiah ?

Many apologies, I am a novice, a complete novice, in everything.

I read that the book of Isaiah foretold the destruction of Babylon by King Cyrus and the coming of Jesus, written in 732 B.C.E.

I need to ask if the Dead Sea scroll was genuinely carbon dated and if the complete book or which small fragments of Isaiah were found in the Dead Sea scrolls.

I sense the end is coming, just like the people before me, am I crazy ?

See Matthew 24 (mostly verse 36)[1] Am I responding to a troll? --Midnightcomm 02:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The Dead Sea Scrolls do indeed contain a complete copy of Isaiah. I have seen the entire thing myself at the Israel Museum. --billspry 22 June 2006

Authorship

The lack of attention which this article draws to the near certainty of multiple authorship seems highly problematic to me. john k 01:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The term Second Isaiah, which redirects here is only mentioned in the bibliography, for instance. john k 01:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

And Third Isaiah, and even the generally accepted idea of dividing the book in three, is not mentioned at all. john k 01:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It is necessary to mention, that not all scholars held the theory of joint authorship. Edward Joseph Young was among them. Here is his article on this subject. george 02:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

I added a cleanup tag to this article. The two main reasons I found for doing so are:

1. The intro section, which should be 1-3 paragraphs, is more than a full page in most browsers, reducing the utility and convenience of the table of contents.
2. The entire "Use in the New Testament" section is edited in a form that is rendered poorly by the wiki engine. It should either be wiki-formatted as suggested by the edited text, or be restructured to look good in plain wiki formatting.

I suspect there are other aspects of this article that could use some attention as well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Jeff Q, (or others) I removed the Cleanup tag after reviewing the article. It appears that all your requested items had been removed. I would add though that the 1st introduction paragraph contains info on authorship that then later in the article is debated. Perhaps that one little thing could be dealt with in the Single Authorship sectionl, but doesn't require the Cleanup tags. Lsjzl 21:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Single Authorship

There are two paragraphs championing single authorship for Isiaah. They are awkwardly interspersed with what appear to be the original article. They do not cite any sources and refer to 'many scholars' without mentioning any.

FWIW the theory of multiple authorship is not in any serious dispute among critical scholarship. Fundamentalist students of the Bible object to the idea of multiple authorship but adhere to critical methods to support their position. In fact they do not believe in applying the tools of critical scholarship to the Bible which they hold to be innerant, therefore above critical study.

In response to the above, it is true that the vast majority of scholars hold to multiple authorship, and in fact, there are indications, e.g., Cyrus' name, talk of rebuilding the temple in C 64, which seem to indicate that the original author could not have written the entire book in his own lifetime. However, there are some scholars who would argue for the entire book being "essentially" the work of a single author, perhaps edited and somewhat expanded by his followers, but that no large part of the book was in fact the product of a separate author and appended to the original. Far more scholars today, however, are focused on a unity of the book of Isaiah, but not necessarily a unity in the sense of being the product of a single author in the timeframe of Isaiah the son of Amoz, but rather an intentionally crafted work of literature which may have used disparate sources, but nonetheless has a single provenance, design, and message.

Response: I have moved the multiple authorship paragraph to the primary position in this article because it is the most prominent theory on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.226.9 (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment

But why should the accurate mention of future events and Cyrus' name automatically mean that Isaiah did not write those parts? If Isaiah was indeed a real prophet why should such accuracy rule out his authorship? For example: if in the future lions actually start eating straw like an ox etc etc, does that mean those parts couldn't have been written in the past?

Say if one accepts that Isaiah was a prophet, are there any inconsistencies in the "Book of Isaiah" text that would preclude single authorship? Or is there other evidence? If there aren't any then it also seems a stretch to claim that just because the book of Isaiah contains accurate prophecies those prophecies couldn't have been written by the alleged prophet.

Funny that accurate prophecy should automatically disqualify books allegedly written by prophets from being accepted as being written by those very prophets!

IMO it would make more sense that the lack of accurate and clear (rather than vague) predictions would automatically disqualify "prophetic books" from being treated seriously ;).

Comment

The statement of accurate prophecy is interesting, as prophets in the OT cannon are mostly forthtellers of what is happening to Israel, or what will happen soon in general terms, not a specific name.

I am not trying to put into doubt Yahweh's prophets, but very rarely does that kind of prophetic work occur in the Bible at all.

Comment

Of course it is rare because when it happens, as it does in Isiah you assume a different author. --Teacherbrock (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment

It is necessary to mention in article, that most but not all scholars held the theory of joint authorship. Edward Joseph Young was among those defending single writership. Here is his essay on this subject.--george 02:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Authoring Aid

If anybody wants to tackle this and needs a start, here: http://www.hope.edu/academic/religion/bandstra/RTOT/RTOT.HTM the link goes to a college level intro to old testament textbook, with an entire chapter for isaiah. it's supposed to be mainly secular in its examination (maybe my prof lied?) good luck. Dreamer.redeemer 01:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

I added those tags because this article is highly disputed from a Jewish POV. It contains mistranslations from the Hebrew. etc. ems 06:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

From your addition of identical tags on the Simeon the Righteous, it would seem that your objection focuses on Isaiah 7:14. As the comments on the discussion page for Simeon indicated, it is the Septuagint that made the translation with the word parthenos. But more importantly, the txt on this page indicates already that there is some dispute. Perhaps you'd feel less frustrated(?) with Wiki if you actually attempted to rephrase the text you object to rather than just leave these tags in place. JGF Wilks 16:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Until the article is fixed those tags should be there. ems 17:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Photo added

I've added a photo of the book. I've also uploaded a cropped version to wikicommons available at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Crop_Book_of_Isaiah_2006-06-06.jpg It might be better, it gives a closer view of the writing- anway feel free to swap the images or resize it or remove it ...or whatever! Hope its of some use. --Trounce 20:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

spacing

Someone should fix the huge whitespace it the middle of the article. Also, there should be a page about the potential second Isaiah.

Done. I've long been thinking about creating pages for proto and deutero Isaiah, so maybe I will soon. If you would like to, feel free, and I'll jump in with some help. AdamBiswanger1 01:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Christian view

There should be a seperate section for Christian views on Isaiah. The way it stands is confusing and gives the misleading impression that there is a strong connection between Isaiah and Christianity. I've added in the Jewish view on deutero Isaiah and I will try to expand.Wolf2191 00:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I'm dubious about having a separate section - and if you expand, be really careful about POV issues. It would be inappropriate to see a Christian view as something imposed on the book - Christian interpreters would say it's an integral part of the book. That is, according to the Christian interpretation, Isaiah really is taling about Jesus. StAnselm 00:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

After looking it over, I retract. I was a bit too quick to comment. Any further christian additions (e.g. the famous almah) would require a seperate section or it will confuse. Second, I mentioned Ben Sirah and the Dead Sea Scrolls but that may constitue OR. If so, maybe I can add in a citaton needed or something. Thanks Wolf2191 00:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of term Palestine

Sorry, I am not a wikipedia regular and I will probably never check back to see what became of this. I was thinking that using the term Palestine and Palestinians is probably not the best way to refer to the countries in this time period. After all the Philistines were just another group of people in the area and the area was named after the Philistines something like 700 years after Isaiah. Personally I wouldn't care what the area is called but because of the politically charged atmosphere I think there are better terms. Thanks, Jon 69.95.168.98 20:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Second Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah

The terms "Second Isaiah" and "Deutero-Isaiah" are frequently encountered [2], [3], and as you can see redirect to this article, yet are not mentioned in the article. We should mention these terms in the text of the article, presumably in the section "Authorship". -- 201.19.77.39 08:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

- The term "Deutero-Isaiah" mentioned, but "Second Isaiah" not explicitly mentioned. -- 201.19.77.39 09:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Chapters 24-34 and the messiah

Chapters 24-34, while too complex to characterize easily, are primarily concerned with prophecies of a "Messiah,"

Really? I've just read them and to be honest I don't see it. There are brief passages that could be interpreted in this way but I don't see any coherent narrative here. Evercat (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

vandalism by omglol101

On april 13 2008 a user called 'omglol101' added words like 'false', 'incorrect' etc. everywhere in the article claiming that the prophesies made by Isaiah were false. Apart from the fact that no references, citations or clarifications were added, the editing was in my opinion clearly an act of vandalism, because a sentence like 'The remaining chapters of the book contain no prophecies of the future glory of Zion under the rule of a righteous servant (52 & 54).' makes no sense at all. I therefore suggest that the changes made by omglol101 on april 13 be reverted. I'm new to wikipedia editing, so if I should have posted this somewhere else or should have handled this otherwise, please inform me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindert (talk • contribs) 15:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely; I'm reverting them. Best not to call them vandalism; we should assume good faith. Tb (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"the restoration of the nation under a divine king"

The current version of the article's introduction states, "The last 27 chapters, called "The Book of Comfort," prophesy the restoration of the nation under a divine king." I don't know when this became part of the text, but to me it is blatant, wholly unsupported Christian propaganda. The sentence could read much more accurately: "The last 27 chapters, called "The Book of Comfort,' prophesy the restoration of the nation of Israel," a sentence that would be supported by ample textual citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big Mac (talk • contribs) 11:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone is angry

"As indication of the fractious character of analysis of Isaiah authorship, The Transforming Word: One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, published in 2009, asserted that "The book of Isaiah contains materials originating over four centuries" according to John T. Willis of Abilene Christian University;[13] no sooner was the print dry on Willis' statement before he was alleged to have "infidelic bias" by Christian Courier editor Wayne Jackson, fellow member with Willis in the Churches of Christ. In a commentary weighing almost 7 lb, extending to viii + 1127 pages, and containing numerous examples of analytical discussion influenced by contemporary scholarship,[14] Willis' comment on the authorship of the book of Isaiah is the one point which Jackson chose to assay, even summoning to defense of the one-author position Gleason Archer and other fundamentalist commentators not necessarily compatible with either Willis or Jackson on other topics.[15]"

It sounds like Willis wrote this himself and he's not too happy about what happened. (Actually, I think four or so people wrote this, pretending to be Willis.) The language is not encyclopedic. 69.254.76.77 (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Number of sections issue in the introduction

Hello, I had added mention of the theory that there were possibly more than one or two authors of the Book of Isaiah. I'm not good at adding citations in the right format off the top of my head, but I do have references:

Navarre Bible "The Major Prophets" ISBN 1-59417-023-1 p.32 — This source gives an outline of these authorship theories though it favors the traditional single authorship.

The Catholic Study Bible ISBN 978-0-19-528278-8 pp. 280-295 — This source supports having three or more authors.

Harper Collins Study Bible ISBN 978-0-06-122840-7 pp. 912-941 — The introduction in this Bible equivocates between two or more possible authors.

Bible de Jérusalem ISBN 978-2-7289-1294-0 pp. 1474-1476 — This is firmly on the side of three separate authors.

For the record, I don't have a preference between these ideas but I think the Trito-Isaiah hypothesis should be included in the introduction. LovesMacs (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What I removed was not for the idea that it may have had three authors-- but that it has three major sections. If this idea of having three sections was clearly stated in the work I think you would give a particular page to find it on, not just "pages 558-562." Three separate authors does not equle three major sections. Everything I read considers it to have TWO major sections.^{Carlaude:Talk} 00:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?q=third+Isaiah

Isaiah at earlyjewishwritings.com: "J. Alberto Soggin writes: "As has been mentioned several times already, in 1892 B. Duhm suggested in his commentary that Isa. 56-66 should be separated from Deutero-Isaiah. From this time onwards, the independence of Trito-Isaiah from the texts which precede it has been generally accepted, outside conservative theological circles." (Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 335-336)

75.0.0.59 (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Carlaude, you raise a fair point. I think there is some confusion between authors and sections, and whether something written by an author or two or more constitutes one or more sections. I had been thinking author=section without even realizing it. I'll read up on it. Thank you for your input. LovesMacs (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. If I recall, most authors note the great contrast in subject and tone beween, the first 39 chapters, and last 27 chapters-- even if they consider the last 27 chapters to be from two different time periods. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 06:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The number of sections appears to be a matter of disagreement among scholars. The introduction in the Harper Collins Study Bible is unambiguous in referring to three sections:

Scholars normally distinguish between three main sections in the book: chs. 1-39, referred to as First Isaiah and attributed to the eighth-century BCE Judean prophet whose name the book bears; chs. 40-55, referred to as Second Isaiah, or Deutero-Isaiah, and attributed to an unknown prophet who lived in Babylon during the Babylonian exile of the sixth century; and chs. 56-66, referred to as Third Isaiah, or Trito-Isaiah, and attributed to a prophet or prophets who lived in Judah after the return from Babylonian exile in 539 BCE. (Harper Collins Study Bible, p. 912)

The book A Guide to the Bible by Antonio Fuentes ISBN 1-85182-022-1 echoes this division in three parts: "There are 66 chapters in all, and these are usually divided up into three sections. (p. 109)"

The Navarre Bible also says three sections: "For these reasons [I am not typing the preceding paragraphs here] the book of Isaiah can be taken as having three parts, in line with the content and the historical background of each part. (Navarre Bible, p. 30)"

The Catholic Study Bible contradicts itself. The Biblical text is divided into two main sections, chapters 1-39, subtitled "A. The Book of Judgement" and ch. 40-66 "B. The Book of Consolation". The introduction immediately preceding the text also uses this division (p. 930). However, the Reader's Guide at the beginning of the book talks about three parts: "Scholars conventionally refer to the three sections as First, Second, and Third Isaiah, though it is possible that there were actually only two prophets. (p. 280)"

What do you think we should do next? LovesMacs (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

From the quote, it seems the Harper Collins Study Bible may just be meaning three sections of authorship, time writen, etc., not three sections of message, tone, etc. The Catholic Study Bible doesn't contradicts itself-- there are three sections (or parts) and two main sections. The last two section are just not main sections.

We can just talk about (when needed) two "main sections" and three "sections" (or better yet "parts") without taking a stand on the issue and without doing a detailed reading of the therotical "scolarly consensus" -- which would be very hard, at best, because this is not likely the type of thing scolars would consider worthy of a full-blown debate. (Is such and such a main section or a main subsection?)

If you do try to document the various opinions on this please leave it in the body of the text, rather than the intro. It could also be put mostly in a footnote. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 10:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Catholic Study Bible does actually distinguish between thematic differences between three parts, in the Reader's Guide discussion, but I think discussion of two main sections is good enough for the purposes of this article. LovesMacs (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ch 29 Verse 12

can someone talk about Ch 29 Verse 12 of Isaiah which many Muslims assert foretells the Holy Prophet Muhummad (S.A.W.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.5.16 (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Co-opting of Hebrew Scriptures

I noted that someone above made a remark about someone else being angry. I came to this link looking for just a description of the Servant Songs, ie the beginning and ending verses of each one. Since the chapter breaks and verse numbering is a Christian invention, I was hoping to find this page accurately depicting where, under the current numbering system, the Songs begin and end according to the people who should know, after all this book is canonized in the 24 Hebrew Books - Tanakh.

Although I understand how Wikipedia works, I still was astonished and dismayed to find that this page has been co-opted by Christians creating another theological crime scene in the Tanakh. Angry? No, I guess I should be used to this tactic by now.

It reminds me of the Wikipedia page about the non-existent State of Palestine.

No, I am not Jewish. Despite that, I still resent having uninspired biblical 'scholars' putting the NT messiah into every nook and cranny in the Tanakh. If Christians wish to build a case for their god, perhaps a different book could be found on which to base their religion. Awikifixer (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you saying that the Jews have a monopoly on Hebrew scripture? How is it a crime to interpret ancient books according to your own religion? You may not realize it, but Jesus and his early followers were Jews, and Christianity was founded in Israel and perceives itself as a continuation of Judaism. But that is beside the point, because the Hebrew Bible, just like the New Testament, the Quran and other scripture are public domain, free for everyone to criticize, analyse and interpret, whether Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Humanist etc. Lindert (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Not Joseph Smith, but Charles Anthon and Martin Harris

I'm documenting here a little change I made to one line. "Read this, I pray thee / I cannot read a sealed book" is referred to as being understood by Latter-day Saints as referring to Joseph Smith. I explained that members of that Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints largely believe this verse to refer to Martin Harris' attempts at getting famous academics to approve of Joseph Smith's translations--in this case, Charles Anthon, who supposedly wrote a letter of authenticity, then feared for his career, tore up the letter, and denied the whole event.--Mrcolj (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Eerdmans commentary on the Bible

Among some other edits that were recently reverted, the following passage was restored:

The original "servant" of Proto-Isaiah was probably Hezekiah in his ritual role as royal High Priest on the Day of Atonement, offering his own blood to heal the land, bringing judgment on his enemies and rescuing his people from the Assyrians.

Although sourced, this statement is highly problematic. First of all, the so-called servant, is afaik not identified anywhere in Proto-Isaiah (this is also not ppresent in the source, the servant songs appear only in Deutero-Isaiah). Secondly, the term 'royal High Priest' is quite anachronistic. Anyone with some knowledge of Jewish tradition and scriptures understands that high priests in the temple were from a single Levite family unrelated to the royal family of David. Thirdly the notion of anyone sacrificing his own blood in any temple ritual is completely foreign to the Tanakh. The author of this part of the bible commentary, Margaret Barker in fact developed an approach called Temple Theology, which is far from mainstream and has a unique interpretation of First Temple worship (her views are incidentally often cited by Mormons). Earlier in the same commentary we read

(...) the most obvious explanation for the individual-then-corporate Servant would be that the original Servant had been the king, the Melchizedek high priest of the First Temple.

Note that Melchizedek lived in a completely different period has no connection to either the Temple, the Levitical priests or the kingdom of Judah/Israel, because none of these existed in the time of Abraham/Melchizedek. I believe that this kind of interpretation is bad for the image of Wikipedia as it is based on flawed and highly speculative theories and has no place in mainstream scholarship. I therefore suggest that we don't use this particular source. Lindert (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I checked the source, and the article in fact tracks it quite closely. Eerdmans is a reliable source (a mainstream source, come to that), and we can't drop it simply because of your personal objections - the editors of Eerdamns obviously don't think Barker's views are flawed or highly speculative. Can you give some evidence to support your criticism? (BTW, the word "servant" was a designation of the king in ancient Judah - he was the servant of Yahweh - hence the source, and the article, are saying that Hezekiah was called "servant" in his role as king, and DI later turned this into Suffering Servant).PiCo (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think these are simply my personal objections. Also, I didn't mean not to use anything by Eerdmans, but only this commentary on Isaiah. Anyway, I'm glad that you at least removed the reference to Proto-Isaiah. However, the question then arises, if the "servant" is not identified anywhere in Isaiah (neither Proto-, Deutero- nor Trito-), then what is the relevance of this mention? This section deals solely with Isaiah 53, so the only relevant subject is the identification of the "servant" in (Deutero-)Isaiah. As to the identification of the "servant", I have done some searching in google scholar and google books and have found not a single source (apart from Barker) that calls Hezekiah even a probable or likely candidate for the origin of the "servant". Here are some references I found:

"Who is the Servant? The attempts to answer this question have been so many and varied (...) it would be arrogant to claim finality for any solution. It is easier to find objections to any answer, than to offer one that is adequate."

The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible (1975), The Book of the Prophet Isaiah, by A.S. Herbert, p. 10 link

"Modern scholarship has reached an impasse in regard to the identity of the "Servant of the Lord" in the servant songs in Deutero-Isaiah. The prevalent interpretation at the present time is some sort of "fluid" oscillating or linear concept that takes in Israel, some political, spiritual or ideal portion of Israel and/or some individual either in Israel's past, present or future."

The Servant-City: A New Interpretation of the "Servant of the Lord" in the Servant Songs of Deutero-Isaiah, Leland Edward Wilshire, Journal of Biblical Literature (sept. 1975) link

"No explanation for the identity of the servant of the Lord in the ‘servant songs’ of Isaiah commands a scholarly consensus."

GP Hugenberger - Irish Biblical Studies, 1979 link

For most scholars, however, German-speaking and anglophone alike, the identity of the Servant remains controversial. Blenkinsopp noted in 2000, “Since Christopher R. North surveyed the range of opinion on the identity of the Servant in 1948 (2nd ed., 1956), no significant new options have emerged. While there was then and still is a strong critical preference for an individual rather than a collective interpretation, none of the fifteen individuals named as candidates by one commentator or another and listed by North has survived scrutiny.”

The Servant Songs of Isaiah in the MT and the LXX: A Comparison of Their Portrayals of God, Maillet, Paul et. al., published by The Catholic University of America (Nov. 2010) p. 15 link

Summarizing, it seems that most scholars are much more hesitant than Barker to accept one explanation or the other, and there certainly is no consensus as to the identity of the "servant". If you know of any other independent source that confirms the current reading of the article, I'd like to see it, but as of now, I think this statement must be understood as the personal view of Margaret Barker and does not reflect any concensus. Lindert (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: This is also, imo supported by the preface of "Eerdmans commentary on the Bible":

The sixty seven contributors include world-class scholars from a wide variety of backgrounds and faith traditions. Their contributions stand out either for their fresh interpretations of the evidence, or for their way of asking new questions of the text, or for their new angles of approach, (...)

Anything that stands out for its 'fresh interpretation of the evidence' or for its 'new angle of approach' can, by definition, not reflect a scholarly consensus at the time it is published. Lindert (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

When I look at the section this is in, I see it's about the influence of Isaiah on Christianity. On that basis, we really don't need to worry about who the "servant" originally was - not here, at any rate, although no doubt it's vital for the appropriate section. All we really need here is "The earliest Christians saw the Servant a prophecy of the death and exaltation of Jesus, a role which Jesus himself seems to have accepted (Luke 4:17-21)". That does seem a bit thin, though - maybe the whole section should be re-written without the subdivisions. I leave it to you, since you seem well-read in the subject. (I like the piece from Blenkinsopp, it's a good summary - you might like to include that in the appropriate section on D-I).PiCo (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Wiki shall relay on reliable sources, and the Eerdmans commentaries are reliable, quite independently from who wrote the article (anyway M.Barker is a "name". This paper covers M.Barker's ideas [4]). It is also quite probable that the Deutero-Is built the servant-song having in mind something related to Isiah historical age. But, and I fully agree with Pico, what originated the servant-songs don't modify the importance of the later interpretations: as good wikipedians, we shall list all of them.A ntv (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I've had a stab at revising the Influence on Christianity section so that it focuses more on that topic. Quite probably the material on the original meaning of these verses as written by DI needs to be strengthened. Anyone like to help? PiCo (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly an easy, non-controversial task for someone who's studied this area and has sources to hand

Could we have an expansion on the 'early texts' section? I'm interested in the Dead Sea Scrolls version, as to how old it is generally held to be and the language it is in, but also other early versions, such as surviving copies of the Septuagint. I don't know so much about this area, so I'm worried I'd show whatever bias was in the first source I read if I tried myself! 86.164.25.178 (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Chapter 40 reference correct?

Under the Composition section we have:

Anonymity → Isaiah’s name suddenly stops being used after chapter 39.
Style → There is a sudden change in style and theology after chapter 40...
Historical Situation → The historical situation goes through three stages: in chapters 1-39...

Is the reference to chapter 40 correct or should it be chapter 39 as well? If the chapter 40 reference is correct does it mean that there was another Isaiah (number one and a half?) who just wrote chapter 40? Quentin Durward (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)