Evidence

[_maklelan]

That is false. Let's get one thing straight here, [Personal insult deleted by mod Scottie]: I am far better versed in Biblical scholarship than you and that will always be the case.

Well, whether or not that's the case (I don't think it is) there's no doubt that I am far better versed in biblical scholarship than you, and that Deutero-Isaiah was not written by Isaiah is the overwhelming consensus in scholarship. I don't know any critical scholars who challenge it on methodologically sound grounds.

I agree that a logical argument serves as evidence, though. Broadly speaking, evidence is anything that contributes to establishing the truth of a proposition. Insisting it is not evidence is really only insisting on a more narrow definition of the word, and that really comes down to preference.

[_sock puppet]

From what I have learned, I would also say evidence is different than an argument. Arguments are supported by evidence.

But I realize there is much dispute in the broad theory of evidence.

I understand we have the following types of evidence:

Personal experience
Testimony
Scientific evidence
Anecdotal evidence

Hmmm, I just read that intuition can be considered evidence. That seems sort of odd but I know I have used that before to help with decision making.

Hi, Zeez,

I would put evidence into three general categories:

Repeatable results (scientific testing)
Witness testimony
Circumstantial artifacts.

It seems from the evidence manifested in these three ways, we draw conclusions. Deductive conclusions being more reliable and certain than inductive ones.

Intuition is one of those areas that I believe believers and non-believers differ. Believers will often attribute intuition as a divine inspiration or revelation, from the Spirit. Non-believers, I think, view intuition as interstitial knowledge. That is, knowledge that is inductively reasoned by the subconscious from known facts that are closely related to the matter of the intuition. In fact, it is an informed guess that sometimes turns out correct and other times does not.

[_zeezrom]

I figured an attorney would have a pretty good grasp on the definition. Thanks Sox.

[_Milesius]

That is false. Let's get one thing straight here, [Personal insult deleted by mod Scottie]: I am far better versed in Biblical scholarship than you and that will always be the case.

Well, whether or not that's the case (I don't think it is) there's no doubt that I am far better versed in biblical scholarship than you,

Pull the other leg; it has bells on it.

and that Deutero-Isaiah was not written by Isaiah is the overwhelming consensus in scholarship.

Well, then, I guess it's good that I did not claim the contrary.

I don't know any critical scholars who challenge it on methodologically sound grounds.

When one examines the verbal and stylistic relationships between Isaiah 1-39 and 40-66, the results are compelling. The similarities far outnumber the differences. The most impressive example of such continuity is Isaiah's distinctive title for God, "the Holy One of Israel." This title occurs twelve times in chapters 1-39 and another fourteen times in chapters 40-66. Elsewhere it is used only four times in the Old Testament. Since the doctrine of God's holiness was so important to Isaiah (cf. ch. 6), he used this title repeatedly, and it became an unmistakable sign of his authorship.

The famous Servant Song of 52:13-53:12 contains important links with earlier passages in chapters 1-39. In 1:5-6 the description of a battered, sin-sick nation is remarkably similar to 53:4-5. "Beaten" is the same word that is translated "smitted (of God)" in 53:4. "Injured" is rendered "infirmities" (53:4), and "welts" (habbbura) is translated as "stripes" or "wounds" (53:5). These are the only two places where habbura occurs in Isaiah or in any of the prophets.

Isaiah 2:22 is a warning against putting too much reliance upon men:

"Stop trusting in man,
who has but a breath in his nostrils.
Of what account is he?"

The word translated "Stop trusting" (literally, "cease"--hidlu) occurs in the phrase "rejected by men" in 53:3. "Of what account" also occurs in 53:3 where it is rendered "we esteeemed him not." In no other Old Testament passages do these two words occur together in the same context.

The verbs "to be high and lifted up" (rum and nasa) are used as a combination several times in Isaiah. In 2:12 God threatens judgment against "proud" and "exalted" men. In 6:1 the Lord is "seated on a throne, high and exalted," nd in 52:13 the Lord's Servant is "raised and lifted up." The correspondence suggests that the Servant will be given an eminent position following His suffering, and it suggests that the same author wrote each of the passages.

Chapter 40 is another passage that is closely associated with concepts that occur in Isaiah 1-39. Verse 8 of chapter 40, with its promise that "the word of our God stands forever," reflects the language of 7:7 and 8:10, where the Lord assured Ahaz that the plans formed by arrogant nations against the people of God would not come to fruition. The ideas and proposals of God are never thwarted.
The end of chapter 40 contains the famous verses about gaining new strength by waiting on the Lord. Verse 30 describes the exhausted men as "weary" and as those who "stumble." The same two terms are used in 5:27 to portray an Assyrian army that was empowered by the Lord.
Rachel Margalioth has assembled a large number of additional examples of this sort. One significant area she has investigated is the way that Isaiah used the same words in passages about judgment and in passages about comfort. The land that will become desolate and forsaken will one day no longer be called forsaken and desolate (6:11-12; 62:4). God will "break down the wall" around Israel (5:5), but someday Israel will be able to "wall up the break" (58:12).11

These examples strongly suggest that the Book of Isaiah was written by a single author. To escape this conclusion, one must argue that someone who lived after Isaiah was so heavily influenced by him that he consciously copied Isaiah's style. One could also argue that the phraseology of the later "Isaiahs" was interpolated into earlier chapters, but such a judgment is hopelessly subjective. 12 (Herbert M. Wolf. Interpreting Isaiah: the suffering and glory of the Messiah. Zondervan, 1985)

I agree that a logical argument serves as evidence, though. Broadly speaking, evidence is anything that contributes to establishing the truth of a proposition. Insisting it is not evidence is really only insisting on a more narrow definition of the word, and that really comes down to preference.

You have some sense at least!

[_Milesius]

Obvious you aren't [far better versed in Biblical scholarship] if you think Deutero Isaiah was written by Isaiah. Or do you think Isaiah survived into the Babylonian captivity? :D

I am somewhat agnostic about "Deutero-Isaiah" but in any event there are serious scholars who dispute it.

[_maklelan]

Pull the other leg; it has bells on it.

What degrees do you hold in biblical studies, where did you receive them, and under whom did you study?

Well, then, I guess it's good that I did not claim the contrary.

You said it is disputed, but it's not. The case has really been settled, and no one pays any real attention to the fringes where people are still trying to insist the chapters are compositionally unified.

When one examines the verbal and stylistic relationships between Isaiah 1-39 and 40-66, the results are compelling. The similarities far outnumber the differences.

As we would expect with two writers from related religious communities writing in the same language, especially with one trying to mimic the other.

The most impressive example of such continuity is Isaiah's distinctive title for God, "the Holy One of Israel." This title occurs twelve times in chapters 1-39 and another fourteen times in chapters 40-66. Elsewhere it is used only four times in the Old Testament. Since the doctrine of God's holiness was so important to Isaiah (cf. ch. 6), he used this title repeatedly, and it became an unmistakable sign of his authorship.

First, the term appears in six other places in the Old Testament. Second, that is just the kind of pattern that later redactors tend to copy.

The famous Servant Song of 52:13-53:12 contains important links with earlier passages in chapters 1-39. In 1:5-6 the description of a battered, sin-sick nation is remarkably similar to 53:4-5. "Beaten" is the same word that is translated "smitted (of God)" in 53:4. "Injured" is rendered "infirmities" (53:4), and "welts" (habbbura) is translated as "stripes" or "wounds" (53:5). These are the only two places where habbura occurs in Isaiah or in any of the prophets.

Just the kind of thing you would expect from someone mimicking another writer, although it does appear more outside of Isaiah than inside it (Gen 4:22; Exod 21:25; Ps 38:6; Prov 20:30).

Isaiah 2:22 is a warning against putting too much reliance upon men:

"Stop trusting in man,
who has but a breath in his nostrils.
Of what account is he?"

The word translated "Stop trusting" (literally, "cease"--hidlu) occurs in the phrase "rejected by men" in 53:3. "Of what account" also occurs in 53:3 where it is rendered "we esteeemed him not." In no other Old Testament passages do these two words occur together in the same context.

The verbs "to be high and lifted up" (rum and nasa) are used as a combination several times in Isaiah. In 2:12 God threatens judgment against "proud" and "exalted" men. In 6:1 the Lord is "seated on a throne, high and exalted," nd in 52:13 the Lord's Servant is "raised and lifted up." The correspondence suggests that the Servant will be given an eminent position following His suffering, and it suggests that the same author wrote each of the passages.

Chapter 40 is another passage that is closely associated with concepts that occur in Isaiah 1-39. Verse 8 of chapter 40, with its promise that "the word of our God stands forever," reflects the language of 7:7 and 8:10, where the Lord assured Ahaz that the plans formed by arrogant nations against the people of God would not come to fruition. The ideas and proposals of God are never thwarted.
The end of chapter 40 contains the famous verses about gaining new strength by waiting on the Lord. Verse 30 describes the exhausted men as "weary" and as those who "stumble." The same two terms are used in 5:27 to portray an Assyrian army that was empowered by the Lord.
Rachel Margalioth has assembled a large number of additional examples of this sort. One significant area she has investigated is the way that Isaiah used the same words in passages about judgment and in passages about comfort. The land that will become desolate and forsaken will one day no longer be called forsaken and desolate (6:11-12; 62:4). God will "break down the wall" around Israel (5:5), but someday Israel will be able to "wall up the break" (58:12).11

These examples strongly suggest that the Book of Isaiah was written by a single author.

It strongly suggests someone was mimicking the author more than it suggests the authors were the same.

To escape this conclusion, one must argue that someone who lived after Isaiah was so heavily influenced by him that he consciously copied Isaiah's style.

This author seems to suggest there's something problematic about that notion. It happened all the time. Isaiah was one of the most popular books of the Bible in Second Temple Judaism. Look at the Hodayot. They cull vernacular from Isaiah in just about every line.

One could also argue that the phraseology of the later "Isaiahs" was interpolated into earlier chapters, but such a judgment is hopelessly subjective. 12[/i] (Herbert M. Wolf. Interpreting Isaiah: the suffering and glory of the Messiah. Zondervan, 1985)

This author has produced evidence that supports two authors just as much as it supports a single author. In fact, he later states that there are significant differences between the two, and that one may have been written years after the other. He still insists they were written by the same author, though. As I said, I don't know any scholars who argue for Isaiah's unity on methodologically sound grounds, and this is no exception by any stretch of the imagination. Also, this author does not address the many, many problems with asserting a single author. For instance, Isaiah's name is mentioned sixteen time in Isaiah 1-39, but it is never mentioned in Deutero-Isaiah. While Isaiah 1-39 accurately describe life in 8th century Judah and contemporary social and ideological concerns, chapters 40-55 speak as if the exile had already taken place, and address exilic social and ideological concerns. In fact, the author is predicting Israel's redemption from the exile, as if the actual exile had already taken place. The author even commits a great deal of discussion to the appropriateness of God's using a foreign king to free Israel. None of these concepts is found in Isaiah 1-39. Next, the book of Jeremiah predicted Israel's defeat and exile at the hand of the Babylonians, appealing to numerous different texts in support of avoiding resistance. Deutero-Isaiah would have been a slam dunk with its guarantee of Israel's deportation at God's insistence. Isaiah 1-39 wouldn't have helped his argument at all, in fact it would have been counter-productive in some places, but he would not have found a more perfect scriptural witness than Deutero-Isaiah. No mention is made, though. It seems bizarre that Jeremiah would not mention those chapters. We do have evidence, however, that Deutero-Isaiah is actually based on Jeremiah. This could only happen if Deutero-Isaiah was written after the deportation of Israel (Benjamin D. Sommer, "New Light on the Composition of Jeremiah," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61 [1999]: 646-66; Shaleom Paul, "Literary and Ideological Echoes of Jeremiah in Deutero-Isaiah," in Proceedings of the 5th World Congress of Jewish Studies vol. 1 [Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1969], 102-20.). Pointing out that some of the concepts are parallel does not make all the disparities go away. Again, the author does not produce a methodologically sound argument at all.

[_maklelan]

I am somewhat agnostic about "Deutero-Isaiah" but in any event there are serious scholars who dispute it.

Can you name any that are employed by non-devotional universities?

[_MrStakhanovite]

An argument is not evidence. Arguments should be based on evidence.

Any attempt to draw an inference from a set of data, is an argument. Evidence does not speak for itself, it's just a set of facts that need interpetation.

[_Milesius]

What degrees do you hold in biblical studies, where did you receive them, and under whom did you study?

As a undergraduate, I took classes in Attic Greek, the Hebrew Scriptures, and Ancient Greek religion from an expert in Hellenistic Judaism. (Incidentally, I discussed your Maccabees paper with him months ago while we were both on Facebook and he didn't think much of your claim either.) I also took a New Testament class from someone else in the religious studies department. This is in addition to the books and articles I've read on my own.

You said it is disputed, but it's not. The case has really been settled, and no one pays any real attention to the fringes where people are still trying to insist the chapters are compositionally unified.

Yes, it is. It is disputed by conservative Jewish and Christian* scholars.

When one examines the verbal and stylistic relationships between Isaiah 1-39 and 40-66, the results are compelling. The similarities far outnumber the differences.

As we would expect with two writers from related religious communities writing in the same language, especially with one trying to mimic the other.

We don't see that with the Pseudo-Paul of the Pastoral Epistles, who was from a related community and wrote in the same language as Paul.

...

The famous Servant Song of 52:13-53:12 contains important links with earlier passages in chapters 1-39. In 1:5-6 the description of a battered, sin-sick nation is remarkably similar to 53:4-5. "Beaten" is the same word that is translated "smitted (of God)" in 53:4. "Injured" is rendered "infirmities" (53:4), and "welts" (habbbura) is translated as "stripes" or "wounds" (53:5). These are the only two places where habbura occurs in Isaiah or in any of the prophets.

Just the kind of thing you would expect from someone mimicking another writer, although it does appear more outside of Isaiah than inside it (Gen 4:22; Exod 21:25; Ps 38:6; Prov 20:30).

Incredibly, it is also the kind of thing you would expect if the same person wrote the whole book.

...

To escape this conclusion, one must argue that someone who lived after Isaiah was so heavily influenced by him that he consciously copied Isaiah's style.

This author seems to suggest there's something problematic about that notion. It happened all the time. Isaiah was one of the most popular books of the Bible in Second Temple Judaism. Look at the Hodayot. They cull vernacular from Isaiah in just about every line.

LOL. Did they just quote the Chapters 1-39, or the whole book?

One could also argue that the phraseology of the later "Isaiahs" was interpolated into earlier chapters, but such a judgment is hopelessly subjective. 12[/i] (Herbert M. Wolf. Interpreting Isaiah: the suffering and glory of the Messiah. Zondervan, 1985)

This author has produced evidence that supports two authors just as much as it supports a single author. In fact, he later states that there are significant differences between the two, and that one may have been written years after the other.

Where?

He still insists they were written by the same author, though. As I said, I don't know any scholars who argue for Isaiah's unity on methodologically sound grounds, and this is no exception by any stretch of the imagination. Also, this author does not address the many, many problems with asserting a single author. For instance, Isaiah's name is mentioned sixteen time in Isaiah 1-39, but it is never mentioned in Deutero-Isaiah.

Even if that is the case, I think it is pretty weak evidence against single authorship.

While Isaiah 1-39 accurately describe life in 8th century Judah and contemporary social and ideological concerns, chapters 40-55 speak as if the exile had already taken place, and address exilic social and ideological concerns. In fact, the author is predicting Israel's redemption from the exile, as if the actual exile had already taken place. The author even commits a great deal of discussion to the appropriateness of God's using a foreign king to free Israel. None of these concepts is found in Isaiah 1-39.

But if it is true, as Clements says, that it is not so much vocabulary and style that prove the author of chs. 1-39 could not have written chs. 40-66, but that the latter chapters seem to have been written to another historical context than the author's own,16 perhaps it is the scholarly understanding of the phenomenon of biblical prophecy that needs to be corrected, not the traditional view of the book's authorship. (John Oswalt. The book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66. Eerdmans, 1998)

Next, the book of Jeremiah predicted Israel's defeat and exile at the hand of the Babylonians, appealing to numerous different texts in support of avoiding resistance. Deutero-Isaiah would have been a slam dunk with its guarantee of Israel's deportation at God's insistence. Isaiah 1-39 wouldn't have helped his argument at all, in fact it would have been counter-productive in some places, but he would not have found a more perfect scriptural witness than Deutero-Isaiah. No mention is made, though. It seems bizarre that Jeremiah would not mention those chapters.

Perhaps. Neither of us have a window into his mind though.

We do have evidence, however, that Deutero-Isaiah is actually based on Jeremiah. This could only happen if Deutero-Isaiah was written after the deportation of Israel (Benjamin D. Sommer, "New Light on the Composition of Jeremiah," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61 [1999]: 646-66; Shaleom Paul, "Literary and Ideological Echoes of Jeremiah in Deutero-Isaiah," in Proceedings of the 5th World Congress of Jewish Studies vol. 1 [Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1969], 102-20.)...

I'll have to check it out.

*I don't have in mind Mormons here.

[_Milesius]

I am somewhat agnostic about "Deutero-Isaiah" but in any event there are serious scholars who dispute it.

Can you name any that are employed by non-devotional universities?

No.