3 Portions of Isaiah

This is the second of two week 2 discussion questions from my Spring 2022 course Understanding the Bible as a Progressive Christian through Pathways Theological Education

THE CONTENTS: List the reasons scholars think there are three separate portions of Isaiah. Why might it be important as a preacher/pastor to understand this academic distinction?

This is an extremely timely question, as this week, someone asked on our church Discord (where most of our communal life takes place) about the relationship between Isaiah 43:23 and Isaiah 66:23-24. Their question was, in my opinion, based on a need to have a overly literal reading of the Bible and to make predictions about what the next life will be like. We talked about literalism in class last week, and my personal opinion on most of eschatology is that we should take Paul seriously when he tells us "Now I know partially but then I will know completely in the same way that I have been completely known." (1 Corinthians 12:12b) and not waste a lot of time in the now trying to figure out the exact details, but rather focus on what Jesus has told us about how to live in this life. However, I know that people, particularly people who have been heavily exposed to hellfire and brimstone type fundamentalism, worry about the future and have often been taught that they need to find certainty in the Bible even in the face of so many verses that tell us it isn't there. (ie Ecclesiastes 10:14, Matthew 24:36 ) And it is important to take that fear seriously, however, at the same time that I encourage people (myself included) to follow the guidance from Mandy Rice, MDiv on queerituality.com that "You can’t just unthink religious harm. You have to live your way beyond it." At any rate, simply talking about that "academic distinction" was helpful to my co-member in addressing some of their concern and then we were able to work from there.

Here is what I shared with my church about this:

I'm currently reading How The Bible Came To Be for a class and it talks about how Isaiah is likely 3 books or sections, written at different times, Isaiah 1-39, Isaiah 40-55, and Isaiah 56-66. Isaiah the prophet dates to the 8th Century BCE (the book puts him as just after Amos) and part 1 would take place then. The second part, which would include Isaiah 45:23 has references to then current events from the 6th Century BCE, concerning the plight of those exiled to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar. Then, 56-66, containing the first passage you quoted references then current events from after some of those exiled returned and rebuilt the temple.

(But also, some of the first section might also have been written later.)

So anyway, it seems like at the very least the second passage was a later prophecy.

In addition to the above mentioned timing references, there are differences in style, which not only vary between the three sections, but are also another factor in recognizing that some of the first section my have different authors. That said, none of the three sections are entirely internally consistent in style, but that does not necessarily mean different authors, because I know I, myself, write differently depending on the context.

Beyond being able to give context on relative timing and relationships of prophecies in Isaiah, you cannot understand the context of any given part of Isaiah without realizing that there are different authors from different points in history. I think realizing that parts of Isaiah were written by other authors also impresses on us how important Isaiah was in his own time and shortly after - he may have founded a school of prophets or people may have attempted to copy his style or use his name to gain legitimacy. Finally, I think this is the type of information that helps us fight against the poverty of literalism.