Yesterday I had the privilege of hearing from Dr Lena Sophia Tiemeyer, Lecturer in Old Testament/Hebrew Bible at the University of Aberdeen, as she presented a paper at our weekly Biblical Studies seminar. Her study was entitled “What Did the Authors of Isaiah 40-55 Really Know About Babylon?” The timing of this presentation, for the purposes of this blog, is impeccable — if you happened to read it, I just briefly discussed, in my last post, some of the scholarly debates regarding the authorship of these chapters of the Book of Isaiah. One of the major assumptions of this theory of “Deutero-Isaiah” is that the author(s) of this section were in Babylon. The references to Cyrus, Babylonian gods and religious practices, Akkadian loan words, etc., that are found in these chapters have lead scholars to conclude that this section must have been written during the Babylonian Exile by the Jewish community that was in Babylon. Dr. Tiemeyer’s purpose with this presentation was to show that the “evidence” for this assumption is not strong — leading her to conclude that these chapters of Isaiah were more likely written in Palestine, and not Babylon. The implications of this study are important and suggest, as Tiemeyer herself noted, a possibility that there is more unity to the Book of Isaiah than scholars have assumed.
I present here my notes from her lecture. As always, please realize that these are my own notes and do not fully represent the material that Dr Tiemeyer presented. She is publishing a much larger work on this topic (unfortunately I didn’t catch the title). Please bear with the incomplete nature of these notes.
———————————————–
Dr Lena Sophia Tiemeyer on Isaiah 40-55
Challenging the concept that one person wrote Isa. 40-55 during the Exile in Babylon
–She is arguing that it was written in Judah during Exile
Do the scholarly claims support a Babylonian setting? She argues that they only presuppose it — nothing necessitates a Babylonian-based author
Methods: Shemaryahu Talmon’s four principles for comparative studies:
1) priority of biblical parallels over extra-biblical
2) proximity in time and space: contemporary societies should be used for comparisons
3) correspondence of social function: examples in Judah over outside
4) holistic approach vs. atomistic
Examples in biblical texts should be sought before Mesopotamian examples
Barr offers these guidelines for comparisons:
1) sources nearer to the Hebrew Bible in time
2) geographic closeness
3) Semitic sources
———
Because of their conquests of the region, we should expect to find a great degree of Mesopotamian influence over Judah during the time of Exile. Mesopotamian rulers lived in Judah — so it would be natural that we should see their influence there. Judahite scribes and possibly even regular people had a good idea of Mesopotamian religious ideas and practice since 6th-7th Century BCE.
–So there is not a good argument for the Assyrian/Babylonian elements in the Bible to have actually come from those places –such usage would have been known in Judah.
It is possible to detect Akkadian (Assyro-Babylonian language) influence in Deutero-Isaiah — however, we would need to see if there are more Akkadian loan-words than are found in other texts.
–Kittel compares 2Isaiah to cuneiform literature (Akkadian) — lists parallels betwn Babylonian texts and 2Isa.
–there are similarities in vocabulary between these texts – but these could be cognates — we should look for inner-biblical parallels first
–we can also find many similarities between Isa. 60-62 and Babylonian texts although scholars wouldn’t claim authorship of these chapters in Babylon
–You didn’t need to be living in Babylon to know name of Cyrus
–Regarding some of the thematic elements in 2Isa: It is more likely that authors were influenced by Book of Exodus rather than Babylonian texts
Most texts in Hebrew Bible have Akkadian influence (not just 2Isa) — Amos has a large number of Akkadian loan words, but no one argues that Amos was in Babylon
–Akkadian was the politically dominant language of the time — it had significant influence on the local languages — it is natural that we find Akkadian elements throughout the Bible. Language cannot be used to argue for a Babylonian setting — there are no more loan words in 2Isa than in the rest of the Hebrew Bible
–Ezekiel claims to have been written in Babylon, but has less loan words than Isa. or Jeremiah!
–we should note that there are also Ugaritic cognates in 2Isa — Dahood even argued that parts of 2Isa were written in Phoenicia!
–Akkadian was not even the major language during the Neo-Babylonian period — Aramaic was more used
–There would have been no need for the authors of 2Isa to know Akkadian if they were not part of the Babylonian royal court or cult
The presence of Akkadian cognates in the Heb. Bible is not evidence of the author’s presence in Babylon, but that loan words were known in Judah – evidence of Assyrian influence over conquered city-states
–”Self-Predication Formula” (“I am YHWH — the First and the Last”, etc.) — scholars argue that this comes from Babylonian influence — they argue that this is reminiscent of Sumerian hymns learned in Babylon
–again we should give precedence to biblical parallels — the authors likely drew from their own already existing self-presentation formula in their scriptures — maybe it ultimately stems from Sumeria, but can be found in Hebrew prophetic texts — the influence is likely pre-exilic Palestine
– There is no evidence of Assyrian prophetic texts having an influence in Babylon — there must have been earlier interaction between the people of Marduk and people of YHWH
–Isa 40-55 follows the pattern of earlier Isa chapters — We cannot conclude (from the above linguistic arguments cited) that authors must have been residents of Babylon
Another argument is that the passages in 2Isa that refer to religious practices (instructions for making of idols, etc.) are claimed to be related to Babylonian practices. –There are direct references to Babylonian deities
–tendency to worship idols is not novel to the Babylonian period — you don’t have to be living in Babylon to know about their gods and practices
–all the terms used are attested to elsewhere in the Heb. Bible — there are no details that would lead us to conclude that authors knew anything beyond what was commonly known
–no local features or local individuals are mentioned — a prophet in Judah would have been able to envision all of this
–Isa 46:1–2 — the picture of Babylonian gods depicted here does not fit the picture of what was going on in Babylon — King Nabonidus was replacing Marduk with moon-god Sin — this is not mentioned in 2Isa
–There is nothing in this material to warrant the conclusion that author of 2Isa was in Babylon — Jews would have known the customs of their conquerors.
The following tidbits come from the Q&A period after her presentation. I did not take note of the questions asked.
— There are many differences between the theology of 2Isa and the theology of Ezekiel — how could they come from contemporaries in the same group in Babylon?
– Evidence for the conflict between those who remained and exilees comes mainly from later texts, not contemporary
–***She says: We should first go to Psalter before we start considering Mesopotamian sources for these things*** (She said this subsequent to my asking if she had considered parallels between 2Isa and the biblical Psalms)
–Flora and fauna mentioned (plus coming of rain) — (e.g. Isa. 41:18–19) — seem to fit Israel/Judah better than Mesopotamia (In response to a question from Prof N.T. Wright)
—Isa 48:11–12; 52 — talk about return from Babylon — but the majority of such passages in 2Isa talk about return from worldwide diaspora — so not necessarily written from perspective of those in Babylon
– The implications of this study are important. If 2Isa was written in Palestine, this changes a lot about how we understand these chapters and their relationship to other biblical literature written in the same period. If all chapters of Isaiah were written in Palestine, this has implications for our understanding of the unity of the Book of Isaiah as a whole (in response to a question by Allen Jones regarding what this research ultimately means for our understanding of 2Isa)
15 Comments
From her webpage:
New and Forthcoming Publications
For the Comfort of Zion: The Geographical and Theological Location of Isaiah 40-55 (Vetus Testamentum Supplement 139, Leiden, Brill, 2011).
Thanks for this, David! This book is definitely one to keep your eye on!
Just to make sure I understand:
Still a different author and during the exile, but not in Babylon?
If so, this might give more weight to David Bokovoy’s hypothesis regarding Deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon. Here is the first part:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCzqt-KXsXw&feature=related
I think he gives his hypothesis towards the end of part 3. Basically, Deutero-Isaiah was written over time and later compiled. The portions quoted in Nephi would have been written in Judah prior to the captivity, with the rest being written later and compiled.
The fourth of Talmon’s 4 principles is a preference for a holistic approach over an atomistic approach. I’m guessing that “atomistic” refers a focus on the words, phrases, and grammar as opposed to the overall themes. Do you know of any arguments that justify this approach?
Oh, and thanks for the info!
Hi James,
You’re right — the atomistic approach looks at parts of the text rather than the overall narrative. Related to this approach are the various forms of textual criticism: Source, Form, Redactional, and other types of historical/text criticism. The basic criticism against this type of method is that it is nitpicking at the text and obscuring the view of the text as we have received it — as a work of Hebrew literature. So now we get the rise of other methods of literary criticism, like narrative and canonical criticism.
However, there are plenty of people that still do text criticism and see it as the way to go. I don’t really do text criticism, so I don’t think I can argue well for it, but its the method to use if you want to look at discrepancies in different versions of a text, errors, the original source of a given text, the historical development of a text, etc. There’s nothing wrong with the “atomistic” approach in itself, but its overall effect is seen as moving people away from what the message of the text is or what the intent of the final version (e.g. canonical version) of the text is. It is textual criticism that gives us the documentary hypothesis of the Pentateuch and the idea that Isaiah should be divided into three sections written by different authors.
David,
Thanks for the comment. That’s what I thought was meant by “atomistic”. I guess I’m sort of partial to the atomistic approach, though by no means am I a scholar. It just seems to me that looking for changes in style, grammar, inconsistencies, etc. will get you closer to discovering how many authors are present in the work. That seems vital to any thesis that proposes who and where the authors of Isaiah were.
David,
Have you had the opportunity to read any of Barker’s commentary on Isaiah in Eerdmans? It’s been accompanying my reading of these chapters recently, and has had some very interesting and fascinating insights – specifically in these chapters.
Hi Walker,
Sorry for the delayed response (to this and your other recent comments).
Yeah, she still thinks that 2 Isaiah was written by a different author and during the Exile, but not in Babylon.
I haven’t yet been able to listen to Bokovoy’s explanation, but thanks for pointing it out to me. His hypothesis, as you’ve described it, sounds like it makes good sense.
David
James –
Yes, I’m sure you’re right on in reasoning that you would really need to use an “atomistic” approach in trying to determine who wrote the different sections of Isaiah. And Dr Tiemeyer did use this approach — she did a very thorough analysis of the language, vocabulary and grammar of 2 Isa in this study. I think she was mentioning the holistic vs. atomistic issue simply as part of Talmon’s guidelines for good methodology, not that she was necessarily putting all of his principles to use in her study.
Hi David!
How’s it going?
I don’t have her Isaiah commentary! I wish I did. I guess I could probably check out Eerdmans from the library. I have been aware of it for a long time, but just never got my hands on a copy.
Margaret Barker thinks the original poem of the Suffering Servant was written by First Isaiah according to her Isaiah commentary in Eerdmans:
“The ritual suffering and self-offering of the royal high priest inspired someone to interpret the sufferings of a historical figure in this light. Given the poem’s prominence in the Isaiah tradition, the original was probably composed by First Isaiah after the near fatal illness of Hezekiah.”
This would be helpful in Book of Mormon studies.
Google Books is your friend on Barker’s commentary. A lot of it is available online.
Hi Walker,
Thanks for this snippet from Barker. I’ve just found it on Google Books — thanks!
Barker’s comment makes a lot of sense as this theme is very much a part of pre-exilic theology. I haven’t read it all yet, but I think the basic premise of John Eaton’s “Festal Drama in Deutero-Isaiah” is that the author of 2 Isaiah is perpetuating the themes of the festal drama of the pre-exilic New Year Festival at Solomon’s Temple. So whether it was written during the Exile or before, its borrowing from well-known pre-exilic materials (e.g. the Psalms).
Barker also writes from the premise that Deutero-Isaiah is post-exilic, but in many cases is in fact re-working older material, interpreting it in light of the events of the exile – but one key message, Barker asserts, is the insight that the is declaring not just the fulfillment of the old, but a declaration of a New Mythology. Her thought is that he is declaring that the Former Things relates to the older Israelite Mythology, which has now been fulfilled in the events of History due to wickedness, and that the New History was about to begin (see Isaiah 48:3–7).
It follows on the heals of Isaiah 43, which has the following commentary by Barker:
—
The next section (43:22-28) also moves forward from the old ways. Implicit is the people’s accusation that the LORD had failed them and allowed them to suffer the disaster of defeat and exile. The response to the accusation is cast in terms drawn from the old Atonement ritual. The text is difficult, and 1QIsa(a) has several different readings of v.23. The gist, however, is the contrast between v.23b and v.24b “The LORD has not made Israel [singular] serve him with offerings or wearied him with incense.” (v23b), “but Israel has made the LORD his servant with his sins and wearied him with his iniquities.” This is servant terminology; the LORD was the Servant who bore the sins and was wearied with iniquity, and those who should have borne them, the mediators, the princes of the sanctuary, failed through their own sin (v.27). They were profaned and driven out, and Israel, as a result, was destroyed. the LORD himself therefore takes the role of the sin bearer (v.25) and performs the Great Atonement (cf. Ezekiel 34 where the evil shepherds are judged and the LORD himself becomes the shepherd of his people.)
In the times of the former things, the high priest, the prince of the sanctuary, had borne the sin of the people. He wore the sacred name on his forehead, and this enabled him to bear (i.e. forgive, the same Hebrew word) the sin of Israel (Exod 28:36-38). But, says the prophet, the “mediators” (NRSV “interpreters,” but this meaning is not appropriate here) themselves rebelled, as did the angels who fell from heaven, and they were profaned. Ezekiel 28 gives a parallel account of the demise of the ancient high priesthood, now in the form of an oracle against Tyre, but originally, as can be seen from the vestments of the heavenly figure, describing the high priest in Jerusalem (v.13; cf. LXX Exod 28:17-20). The prince or king (vv. 2, 11) was a heavenly figure who walked in the mountain garden of God (v.13), but his wisdom made him proud, and so he was cast out, and became mortal (cf. Isa 14:12–20). All the words used to describe the punishment of the prince-king are translations of the word hll, which Isa 43:28 renders “profaned.” Ezekiel’s prince was “defiled” (Ezek 28:7), “met a violent death” (Ezek 28: 8, “was wounded” (Ezek 28:9), “cast out as profane” (Ezek 28:16), and “profaned” (Ezek 28:18). He became mortal.
Deutero-Isaiah describes the mediator as the first ancestor, Adam, showing how the two Eden stories from the OT relate to each other. The more familiar version in Genesis 2-3 grew out of an older temple myth about the royal high priest in the heavenly mountain garden, represented in Jerusalem by the temple. Adam, who had walked in the garden of the LORD, was remembered as the sanctuary priest; as he left Eden he offered the special blend of incense which could only be used in the sanctuary (Jub 3:27; cf. Exod 30:34). Here is yet another example of the democratization of the old cult; Adam, formerly the Man figure (the Son of Man) in the heavenly sanctuary who rebelled against God, has become Everyman.
Deutero-Isaiah’s “new things” were a cult without such a mediator figure; the LORD himself, who gave his glory to no other (Isa 42: 8, would no longer be represented in the temple by the High Priest. He himself would perform the great atonement and blot out his people’s transgressions (43:25)
–
Okay, now compare this with the context of the Deutero-Isaiah passages in 2 Nephi. It is immediately after an account of exile in the Wilderness, and arriving in the Promised Land, and the record of a command to begin a brand new set of Modern scriptures (the small plates in question) to document this New Era. It is at the very end of the First Book of Nephi. The beginning of The Second Book of Nephi begins (in chapter 2) with a New Interpretation of the Adam story attributed to Lehi the Patriarch/Prophet, making Adam become even more firmly rooted and interpreted as the ‘Every Man’. Compare also the development in Atonement theology in the remainder of the small plates that make strong professions that God himself will perform the Atonement.
The fit in theme and content kind of blew me away unexpectedly as I was reading it. Even more as I contemplated a later period for the initial departure of the ‘Nephites’ from the Old World. (But that’s another topic
David,
Yes, this is great material! It also has a lot of relevance for the research I’m doing for my PhD. Thanks for passing this along!