Holy Hormones Bible Study: If your book isn’t a buzz, it’s not the Bible.
PLETHORA OF PROPHETS: Innumerable Isaiahs
Background
This post discusses the Prophet Isaiah.
It is published in parallel with an article on a similar theme, PROPHET PROLIFERATION: Multiple Moseses. If you are interested, there is an introduction contained therein.
Introduction
There is a website, the Biblical Archaeology Society (BAS), which describes itself, “Since 1975, has been sharing scholars’ and archaeologists’ enthusiasm and insights for the world of the Bible, and all we can discover about the history of Bible lands and peoples.”
To get the most out of my present post, you are strongly encouraged to read the essay, Who Wrote Second Isaiah?, written by a Professor of Ancient History and Judaic studies at the University of California, San Diego, William H.C. Propp. He mentions that the Prophet Isaiah is credited with writing that a foreign king named Cyrus would rise up and restore the scattered nation of Israel and authorise the rebuilding of the Temple (Isaiah 45:1) 200 years before the event. He pooh-poohs the idea of Divine Prophecy by writing:-
° How did Isaiah know what would happen 200 years later?
° Why did he pronounce oracles that made no sense to his contemporaries?
He goes on to say:-
° For academic scholars, however, such an explanation (i.e. Divine Prophecy) violates the “RULES OF THE GAME” by invoking the supernatural. (emphasis mine)
° Secular scholars instead conclude that Isaiah did not in fact pen these oracles. Rather they were written later and attributed to him. Chapters 40 to 66 of the Book of Isaiah address Exilic and post-Exilic Jews and hence must stem from the period of the Babylonian Exile after Jerusalem was destroyed — or even later.
It turns out there are three authors, “First Isaiah”, “Deutero-Isaiah” and “Trito-Isaiah.”
YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO READ THE ESSAY, “WHO WROTE SECOND ISAIAH?”
There is much to discuss about the essay but it is best that you do your own critique.
This rejection of the Supernatural is the crux of all the arguments.
If there is no Supernatural, the only way to naturally explain away what the Bible says, with regard to Prophecy, is to postulate that a procession of mere mortals wrote it, stretched out over time.
If you are not familiar with Prophecy it is highly recommended that you read PROPHECY 101 Introduction to Bible Inerrancy .
It’s up to you to believe it or not.
But . . . was the esteemed professor negligent or not qualified to opine on the issue?
He, a scholar of high repute, was concerned that Isaiah was two centuries premature about Cyrus, a Pagan, authorising the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem. That was “Second Isaiah” in Isaiah 45:1.
BUT HE MISSED THE BIGGEE.!!!!
It is written in Isaiah 11:11–12 || It shall come to pass in that day That the Lord shall set His hand again THE SECOND TIME To recover the remnant of His people who are left . . . (emphasis mine)
This was “First Isaiah.”
So the Second Return was Prophesied by Isaiah #1 and the First Return was Prophesied by Isaiah #2 — at least by my reckoning. [Please check it out and let me know if I’m wrong. I have a delicious recipe for Humble Pie.]
The Second Time is still going on as you read this. As is discussed in INSPIRED? INERRANT? INFALLIBLE? Absolutely! From the very beginning, where evidence is presented that this began in 1948 and carried on to 1967, and is continuing now that Israel is back in the Beautiful Land. It won’t be regurgitated here. If you are interested you will read it.
In case you haven’t been paying attention, this is a humongous omission by the professor.
How can a layman, like me, trust the Intelligentsia who are telling the Elite that we Deplorables have had it wrong all these years?
Unfortunately, this professor is not a rogue element.
Since theological education became an industry it seems like many (not all, thank God) institutions allow the students to mark their own homework. Google, “How many Isaiahs?” or, “Verses omitted from the NIV?” and terms along the lines, “Most modern scholars,” or, “Modern scholarship,” will swamp the hits.
Also, there are now a multitude of Christian Internet Sites which, by their structure, must be filled with guest speakers. After a short time it becomes apparent that there are those people who have something they must say, and those who must say something.
And this presents a quandary
If Bible (small ‘a’)authors injected the Babylonian/Cyrus historical events, disguised as Prophecy, 200 years after it was supposedly mentioned by Isaiah #2, who is going to inject the current Aliyah, and Modern State of Israel, as mentioned by Isaiah #1, 2500 years in arrears?
I wait in eager anticipation to hear what Most modern scholars have to say about that.
But there is someone Who knows a bit about this Jesus Business Who has something to say.
It is written in John 12:38–40 (Jesus speaking)║ that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.”
Normally, Jesus would be expected to have enough clout to proclaim there is only one Isaiah but, alas, the Son of God is being subjected to so much friendly fire from inside the Hallowed Halls of Theology the veracity of the text must be established.
Missing/added texts.
This point of friction must be examined in order to see if John 12:38–40 is there or not. There are two teams duelling over what is actually included in the early texts which have been translated into English. (I can make no comment about other languages.)
Team Antioch (texts added to KJV= conservative)
Team Alexandria (texts removed from KJV= liberal)
Methodology
If it can be shown that the message of John 12:38–40 is constant for Bible verses from each team, it is not unreasonable to deduced that the message is universal. To this end, KJV, ESV, NIV, ISV, and NLT are compared. Also, one of the earliest translations, the Vulgate [Greek → Latin] which predates the KJV, is also included.
Table 1 shows the translations of John 12:38 from the KJV, ESV, NIV, ISV, and NLT along with the corresponding Isaiah Prophecy from the Tanakh — as does Table 3 for John 12:40. Table 2 (for John 12:39) contains no Prophecies for obvious reasons. BUT IT DECLARES THAT THE ISAIAH IN JOHN 12:38 IS THE SAME ONE AS JOHN 12:38.
Table 4 shows that John 12:38–40 is accurately described by one of the earliest translations of the Greek texts.
That is a clumsy explanation but it is the best this old brain can manage. Even to me, it puts the skids under the Innumerable Isiah theory.
The same critique may be applied to these Innumerable Isiahs as to the Multiple Moseses.
Conclusion about Isaiahs and Moseses
With all due respect, these theories do not pass the laugh test. The proponents may well be gentle, well meaning people but the theories do not tolerate rigorous scrutiny.
Do I expect to convince the esteemed professor?
It would be good if I could but that is out of my hands. All I can do is present the evidence and prod him (and his ilk) a bit to wake him up — even it is by way of indignation. The rest is between him and the Holy Spirit.
Miracles will not convince Atheists because it is a function of the heart.
Russian Christian author, Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky, in his very, very long book, Brothers Karamazov, [I recommend it only to the very, very keen. It is more boring than Mine Kampf. I certainly won’t give it a re-read.] wrote:-
… to my thinking, miracles are never a stumbling-block to the realist. It is not miracles that dispose realists to belief. The genuine realist, if he is an unbeliever, will always find strength and ability to disbelieve in the miraculous, and if he is confronted with a miracle as an irrefutable fact he would rather disbelieve his own senses than admit the fact. Even if he admits it, he admits it as a fact of nature till then unrecognised by him. Faith does not, in the realist, spring from the miracle but the miracle from faith. If the realist once believes, then he is bound by his very realism to admit the miraculous also.
Dostoevsky
I’VE STUCK MY CHIN OUT. NOW HIT ME WITH YOUR BEST SHOT.
The forgoing evidence has not been presented to convince any reader but to allow a personal decision to be made. There is much more to know about this subject. Perhaps you’ll pay another visit, sometime. If you have seen something you like, I encourage plagiarism. So, always check everything I say first, then please re-cycle, re-brand, re-structure, re-issue, re-label, or re-gurgitate in any manner you please. No need to acknowledge me because the Holy Spirit Who holds the Intellectual Rights.
All Glory to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
(We all have a plank in our eye. It’s bigger than we think.)
