Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah's Role in Composition and Redaction / Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito-Isaiah: The Structure, Growth and Authorship of Isaiah 56-66, The

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sep 1998 by Skjoldal, Neil O

The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah's Role in Composition and Redaction. By H. G. M. Williamson. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994, 244 pp. appendix bibliography indices, $55.00. Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito-Isaiah: The Structure, Growth, and Authorship of Isaiah 56-66. By P. A. Smith. Leiden: Brill, 1995, xi 207 bibliography indices.

Among the many recent attempts at identifying and explaining the unity of the prophecy of Isaiah enter two thought-provoking entries. H. G. M. Williamson offers his readers a detailed explanation of the relationship between the so-called First and Second Isaiahs, while P. A. Smith addresses questions regarding the rhetorical and redactional development of so-called Third Isaiah.

Williamson advances three proposals concerning the role of Deutero-Isaiah (DI): (1) DI was especially influenced by the literary deposit of Isaiah of Jerusalem; (2) he regarded himself as the herald of salvation, able to reopen the sealed work of Isaiah of Jerusalem; (3) he included a version of the earlier prophecies with his own and edited them in such a way as to bind the two parts of the work together (p. 240).

Williamson exercises considerable caution in establishing his criteria for identifying a case of direct influence, readily acknowledging that similarity does not always entail influence. Thus, he recognizes the importance of citing only clear-cut cases. His basic criterion for determining influence is guided by the process of elimination: "Unless another book, passage, or tradition circle could be found that also embraced all the data to be considered, the most economical hypothesis would be to ascribe all possible example of influence to First Isaiah" (p. 29). He further observes that "'influence' should not be restricted simply to `imitation." Readers "must be alert to the possibility that the later writer may be in fact reversing quite as much as endorsing what was said or written by his predecessor, for that is just as much 'influence' as is continuation" (p. 28; italics mine).

Some examples of this clear-cut influence include the use of Isaiah 6 in chaps. 4055, found in expressions such as "high and lifted up," "the Holy One of Israel," and "blind" and "deaf." Other examples include "potter and clay" and "signs to the nations," where Williamson notices a distinct change in tone-i.e. there is "development by means of reversal." Williamson concludes that "the cumulative effect of all this material seems irrefutably to point to the direct literary influence of this chapter on the Isaianic tradition as a whole and on Deutero-Isaiah in particular" (p. 55).

Williamson's second proposal focuses on DI's conception of himself and his ministry. He contends that the inclusion of themes, vocabulary, etc., from First Isaiah, coupled with DI's portrayal of his ministry as a herald of salvation, is a clear indication that from the outset he deliberately included the earlier work in his own (pp. 94-115). This is based upon his analysis of the "sealed book" passages (8:1-4; 8:16-18; 30:8). "As the period of divine judgement by means of exile wore on, it may be proposed that Deutero-Isaiah came to appreciate that now was the time of which Isaiah had written when the sealed document was to be opened and a new message of salvation, to which the earlier prophet had alluded, was to be proclaimed.... This is most clearly articulated in 50:4-9" (p. 107). The implications of this conclusion are significant for Williamson's thesis. If DI has indeed opened up the long-sealed book, then his work is an integral continuation of First Isaiah, and consequently it was never meant to be understood apart from its connection with the earlier material.

Williamson's third and final proposal is an assessment of DI's reworking/redaction of First Isaiah. Here, and rightly so, Williamson is even more cautious than before: "We have entered the realm of plausible hypothesis" (p. 116). His rationale is straightforward: "If. . . we have managed to establish that a particular author (in this case, Deutero-Isaiah) incorporated an earlier work into his own, rather like a source, then it becomes reasonable to allow that to influence our judgement to some extent in regarding possible examples of his handling of that 'source' as in fact probable" (p. 117).

Williamson then traces DI's handling of his source through the three major sections of Isaiah 1--39: chaps. 2-12, 13-27, and 28-39. Here he not only traces DI's methodology (he 'intervened primarily at the start and finish of sections"), but he also searches for the bridge between the two books. Interestingly, Williamson does not find in chaps. 36-39 the same link with chap. 40 that other scholars do, or, more precisely, he has "found no evidence for supposing that they were written explicitly for their present position in the book" (here arguing contra Christopher Seitz in Zion's Final Destiny). Thus, while he views the chapters as a bridge, "this must have been some time after the work of Deutero-Isaiah" (p. 209). Rather, utilizing the work of W. Beuken, Williamson argues at length that chap. 33 is "the point of original connection between the literary deposit of Isaiah of Jerusalem and the material which DeuteroIsaiah added to it in chapter 40 and following" (p. 230).