Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!cjdb
From: cjdb@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Charles Blair)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Re: The Trinity and the Son of David
Message-ID: <1089@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 3-Sep-85 17:59:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: sphinx.1089
Posted: Tue Sep  3 17:59:38 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Sep-85 00:42:49 EDT
References: <411@philabs.UUCP> <975@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> <2776@druhi.UUCP>, <784@cvl.UUCP>
Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center
Lines: 21

> Isaiah is a book of great beauty and was very much influenced by the
> style of the prophet himself . . .

The part of the sentence following the conjunction "and" is wrong or
meaningless. The book of Isaiah was not written by "the" prophet Isaiah.
Modern scholarship recognizes three Isaiah's: (the first) Isaiah, the
second or Deutero-Isaiah, and the third or Trito-Isaiah. So there
cannot be "the" style of "the" prophet as applied to this book.

This theory is not confined to modern Protestant scholarship. Many
centuries ago the Jewish exegete Abraham ibn-Ezra posited two Isaiah's
on historical grounds: he did not think that the author of the
first portion of the book could be the same as the author of the succeeding
portion, which speaks in part of the imminent end of the Exile through the
agency of Cyrus acting as Yahweh's mashiach--messiah (see Is. 45.1).
He did not, however (to my recollection), posit a third Isaiah as well.