Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Walter Mattfeld" <mattfeld AT mail.pjsnet.com>]

Dear Niels,

As you are well aware some Humanist scholars believe that Isaiah chapters
1-39 are Pre-Exilic, while chapters 40 and later are of the period ca.
539-516 BCE due to the mention of Cyrus who will lay the foundations of the
Temple (which occurred ca. 516 BCE according to scripture) and restore
Jerusalem, setting free the Jews.

The latest elements date the present composition as we have it, so, yes,
what we have is something of circa 539-516 BCE (?), but that is not to say
that earlier compositions may not exist of the 8th century BCE.

Another problem is to what degree has the 8th century BCE material been
"reworked" by later ages and how do we separate the 8th from the late 6th
century BCE material. I know you are well aware of all these problems and
that you posit a Hellenistic composition for much of the Hebrew Bible.

In my readings of Isaiah I find certain statements attributted to him that
just don't make sense if written in a period later than the 8th century BCE
(Isa. 1-39), as well as the Humanists'  so-called "Deutero-Isaiah" of the
late 6th century BCE (Isa. 40-66).

Isaiah is portrayed as predicting to King Hezekiah that in the future the
sons of the king will be carried off into slavery in Babylon. Isaiah clearly
states that it will be the sons of Hezekiah's "own body," suggesting to me
that he is not referring to descendants some 200 years into the future
(i.e., the Babylonian Exiles of 597-587 BCE), but to the generation
following Hezekiah. This point is emphasized by the narrator, for Hezekiah
is portrayed as thinking he will have peace in his generation:

"And some of your own sons, WHO ARE BORN TO YOU, shall be taken away; and
they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon. Then said
Hezekiah to Isaiah, The word of the Lord which you have spoken is good. For
he thought, There will be peace and security in my days." (Isa. 39:7-8)

Of course, as we all know, this prophecy was not fulfilled. Hezekiah's sons,
"of his own body," were not taken into exile to Babylon. For some scholars
this suggests that this passage is a genuine 8th century oracle. They
reason: why would later ages, if composing this, create a story about a
Prophet's failed prophecy ?

Another oracle states that the Lord will descend upon Mount Zion to fight
for his people against the Assyrians. The claim is made that the Assyrians
will fall in battle, not by the sword of man, but of God, and that the
Assyrian survivors will be made into slaves, and put to forced labor:

"So the Lord of hosts will come down to fight upon Mount Zion...so the Lord
of hosts will protect Jerusalem; he will protect and deliver it, he will
spare and rescue it. For in that day every one shall cast away his idols of
silver and his idols of gold...And the Assyrian shall fall by a sword, not
of man, and a sword, not of man shall devour him; and he shall flee from the
sword, and his young men shall be put to forced labor." (Isa. 31:4-8)

I realize that these verses may be an allusion to God's angel decimating the
Assyrian host, causing them to flee back to Assyria, delivering Jerusalem in
Hezekiah's day, but why the statement about the young men of Assyria being
put to "forced labor," (that never happened) and since when did Judah "put
away the idols" in Hezekiah's days or those of the succeding monarchs ?

32:1, speaks of a king in a future age reigning in righteousness at
Jerusalem, while 32:10 states that in "little more than a year" Jerusalem
will fall and be deserted (Isa. 32:10, that didn't happen, Jerusalem didn't
fall and become deserted until 587 BCE). Hezekiah's oracles seem to be
jumping back and forth between descriptions of 8th century BCE contemporary
events and "a soon to be" future that will see the fall of Jerusalem, the
end of Assyria and Babylon, and the restoration of Israel and Judah from
exile (probably alluding to the thousands of Jews carried off into exile by
Sennacherib).

Isaiah sees the fall of Babylon to the Medes and Elamites (Isa. 13:17; 22:2)
and that the gods of Babylon will be "smashed to the ground," the city to be
destroyed and deserted for all time (Isa.21:9). Scholars understand that
Babylon fell to Cyrus the Persian, not to the Medes and Elamites. The city
wasn't destroyed, the gods were not smashed to the ground, Cyrus showed
great respect for Babylon's gods. Thus these oracles are another example of
unfulfilled prophecy, suggesting that they are genuine and of the period
prior to 539 BCE. Again, the question must be asked, Why would someone
writing/composing all this in a period later than 500 BCE, create oracles
about Babylon's fall to the Medes and Elamites, and the city's gods being
destroyed by the conquerors when it didn't happen ? It just doesn't make any
sense.

Isaiah understands that the Medes and Elamites are to be raised up against
Babylon. Yet scholars (Assyriologists) tell us that in this period of time
the Elamites were allies of the Chaldeans, assisting them in their numerous
rebellions against the Assyrians who repeatedly attacked and subjugated
Babylon. The only "King of Babylon" who would have anything to fear from
Elamites would have to be the Assyrian kings of Babylon ! The Assyrians also
feared the Medes, who constantly were rebelling against them. So Assyria had
her hands full, worried about Medes and Elamites. Sargon II in 709 BCE
claimed the title King of Babylon, and some of his succesors also laid claim
to that title at various times. As stated in an earlier post to this list,
to George Athas ( 22/23 Jan. 2000  ), I am of the persuasion that the King
of Babylon mentioned in Isa.14:1-28, is a reference to one of the Kings of
Assyria who claimed to be king of Babylon (see also the post to this list of
Banyai Michael to G. Athas, 02 Mar. 2000, who shares my assessment).

Isa. 14:22 speaks of Babylon's destruction and almost in the same breath,
Isa. 14:25, concludes with the "ASSYRIAN" being trampled upon in the
mountains of Judah, and the Assyrian yoke being thereby removed from Judah's
neck (Isa. 14:25). It strikes me as strange that Isaiah would call
Babylonians Assyrians; "the general story flow" of Isa. 14:1-28 seems to be
about an end of Assyria's domination of Judah in a soon to arrive future
age. Because scholars have mistakenly (in my opinion) thought the king of
Babylon is a Chaldean, they have erred in dating this oracle to the 6th
century BCE. In my book, its genuine 8th century BCE (Some Babylonian
Chaldeans may have been supporters of the Assyrians).

George Athas noted that as Isaiah was critical of the Chaldean king Merodach
Baladan, that Isaiah was anti-Chaldean. I see the situation from a different
perspective. The kings of Israel and Judah are repeatedly castigated by the
prophets for their failure to rely on God's saving the nation from its
enemies. The prophets are against alliances with Egypt, Assyria and the
Chaldean Babylon because this is a form of apostasy in their eyes, a lack of
faith in God. Thus Isaiah's failed prophecy that Hezekiah's sons would go
into exile in the next generation, is not because someone is writing this
after the Babylonian Exile of 597-598 BCE, but because God is outraged that
Judah's king should rely on alliances with nations and men of flesh and not
God.

Asshurbanipal smashed Elamite power ca 640 BCE with the capture and
destruction of Susa. Elam also had to face encroachments from the east and
the rising powers Media and of Persia. The kings of Persia before being able
to secure Susa for their capital had to militarily put down the Elamites.
There are no Elamites taking a Chaldean Babylon with the Medes in 539 BCE
(if we allow that Persia was confusedly called Media by Jews and Greeks at
times, cf. Daniel 5:30; 9:1), as Elam is, in this era, unsuccessfully
struggling against Persia herself.  So, the only historical period that
could have Medes and Elamites together attacking Babylon (Isa. 21:2), has
got to be an Assyrian controlled Babylon of the 8th century BCE.

Elam is later, after the prophecized fall of Babylon to Medes and Elamites
(Isa. 21:2), envisioned as appearing before the very walls of Jerusalem to
execute the Lord's justice on a sinful Jerusalem (Isa. 22:6). the only
period that saw Elam possessing such military might that she could be
envisoned encompassing Jerusalem has to be the 8th century BCE, when Elam
threw back, time after time, Assyrian invasions, and successfully blocked
Assyrian incursions of Lower Mesopotamia. After Elam's fall in 640 BCE to
Asshurbanipal, her military might was at its end. So, Isa. 22:6 makes sense
in an 8th or early 7th century BCE setting but not a setting of 539 BCE or
any other time thereafter.

Some interesting notes on Elam:

"Elam...Under Hubannugash, king of Susa, (ca. 740 BC), his grandson
Shutruck-Nahhunte II, and their successors the policy of Elem was dominated
by its alliance with Babylonia against Assyria. The struggle ended with the
complete destruction of the power of Elam at the hands of Asshurbanipal (ca.
645 BC). Before that time (ca. 680 BC) the Persians seem to have succeeded
in taking from Elam the part known as Anshan...After the fall of Nineveh
(612 BC) the protectorate over Elam passed to the Median king Cyaxares. The
success of the revolt of Cyrus II against Astyages brought Elam under
Persian rule...Darius had to overcome several revolts in the beginning of
his reign before he was able to settle down in Susa." (2.70-71,
Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 1962)

A question that has bothered me in my bible research is why didn't later
generations of Jews edit out of the scriptures the failed prophecies ?  I
suspect, evidently, that the words of these prophets were held in reverence
as "God's words" and not to be deleted or tampered with. Perhaps later
generations rationalized the failed prophecies as examples of "God's
un-ending mercies" being extended even to Israel's enemies, as in the Jonah
and predicted fall of Nineveh story ? As portrayed in Job, God does not have
to answer to man, for anything he does, including changing his mind about
fulfilling a prophet's prophecy (Jonah/Nineveh).

So Niels, there you have it, my reasons for understanding Isaiah's oracles
to be genuine (that is, Isaiah chapters 1-39) and of the  8th century BCE.
To deal with Deutero-Isaiah as being early Post-exilic (BCE 539-516) would
entail another post.

All the best,

Walter

Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld
Walldorf by Heidelberg
Baden-Wurttemburg
Germany