Talk:Book of Isaiah

message: It would be wonderful if we could find some good copyright free or public domain photos of the book of Isaiah.  There are many out there but I am unsure of their copyright status.  Although I haven't done too much looking yet.
fischersc 16:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: The lack of attention which this article draws to the near certainty of multiple authorship seems highly problematic to me. john k 01:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article as it stands implies, and dwells on, the idea that the vast majority of scholars have shifted their position, from seeing the book of Isaiah as having three authors, to having a "two part structure". The supporting documentation for this precept all comes from the same place: Westminster John Knox Press. I wonder if this really is all scholars' consensus, or an agenda being pushed by someone? Friendly Person (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorship 

message: I added a cleanup tag to this article. The two main reasons I found for doing so are:
# The intro section, which should be 1-3 paragraphs, is more than a full page in most browsers, reducing the utility and convenience of the table of contents.
# The entire "Use in the New Testament" section is edited in a form that is rendered poorly by the wiki engine. It should either be wiki-formatted as suggested by the edited text, or be restructured to look good in plain wiki formatting.
I suspect there are other aspects of this article that could use some attention as well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: But why should the accurate mention of future events and Cyrus' name automatically mean that Isaiah did not write those parts? If Isaiah was indeed a real prophet why should such accuracy rule out his authorship? For example: if in the future lions actually start eating straw like an ox etc etc, does that mean those parts couldn't have been written in the past? 
Say if one accepts that Isaiah was a prophet, are there any inconsistencies in the "Book of Isaiah" text that would preclude single authorship? Or is there other evidence? If there aren't any then it also seems a stretch to claim that just because the book of Isaiah contains accurate prophecies those prophecies couldn't have been written by the alleged prophet.
Funny that accurate prophecy should automatically disqualify books allegedly written by prophets from being accepted as being written by those very prophets!
IMO it would make more sense that the lack of accurate and clear (rather than vague) predictions would automatically disqualify "prophetic books" from being treated seriously ;).
:This is how science works (read what I wrote above). If you want to edit Wikipedia, you should have high respect for science, since scientific standpoints are mentioned often when writing Wikipedia articles and you cannot choose to ignore them, as an editor. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Of course it is rare because when it happens, as it does in Isiah you assume a different author. 
--Teacherbrock (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: If anybody wants to tackle this and needs a start, here: http://www.hope.edu/academic/religion/bandstra/RTOT/RTOT.HTM
the link goes to a college level intro to old testament textbook, with an entire chapter for isaiah.
it's supposed to be mainly secular in its examination (maybe my prof lied?)
good luck.
Dreamer.redeemer 01:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authoring Aid 

message: I added those tags because this article is highly disputed from a Jewish POV. It contains mistranslations from the Hebrew. etc. ems 06:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Until the article is fixed those tags should be there. ems 17:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I respectfuly note that virtually ALL  conversvative Bible Beliving scholarship teaches that ALL of the book of Isaiah was written by the Prophet Isaiah himself... That not one verse was written later by anyone else... The same Liberal scholars who denigrate Isaiah likewise denigrate or late date the prophet Daniel as well likely because they refuse to acknowledge the supernatural inherent in prophecy. Lewisharry (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Traditional view is the book has one author. Noted. Ckruschke (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: I've added a photo of the book. I've also uploaded a cropped version to wikicommons available at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Crop_Book_of_Isaiah_2006-06-06.jpg 
It might be better, it gives a closer view of the writing- anway feel free to swap the images or resize it or remove it ...or whatever! Hope its of some use. --Trounce 20:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo added 

message: Someone should fix the huge whitespace it the middle of the article. Also, there should be a page about the potential second Isaiah.
:Done.  I've long been thinking about creating pages for proto and deutero Isaiah, so maybe I will soon.  If you would like to, feel free, and I'll jump in with some help. AdamBiswanger1 01:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  spacing 

message: There should be a separate section for Christian views on Isaiah. The way it stands is confusing and gives the misleading impression that there is a strong connection between Isaiah and Christianity. I've added in the Jewish view on deutero Isaiah and I will try to expand.Wolf2191 00:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, I'm dubious about having a separate section - and if you expand, be really careful about POV issues. It would be inappropriate to see a Christian view as something imposed on the book - Christian interpreters would say it's an integral part of the book. That is, according to the Christian interpretation, Isaiah really is taling about Jesus. StAnselm 00:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian view

message: Sorry, I am not a wikipedia regular and I will probably never check back to see what became of this.  I was thinking that using the term Palestine and Palestinians is probably not the best way to refer to the countries in this time period.  After all the Philistines were just another group of people in the area and the area was named after the Philistines something like 700 years after Isaiah.  Personally I wouldn't care what the area is called but because of the politically charged atmosphere I think there are better terms.  Thanks, Jon 69.95.168.98 20:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of term Palestine 

message: The terms "Second Isaiah" and "Deutero-Isaiah" are frequently encountered , , and as you can see redirect to this article, yet are not mentioned in the article. We should mention these terms in the text of the article, presumably in the section "Authorship". -- 201.19.77.39 08:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: - The term "Deutero-Isaiah" mentioned, but "Second Isaiah" not explicitly mentioned. -- 201.19.77.39 09:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Second Isaiah]], [[Deutero-Isaiah]] 

message: :Chapters 24-34, while too complex to characterize easily, are primarily concerned with prophecies of a "Messiah,"
Really? I've just read them and to be honest I don't see it. There are brief passages that could be interpreted in this way but I don't see any coherent narrative here. Evercat (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chapters 24-34 and the messiah 

message: On april 13 2008 a user called 'omglol101' added words like 'false', 'incorrect' etc. everywhere in the article claiming that the prophesies made by Isaiah were false. Apart from the fact that no references, citations or clarifications were added, the editing was in my opinion clearly an act of vandalism, because a sentence like 
'The remaining chapters of the book contain no prophecies of the future glory of Zion under the rule of a righteous servant (52 & 54).'
makes no sense at all. I therefore suggest that the changes made by omglol101 on april 13 be reverted.
I'm new to wikipedia editing, so if I should have posted this somewhere else or should have handled this otherwise, please inform me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindert (talk • contribs) 15:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely; I'm reverting them.  Best not to call them vandalism; we should assume good faith.  Tb (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism by omglol101 

message: The current version of the article's introduction states, "The last 27 chapters, called "The Book of Comfort," prophesy the restoration of the nation under a divine king." I don't know when this became part of the text, but to me it is blatant, wholly unsupported Christian propaganda. The sentence could read much more accurately: "The last 27 chapters, called "The Book of Comfort,' prophesy the restoration of the nation of Israel," a sentence that would be supported by ample textual citations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big Mac (talk • contribs) 11:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the restoration of the nation under a divine king" 

message: "As indication of the fractious character of analysis of Isaiah authorship, The Transforming Word: One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, published in 2009, asserted that "The book of Isaiah contains materials originating over four centuries" according to John T. Willis of Abilene Christian University;[13] no sooner was the print dry on Willis' statement before he was alleged to have "infidelic bias" by Christian Courier editor Wayne Jackson, fellow member with Willis in the Churches of Christ. In a commentary weighing almost 7 lb, extending to viii + 1127 pages, and containing numerous examples of analytical discussion influenced by contemporary scholarship,[14] Willis' comment on the authorship of the book of Isaiah is the one point which Jackson chose to assay, even summoning to defense of the one-author position Gleason Archer and other fundamentalist commentators not necessarily compatible with either Willis or Jackson on other topics.[15]"
It sounds like Willis wrote this himself and he's not too happy about what happened. (Actually, I think four or so people wrote this, pretending to be Willis.) The language is not encyclopedic. 69.254.76.77 (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone is angry 

message: can someone talk about Ch 29 Verse 12 of Isaiah which many Muslims assert foretells the Holy Prophet Muhummad (S.A.W.)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.5.16 (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ch 29 Verse 12 

message: I noted that someone above made a remark about someone else being angry.  I came to this link looking for just a description of the Servant Songs, ie the beginning and ending verses of each one.  Since the chapter breaks and verse numbering is a Christian invention, I was hoping to find this page accurately depicting where, under the current numbering system, the Songs begin and end according to the people who should know, after all this book is canonized in the 24 Hebrew Books - Tanakh.  
Although I understand how Wikipedia works, I still was astonished and dismayed to find that this page has been co-opted by Christians creating another theological crime scene in the Tanakh.  Angry?  No, I guess I should be used to this tactic by now.
It reminds me of the Wikipedia page about the non-existent State of Palestine. 
No, I am not Jewish.  Despite that, I still resent having uninspired biblical 'scholars' putting the NT messiah into every nook and cranny in the Tanakh.  If Christians wish to build a case for their god, perhaps a different book could be found on which to base their religion.  
Awikifixer (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, are you saying that the Jews have a monopoly on Hebrew scripture? How is it a crime to interpret ancient books according to your own religion? You may not realize it, but Jesus and his early followers were Jews, and Christianity was founded in Israel and perceives itself as a continuation of Judaism.  But that is beside the point, because the Hebrew Bible, just like the New Testament, the Quran and other scripture are public domain, free for everyone to criticize, analyse and interpret, whether Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Humanist etc. Lindert (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on Co-opting of Hebrew Scriptures 

message: I'm documenting here a little change I made to one line.  "Read this, I pray thee / I cannot read a sealed book" is referred to as being understood by Latter-day Saints as referring to Joseph Smith.  I explained that members of that Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints largely believe this verse to refer to Martin Harris' attempts at getting famous academics to approve of Joseph Smith's translations--in this case, Charles Anthon, who supposedly wrote a letter of authenticity, then feared for his career, tore up the letter, and denied the whole event.--Mrcolj (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Joseph Smith, but Charles Anthon and Martin Harris 

message: Could we have an expansion on the 'early texts' section? I'm interested in the Dead Sea Scrolls version, as to how old it is generally held to be and the language it is in, but also other early versions, such as surviving copies of the Septuagint. I don't know so much about this area, so I'm worried I'd show whatever bias was in the first source I read if I tried myself! 86.164.25.178 (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly an easy, non-controversial task for someone who's studied this area and has sources to hand 

message: Under the Composition section we have:
Anonymity → Isaiah’s name suddenly stops being used after chapter 39.
Style → There is a sudden change in style and theology after chapter 40...
Historical Situation → The historical situation goes through three stages: in chapters 1-39...
Is the reference to chapter 40 correct or should it be chapter 39 as well? If the chapter 40 reference is correct does it mean that there was another Isaiah (number one and a half?) who just wrote chapter 40? Quentin Durward (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chapter 40 reference correct? 

message: An anon isp editor has made an edit which I reverted; he then re-reverted, and I reverted again. To avoid an edit war, I'm explaining the problems with the edit here.
The original text of the article is this:
::Tradition ascribes authorship of the book to Isaiah son of Amoz, but now scholars widely agree that the book is the work of three different authors - few scholars deny this view, and those that do, do so for theological reasons. REF Stromberg, J., An Introduction to the Study of Isaiah (Continuum International Publishing, 2011), p. 2.END REF The first, termed Proto-Isaiah (chapters 1–39), contains the words of the 8th-century BCE prophet with 7th-century BCE expansions; the second, Deutero-Isaiah (chapters 40–55), is the work of a 6th-century BCE author writing near the end of the Babylonian captivity; and the third, the poetic Trito-Isaiah (chapters 56–66), was composed in Jerusalem shortly after the return from exile, probably by multiple authors.REF May, Herbert G. and Bruce M. Metzger. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. 1977. and Williamson (1994), pp. 1–3] and Lemche (2008), p.96 and Kugel | first = James L. | authorlink = James Kugel | title = How To Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now | publisher = Free Press | year = 2008 | location = New York, NY | chapter = chapter 30: The Book of Isaiah(s) | pages = 538–568 | isbn = 978-0-7432-3587-7 END REF Rp|pp. 558–562 (I have no idea what that "Rp|pp. 558–562" is for).
The new edit was:
::Tradition ascribes authorship of the book to Isaiah son of Amoz, but now scholars widely agree that the book is a composite of numerous authors, redactors, and editors, though three main sections exist. Most Evangelical scholars deny this view, arguing that the evidence against a single author or editor is not compelling and often rests on outmoded modernist presuppositions. Schultz, Richard L. “Isaiah, Isaiahs, and Current Scholarship” in J.K. Hoffmeier and D.R. Magary, eds., Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?: A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 243–61.Schultz, Richard L. “How many ‘Isaiahs’ Were there and what Does it Matter? Prophetic Inspiration in Recent Evangelical Scholarship” in V. Bacote, L. Miguelez, and D. Okholm, eds. Scripture in the Evangelical Tradition: Tradition, Authority, and Hermeneutics (Downers Grove: IVP, 2004) 150-70.Schultz, Richard L. “How Many Isaiahs Were There?” Areopagus Journal 12/2 (April, 2012).Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.Motyer, J. Alec. The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993. In fact, even among scholars who do not hold to single-authorship, there is a growing consensus that the book exhibits remarkable unity, often ascribed to a careful editor of the complete book.Tomasino, Anthony J. “Isaiah 1:1–2:4 and 63–66, and the Composition of the Isaianic Corpus,” JSOT 57 (1993): 81–98.Clements, R. E. “The Unity of the Book of Isaiah,” Int 36 (1982): 117–29.Clifford, Richard J. “The Unity of the Book of Isaiah and Its Cosmogonic Language” CBQ 55 (1993): 1–17.Carr, David M. “Reaching for Unity in Isaiah,” JSOT 57 (1993): 61–80.Carr, David M. “Reading Isaiah from Beginning (Isaiah 1) to End (Isaiah 65–66): Multiple Modern Possibilities,” in New Visions of Isaiah, ed. Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney, JSOTSup 214 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 188–218.Webb, Barry. The Message of Isaiah: On Eagles’ Wings, BST (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996), 33–37.Webb, Barry. “Zion in Transformation: A Literary Approach to Isaiah,” in The Bible in Three Dimensions, ed. David J. A. Clines, Stephen E. Fowl, and Stanley E. Porter, JSOTSup 87 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1990), 65.Stromberg, J., An Introduction to the Study of Isaiah (Continuum International Publishing, 2011), p. 2. The first section, termed Proto-Isaiah... (The remainder of the original text hasn't been changed).
There are several problems with the newer version, but the first is that it doesn't actually add anything new to the article. 
*The first line has been changed from "...scholars widely agree that the book is the work of three different authors..." to "...scholars widely agree that the book is a composite of numerous authors, redactors, and editors, though three main sections exist." This is more nuanced, but we're dealing here with the lead - this level of detail belongs in the body of the article.
*A new sentence has been added, "Most Evangelical scholars deny this view, arguing that the evidence against a single author or editor is not compelling and often rests on outmoded modernist presuppositions." Maybe they do, but (a) no source is given, and (b), even if they do, it doesn't change the fact, which is sourced, that scholars widely agree that three major authors were involved and that the evangelicals are motivated by theological concerns rather than scholarly ones. (There's an amusing confirmation of this in one of the sources the anon editor has added, Richard Schultz's "How many ‘Isaiahs’ Were there and what Does it Matter?", where he complains on the first page that evangelical scholars who use a critical approach to Isaiah " have undermined their theological foundation" and represent a threat to biblical inerrancy).
*This new sentence has also been added: "In fact, even among scholars who do not hold to single-authorship, there is a growing consensus that the book exhibits remarkable unity, often ascribed to a careful editor of the complete book." This is true, but there's a big difference between a final editor and an original author (or rather, succession of three or more major authors) - in other words, the essence of this sentence is accurate, the book does indeed show editorial unity, but this doesn't contradict the mainstream scholarly understanding that it had multiple authors. (Multiple editors, too, for that matter).
*Finally, there are too many books cited (clogs the text of the article), and they don't relate correctly to the sentences they're attached to. When you reference a point, do it by getting just ONE source, and preferably a single sentence or paragraph from that source, and give a very specific page reference, not a range of fifty or so pages.
So to conclude, the new edit isn't entirely off-beam, but it needs two things to stay: (a) reduce the number of sources, and make the references concise; and (b), don't confuse editors and authors. PiCo (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose the anon ip editor edit and I support the return to the original wording (three main authors). The issue is not who  collect the larger number of references, but to refer to the more solid and well-known scholars. Nowadays among the scholars, the single author theory is a fringe theory, even if it may be popular among some evangelicals. A ntv (talk) 07:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with recent edits 

message: Following the previous discussion, I've rewritten the article using (mostly) the most recent sources I could find. Others might like to comment and make direct edits if I've gotten anything wrong or left material out or given undue weight anywhere or misused my sources. PiCo (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To my mind there is some redundancy in the article's lead and later sub-sections Structure etc.  Maybe the lead could be shortened using a briefer summary.  Jonpatterns (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrote the article 

message: Someone wrote that there is ample evidence to suggest that isaiah was composed during the babylonian captivity and cites footnote 3, page 79 of Sweeney  1998. I looked that page up and no where is that conclusion suggested by what is written there.
That page only talks about breaking down the text into different narrative divisions, with no such conclusion being drawn from that fact.  That comment should be removed until properly sourced, and then the evidence should be plainly stated for the reader. If the only evidence you have for concluding that isaiah was written during the babylonian captivity is the fact that it is mentioned prophetically then you must plainly state that for the reader to draw their own conclusions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.173.194 (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence of the second para of the lead says that, but it cites Sweeney page 76, not page 79, and doesn't mention a footnote. I checked page 76 and that is what it says. Is there another mention somewhere else? 103.23.133.92 (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading conclusions 

message: The article is inconsistent in era-style. A consensus is necessary whether it be BC/AD or BCE/CE. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a firm believer that out of respect for Jewish readers, all articles on Hebrew Bible topics should be BCE/CE format. Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Agree with Aristophanes68. Debresser (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

text: The book is clearly in the Christian canon as well as the Hebrew. BCE/CE can be seen as a denial of what BC/AD implies as much as the other way around. The question revolves around who takes offense to what. Personally, I would not insist on either, because I would argue that it is best not to take offense. I do not see a need for a consensus, nor for consistency. I do see a need for objecting to meaningless controversies like this that do nothing but raise the possibility that editors will begin to fight. I wonder to think that any Christian, or any Jew, would take this seriously. Of course we would disagree about whether or not Jesus was the Messiah. But dating labels cannot settle that matter, and squabbling diminishes all. Yet significantly, I do not see Christians and Jews arguing. For whom then is this an issue? Evensteven (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Users  and  and somewhat even with . No need to rock the boat. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was extensively re-written about a year ago, at which point it was BCE out of respect for the Jewish origins of the book. Any inconsistencies must have come in after then. PiCo (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

text: I agree with PiCo. BCE is more appropriate for Hebrew Bible articles, as well as being in keeping with scholarly usage. --Rbreen (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't agree with Evensteven. It's not about offense, it's about respect. Argument is only bad when it becomes circular. If we can't argue, we can't reach any meaningful consensus. On the other hand, consistency good. I think it's all BCE now. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't agree with Fiddlersmouth. Argument is generally unconstructive, unless it can be prevented from being argumentative. What we want to do to achieve consensus is to discuss, which is definitely about respect. BC vs BCE could not help but be circular. But I am very glad to see a consensus forming without a meaningless battle. Evensteven (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I support BCE/CE for educational purposes. I am Christian, and I do not believe selecting BCE/CE is offensive. In fact, (WP:ERAS) actually favors Christianity by allowing Anno Domini to be placed in articles not based on Christianity or Christian texts. BCE/CE is just used for scholarly purposes and arguments but not actually representing religious groups. Only BC/AD represents one religious sect. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As a Christian, I support BCE/CE for practical reasons, so as not to offend, though I would say the same if BC/AD were practical. Neither do I find either offensive. But I think there are others who disagree. Of the offended, however, I expect that relatively few Christians or Jews are among their number, and that the issue is inflated from the outside, and again by relatively few. It has nevertheless become commonplace to accept the idea that use of BCE/CE is for the sake of respecting Jews. I think that represents a bit of back-handed disrespect for them, a way of saying they are not big enough to recognize BC/AD contains no intended slight, and I have much more confidence in the Jews that I have known than to countenance that. Neither does WP:ERAS favor Christianity; it simply recognizes the context in which BC/AD arose and was used for so long as a commonplace. Yet if anyone takes a different view, I yield and wish them well, for it is a small thing for me to do so. But fighting about small issues for which there is no answer? The fighting I will ever oppose. And I regard this discussion as a blessing in that no fight has arisen, for I have witnessed fights on WP about matters even smaller. Evensteven (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: @Evensteven...Please remain civil as your sarcastic response is a bit unnerving for the stability of this discussion. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarcastic? Evensteven (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

text: That's how I read it. Evensteven (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Era-style consensus 

message: There are a few internal inconsistencies within the Isaiah article.  First, the supposed division between Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah is alternatively stated as 40-55/56-66 (in the Introduction and "Structure"), and 40-54/55-66 in "Summary," and implied in "Authorship").  My understanding is that the latter division is the preferred, but perhaps there are different camps on that.  Bottom line is that there should be consistency within the article, with minority/majority positions noted if appropriate.
Second, I understand from previous posts that the article has been at least partially rewritten, with an implicit preference given for the "current research" dividing the book between 1-33/34-66, rather than Proto/Deutero/Trito-Isaiah.  However, in that context, statements such as "Deutero-Isaiah addresses himself to the Jews in exile," "Deutero-Isaiah's predictions of the imminent fall of Babylon ... dates his prophecies to 550-539 BCE," and "Proto-Isaiah speaks of Israel's desertion of God and what will follow," are in conflict with those portions of the article that implicitly reject the tripartite division. Perhaps we should simply cite to the chapter/verse at issue, rather than the disputed shorthand of Proto-Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, etc.
Perhaps a more fundamental issue is that the emphasis on the "newer approach" of 1-33/34-66 appears to be built on a slender reed, with almost exclusive reliance on Sweeney, 1998.  Citation to a single source does not seem to justify the inference that the "newer approach" has supplanted the tripartite division.  Either Sweeney should be supplemented with several additional sources, or the article should be revised in a way that no preference is given among the scholarly theories. 
Finally, the "Structure" and "Summary" sections exhibit too much overlap.  Much of what is now in "Summary" really needs to be merged into "Structure."  Unlike the structure, the summary should not substantially vary based on whether we are following the "newer approach," the "tripartite" division, or a unitary approach.  Summary should focus on what the book is about, regardless of where various scholars divide it up.
BenEsq (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and edit it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.23.132.194 (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal Inconsistencies 

message: I've rephrased the lead a bit, which aimed at greater economy. A few things that are rather detailed for the lead (for instance how Isaian notions of righteousness compare to earlier prophets) have been removed as well. I also noticed that the penultimate sentence in the first paragraph had almost the same wording as the source. Darth Viller (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewording 

message: John the Apostle was illiterate and could not read anything, let alone write texts using advanced rhetoric in a foreign language. He was magically enabled to read and write any language he wished won't do. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  John the Apostle 

message: This is covered by MOS:ERA.   TomS TDotO (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  AD/CE BC/BCE 

message: The article states that "This manuscript is sometimes called Second Isaiah or The Book by the prophet Isaiah. Besides the problem with the word "manuscript" as applied to a lost text, this just seems wrong. It was sourced to this anonymous web page which I've removed as failing WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 13:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Acts of Uziah]] 

message: I believe that the Septuagint (Greek translation) of 'Isaiah' says that the Messiah will be born of a virgin, but the Tanakh (Hebrew version) says that the Messiah will be born of a young woman. I think that there should be more of a discussion on this, as it is of great relevance to both Judaism and Christianity. One issue that might be of importance is whether or not we have surviving copies of the Tanakh from before the Septuagint was written that say that the Messiah will be born of a young woman, indicating that the Septuagint did indeed mistranslate the Hebrew into Greek (it is also possible that the Septuagint faithfully translated the Hebrew of the ORIGINAL Tanakh into Greek, but that later Tanakh versions changed the wording, perhaps to discredit Christianity). User: Draxacoffilus  —Preceding undated comment added 09:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: First remark: read WP:OR carefully. Second remark: see Isaiah Scroll. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: User: Draxacoffilus - we have articles on Isaiah 7:14, almah, and Virgin birth of Jesus, which you might find useful if you want to know more on this topic. Please don't rely on Wiki articles though, use them as summaries and use the article bibliographies. As for putting more on the "virgin" prophecy in this article, it would be a severe case of undue weight.PiCo (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

text: (P.s. - the Hebrew Tanakh word "almah" shouldn't be translated as "young woman" but as a young girl who has reached childbearing age but has not yet given birth to her first child. There's a subtle difference.)PiCo (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, a female teenager younger than 13 years. That's what almah means. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maid or Maiden? 

message: Could someone point me to a scholarly work which discusses the apparent implication of monotheism in Isaiah 44:6? I ask because the word used in the KJV was 'beside', not 'besides', and in the context of the preceding verses, it seems much more to me that the writer was quoting God to be saying "I did these thing alone, no other god stood beside me while I did them". Also, I assume this has been well-debated by persons more-educated than myself...
Given that this seems like a potentially controversial interpretation, I think the line "Isaiah 44:6 contains the first clear statement of monotheism" very much needs a reference to such a learned debate or scholarly work, if one can be found.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtHLarson (talk • contribs) 04:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As for a scholarly work, see e.g. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism by Mark Smith, page 180. I wouldn't put to much weight on the specific English word in one single (very dated) translation, especially since the surrounding chapters of Isaiah contain many similar statements of monotheism. If you look at Hebrew lexicons, the word translated in the KJV with 'beside' (בלעדי bil`adey) has the general meaning of "except for, apart from". All the modern translations I looked at translated it with 'besides', 'apart from' or 'but' in Isaiah 44:6. - Lindert (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I wonder if it would be better to use one of the more-modern translations and cite it, or to keep the existing KJV quote with a reference to Smith's book?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtHLarson (talk • contribs) 17:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monotheism 

message: Chuck Missler wasn't:
# a Bible scholar (had no degree therein, was an amateur);
# an academic (e.g. professor).
Why would we regard him as an authority upon the Bible? Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chuck Missler 

message: A very cursory search turns up"
"When the second Isaiah continually emphasizes the uniqueness of Yahweh: "I am the First and I am the Last; beside me there is no God" (Isa 44:6; cf. 43:10; 45:5, also Deut 4:35; etc.), although one can find a monotheism expressed in such words, it should be remembered that the message of the prophet of the Exile is not aiming for a theoretical insight but for trust in that God who "alone" is creator and Savior (Isa 44:24) and is therefore able to help (43:11; 45:21; etc.).
In various spheres of literature at the time of the Exile can be found monotheistic statements as well as ones that sound that way (Gen 1:1 P; Deut 4:39; 32:39; 2 Sam 7:22; 2 Kgs 5:15; Second Isaiah; etc.)." Old Testament Introduction by de:Werner H. Schmidt. Hopefully others can find more. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll bow to your judgment  - I was concerned at the removal of sourced content based on what appeared to be an editor's opinion rather than reference to a source; if you're satisfied that the content is dubious, I'm happy for it to stay out - thanks for checking, and apologies to the IP editor. GirthSummit (blether) 15:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  First clear statement of monotheism? 

message: This person: http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no92023303/ wrote dated books. Why? Because he died in 1958, and we should generally stick to quoting mainstream Bible scholarship books no more than 20 years old. Exceptions could be made for books which are still considered the best works on the topic by the standards of the year 2021, e.g. Raymond Brown's Birth of the Messiah. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dated