The Babylonian Reading of Isaiah 40-48

Introduction

The Babylonian reading of Isaiah 40-48 dominates scholarship. To a considerably lesser extent you find a Babylonian reading of Isaiah 49-55, and there are still some who read Isaiah 56-66 through a Babylonian lens. Go back a hundred years and there was little doubt about the Babylonian provenance of Isaiah 49-55 and a few more willing to read Isaiah 56-66 in a Babylonian context. Christadelphian commentary has tended to follow the scholars and the Babylonian line with one or two exceptions.

One exception, H. A. Whittaker, has commented, “I am satisfied, to the point of dogmatism such as I normally decry, that Hezekiah and Isaiah (all 66 chapters) lean on each other considerably”.[1] However, G. and R. Walker state, “But when we continue to read into chapter 40, we find no obvious historical markers to Hezekiah’s day, such as those which made the background of chapters 1-39 so clear. Instead, all the references are to a time of redemption after a scattering and captivity – a captivity which did not take place in the days of Hezekiah, for Jerusalem was saved through the faith in the remnant therein. And the name of Cyrus appears in the text as the one who does God’s will in causing the captives to return”.[2] Walker and Walker follow the scholar’s Babylonian reading,[3] whereas Whittaker offers an eighth century reading.

Eighth century readings of Isaiah 40-66 are rare; exilic and post-exilic readings dominate. Whittaker is able to reference a monograph by J. W. Thirtle[4] and a commentary by W. A. Wordsworth.[5] In the journal literature, there is a three-part article by J. B. Payne.[6] Apart from these writings, you have to go back to the 18^th century to dig out commentaries that read the entire book of Isaiah against the background of the life of Isaiah of Jerusalem, which, you would think, was the obvious thing to do. What happened to change this situation in English scholarship was the rise of higher-critical scholarship in Germany in the 19c.

Are church commentaries right? Is the consensus right? Should Christadelphian commentary follow the church position? Over the years the Isaianic material assigned to a Babylonian provenance has narrowed so that today most would only agree upon Isaiah 40-48. Should we further restrict the Babylonian material?

These may appear arcane questions, and it is the biblical text that counts. The main argument for a Babylonian provenance of Isaiah 40-48 is the mention of Cyrus, but if we place to one side Isa 44:24-28 and 45:1-7, do we need a Babylonian reading for the rest of Isaiah 40-48. In this article, placing the Cyrus oracles to one side, we will argue two points: i) the implied geography of Isaiah 40-48 is Palestinian; and ii) the implied history of Isaiah 40-48 cannot be the times of the Exile.

Palestinian Provenance

A Babylonian exilic reading of Isaiah 40-48 can be given in a general way, but the devil is in the detail and the following details[7] do not fit a Babylonian reading:

1) Who is at war with Jacob/Israel (Isa 41:12)? Why is there so much fear (Isa 40:9; 41:5, 10, 13, 14; 43:1, 5; 44:2)? How would the people become a new sharp threshing instrument (Isa 41:15)? How were they to fan and scatter their enemies (Isa 41:16)? Obviously, there are no nations in and around Babylonia to satisfy these conditions. Rather, there is a state of war in the land, for which we have no corroborating evidence if this is the end of the Exile. This fits better the circumstances of Isaiah’s times. Thus, there is corresponding fear on the part of the people and the reassurance that they will thresh their enemies—details that fit with the aftermath of 701.

2) Who are the Mesopotamian nations that are being called to a meeting (Isa 41:1, 21)? How had they been hostile to God’s people in the Exile? There is nothing in the records of Kings and Chronicles to contextualize such a meeting. Yahweh summons the nations and islands/coastlands (see also Isa 41:5; 43:9) to a meeting place; it is more probable that this is in Judah rather than Babylon, because the word for islands/coastlands refers to cities towards the coast.[8] This indicates a location for the prophet proximate to the Mediterranean.

Diplomacy fits the chaotic conditions in the land after 701, with local nations and city states vying for power in the situation left by the decimation of the Assyrian army. Hence, there is a call to a meeting between Judah and the nations.

3) The anti-idol polemics are directed towards the nations (Isa 41:5-7, 21-29) in addition to the Babylonians (Isa 44:25; 46:1; 47:9-13). Cyrus was the ostensibly emergent power at the end of the Exile, so why is the prophet concerned with other nations and their idols? Where are they in the politics of the Exile? Babylonian idolatry was prevalent in the land in Hezekiah’s day as a result of Sargon II’s deportations to Northern Israel, and the idolatry of other local nations was prominent in their diplomatic interaction with Judah.

4) The state of the people is one that is “robbed”, “spoiled” and “in prison” (Isa 42:7, 22); this does not fit the Exile. At the end of the Exile, the people were a settled community in Babylon and Judah. This is the sort of remark that would fit the aftermath of an invasion (701) rather than the state of a people after seventy years living off the land under Babylonian governorship. The people “snared in holes” are hiding from hostile bands (v. 22); the people in prison are captives waiting to be sold on as slaves.

5) The treatment of those in foreign lands does not fit the circumstances of the exiles. Those that ruled over them “made them howl” and they “blasphemed the name of Yahweh” (Isa 52:5). They were being shown no mercy and made to do hard labour (Isa 47:6). These details better fit the treatment of the larger numbers of Judahites involved in the eighth century Assyrian deportation of 701. Blaspheming the name of Yahweh suggests the hostility of local nations such as Moab, Ammon and Edom rather than Babylonians.

6) Parts of the south of Judah were still occupied by destroyers who had made cities waste (Isa 44:26; 49:17); they would “go forth”. This is the language of the aftermath of invasion; there were no destroyers to go forth from the Jewish community in Judah or Babylon. Faithful Jews would have wanted to enlarge “their tent” by driving out occupying armies and liberating cities (Isa 54:2-3). This kind of language does not fit the aspirations of the exiles whose goal was to return to a land.

 

7) The address is to Zion/Jerusalem (Isa 40:2, 9; 41:27; 44:26, 28; 51:17; 52:1-2, 9), the physical city and its condition rather than to any group of exiles. The message delivered by the prophet has urgency and immediacy; Jerusalem is to be a herald to the cities of Judah (Isa 40:9). The force behind the prophetic injunction requires the prophet to be present in Jerusalem or Judah as a visible source of authority to the people of Jerusalem. This comes out clearly in the visual metaphor, “Behold, your God” (Isa 40:9) which requires the gesture of the prophet directing the cities of Judah to look and see their God coming with a strong hand.

8) Yahweh pleads with Judah to be unafraid of the nations (Isa 40:15-17), but the example nation is Lebanon. This does not suggest a Mesopotamian perspective on “the nations”, but rather the Syro-Judean land-bridge. The nations are commanded to sing the praises of Yahweh (Isa 42:10) and the examples given are Kedar and Sela (Isa 42:11, RSV), which are neighbours immediately to the east of Judah. This is not the end of the Exile; it is the chaotic conditions in 700 and afterwards.

9) The geomorphology of the oracles’ metaphors is that of rivers, valleys, and mountains (Isa 40:3-5; 41:18), which suggests the topography of Judah rather than Lower Mesopotamia which is a flat plain. The “mountains” are to be threshed by Judah (Isa 41:15), which implies the presence of a prophet urging this policy upon the people in Judah; again 700 and afterwards, not 538.

10) The flora and fauna of Isaiah 40-55 is Judean. The cedar tree used for idols (Isa 44:14) is native to Judea rather than Babylonia; other trees mentioned are more naturally occurring in Judea than Babylonia (Isa 41:19; 55:13). The main tree found in Mesopotamia, the Palm, is not mentioned.

11) Yahweh states that he has “sent” to Babylon to achieve his purpose (Isa 43:14), and this implies that those he is addressing are not “in” Babylon but at some distance from Babylon. Isaiah is talking to his contemporaries about their concerns. Babylon featured in the politics of 700 as well as 538, and this remark fits 700 and after, not 538.

12) Egypt, Ethiopia and the Sabeans will make supplication to Jerusalem and affirm that God dwells in Zion (Isa 43:3; 45:15). This implies a “sphere of influence” for Judah and a perspective where the prophet is in Jerusalem and is looking south. In 700, Egypt and Ethiopia had just been defeated by Sennacherib; Hezekiah had used Arab mercenaries to reinforce Jerusalem according to Sennacherib’s records. These nations are actively involved in the politics in the region in 700, but absent in 538.

13) The address to Babylon, “Go ye forth of Babylon, flee ye from the Chaldeans” (Isa 48:20, KJV), is spoken from a distance; the prophet does not say “flee from here” or “let us go from here”; the prophet is not among the exiles as one who expects to participate in an exodus from Babylon. This statement is consistent with a location of the prophet in Judah, and it is supported by the choice of the prophet to paint a picture of returning to Zion rather than going from Babylon (Isa 49:21; 51:11).[9] We may suppose that captives returned from Babylon in 700 and afterwards as well as 538, but this command fits the times around 700. The injunction to “flee” (xrb) does not fit with an orderly departure from Babylon under royal patronage (Cyrus); it suggests urgency in the need to take flight (cf. Isa 15:5; 22:3).[10]

14) The prophet records the words of Yahweh, “what have I here” (hp yl hm, Isa 52:5)[11] and the demonstrative “here” is contextually defined as Jerusalem (v. 1), so that Yahweh is asking about the situation in Jerusalem (and the land). Similarly, Yahweh declares “Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence” (v. 11), which has the same contextual definition and is an injunction for the people to go out from Jerusalem and engage in a holy war with the “armour of the Lord” (ylk).[12]

15) The character of Yahweh’s pleading with Zion and Jacob/Israel is dialogical; this suggests the presence of both Yahweh and the dialogue partner—Zion or Jacob/Israel. Thus, in Isa 40:27, Israel/Jacob says to Yahweh that his way is hidden to them, and in Isa 49:14, Zion addresses Yahweh complaining that Yahweh has abandoned them. This kind of material suggests that the prophet is present with the people in Jerusalem and engaged in dialogue with them on behalf of Yahweh. Again, Isaiah is not writing for an unborn generation 150 years in the future.

16) The prophet addresses a scattered people rather than one exiled group (Isa 41:9; 42:10-11; 43:5-6; 49:12; 54:7). The people are to be gathered from all points of the compass to the land of Judah and not just Babylon. The larger numbers involved in Sennacherib’s deportation better fits this detail.

Yahweh is not “in” the north, south, east, or west; rather he is centred in Jerusalem and speaks to these places (Isa 43:5-6). The language of “gathering” is a gathering to a point from which the gatherer stands, and this is Jerusalem: the captives are “brought” to Jerusalem (Isa 42:16).

17) The First Temple exists. It is described as “our holy and beautiful house” (Isa 64:11), a description incompatible with the lament over the temple of the returnees (Hag 2:3). However, it is in a burnt state and in need of repair (Isa 64:11), and this prompts Yahweh’s enquiry about the rebuilding of the house (Isa 66:1).[13]

The temple and its sacrificial system is presupposed in Isa 43:23-24, “You have not bought me sweet cane with money, or satisfied me with the fat of your sacrifices. But you have burdened me with your sins; you have wearied me with your iniquities”. This complaint would not have been made in Babylonia.

The sanctuary (Land, Jerusalem, or Temple?) was profaned because the “first father” sinned (Isa 43:27-28). Furthermore, Yahweh defers his anger (Isa 48:9) over some matter. How does this fit the end of the Exile, when the anger is meant to be over and the sanctuary is to be restored?

In addition to (1)-(17) we might ask: what should Isaiah have mentioned if he was talking in advance to the Babylonian exiles? The prophet does not address the living conditions of a group in exile; he does not show a detailed knowledge of Babylonian customs. In view of these indications, we cannot contextualise the application of Isaiah 40-48 to the end of the Exile except for the Cyrus oracles. The challenge for a conservative commentator is to construct a catalyst for the mention of Cyrus in 700; something that has not yet been done.

Conclusion

Of Whittaker or Walker and Walker, who is right? It would seem that Whittaker is right and Walker and Walker are wrong, but this may be too simplistic. There is the possibility of secondary fulfilment through typology; parts of Isaiah 40-48 could in part have a typological application to the end of the Exile and the return of the exiles.[14] And if there is this possibility there is also the possibility of tertiary fulfillment in the days of Christ. The mistake fostered upon the community of Christadelphian bible students by the German higher critics with their exclusive Babylonian reading of Isaiah 40-48 was a failure to distinguish the typological application of such oracles from their first and immediate fulfillment in Hezekiah’s day.

---

[1] H. A. Whittaker, Isaiah (Cannock: Biblia, 1988).

[2] G. and R. Walker The Second Exodus (Norwich: Bible Student Press, 2001), 20.

[3] See also R. Roberts and C. C. Walker, The Ministry of the Prophets, Isaiah (2^nd ed.; Birmingham: CMPA, 1923); or more recently in M. Vincent, “What Happens in Isaiah?” Christadelphian Magazine 137 (2000): 18-22; 59-62; 99-102; 138-142; 179-182; 218-222; 258-262; 299-302; 338-342; 378-382; 418-422; 459-462.

[4] J. W. Thirtle, Old Testament Problems (repr. Hyderabad: Printland Publishers, 2004; London: Henry Frowde, 1907). Thirtle’s work is noted by W. H. Cobb, “Where Was Isaiah 40-66 Written?” JBL 27 (1908): 48-64 (49).

[5] W. A. Wordsworth, En-Roeh: The Prophecies of Isaiah the Seer (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1939). Wordsworth’s work is noted by R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, (London: Tyndale Press, 1970), 794-795.

[6] J. B. Payne, “Eighth Century Israelitish Background of Isaiah 40-66” WTJ 29 (1966-1967): 179-190; WTJ 30 (1968): 50-58; 185-203.

[7] The “evidence” we list has been compiled and adjusted from J. D. Smart, History and Theology in Second Isaiah (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965), 20-23; C. C. Torrey, The Second Isaiah (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1928), 20-37; C. R. Seitz, Zion’s Final Destiny the Development of the Book of Isaiah: a Reassessment of Isaiah 36-39  (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 205-207; R. J. Coggins, “Do we still need Deutero-Isaiah?” JSOT 80 (1998): 77-92, (85); H. M. Barstad, The Babylonian Captivity of the Book of Isaiah: ‘Exilic’ Judah and the Provenance of Isaiah 40-55 (Oslo: Novus Forlag, 1997), 23-33; P. R. Davies, “God of Cyrus, God of Israel: Some Religio-Historical Reflections on Isaiah 40-55” in Words Remembered, Texts Renewed (eds., Jon Davies, Graham Harvey and W. G. E. Watson; Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1995): 207-225, (213-215); J. A. Maynard, “The Home of Deutero-Isaiah” JBL 36 (1917): 213-224; M. Buttenwieser, “Where did Deutero-Isaiah live?” JBL 38 (1919): 94-112; W. H. Cobb, “Where Was Isaiah 40-66 Written?” JBL 27 (1908): 48-64.

[8] The RSV and NASB have “coastlands” and the KJV has “islands” for the Hebrew ya. The LXX often renders  ya with nh/soj which means “island” (e.g. Isa 41:1; 42:10, 42:12, 15; 49:1; 51:5; 60:9; 66:19; cf. Acts 13:6; 27:26; 28:1, 7, 9, 11). A clear example of ya meaning a literal island is Ezek 26:18 (RSV), and Job 22:30 is a clear figurative example of ya meaning “city”. We propose that the term refers to the city states along the coast.

[9] R. Albertz, “Darius in Place of Cyrus: The First Edition of Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 40:1-52:12) in 521 BCE” JSOT 27 (2003): 371-383, (372); Barstad, Babylonian Captivity, 65; Coggins, “Deutero-Isaiah”, 85.

[10] Torrey, The Second Isaiah, 49.

[11] Here we follow the marginal reading of the MT.

[12] Following Barstad, Babylonian Captivity, 67-69.

[13] Once the existence of the First Temple is admitted, a series of verses relating to the role of the house of the Lord come into view: Isa 56:5-7; 60:7; 66:6. These texts do not fit with the image of the exiles’ temple, to which Yahweh did not return.

[14] This is the mistake in the treatment of Walker and Walker in their The Second Exodus—of Isaiah’s oracles, they say “their first, immediate fulfilment” is the Return from Exile (1, 10).