The Book of Isaiah in Contemporary Research: Christopher B. Hays

Religion Compass 5/10 (2011): 549–566, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00308.
The Book of Isaiah in Contemporary Research

Christopher B. Hays*
D. Wilson Moore Assistant Professor of Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Fuller Theological Seminary
Abstract
This article surveys scholarship on the book of Isaiah since roughly the start of the 21st century.
Noting that theories of the book’s formation based on internal textual data have not commanded
consensus, it calls for stronger methodological controls for models of composition and redaction,
on the basis of comparative data from other ancient Near Eastern texts, especially prophetic texts.
Although there has been an outpouring of scholarship from every angle, significant recent trends
include centripetal ⁄ holistic approaches to the book and study of its reception history.
Given its considerable length, its historical breadth, and its theological depth, it is not sur-
prising that the book of Isaiah has become a crossroads for nearly every path that biblical
scholars pursue. In light of the vast amount of literature,1 one must set limits. The turn
of the 21st century saw the appearance of Joseph Blenkinsopp’s three-volume Anchor
Bible commentary on Isaiah (1999–2003), which was certainly the most significant histor-
ical–critical commentary on the whole book in decades, and also Brevard S. Childs’ Old
Testament Library commentary (2001), with its canonical–theological bent.2 The present
article briefly surveys the issues which those commentaries helped to frame at the end of
the last century, and the directions in which Isaiah research has pressed in the first decade
of the new century. Since it would be impossible to do justice to each of the many argu-
ments surveyed, the primary goal here must to introduce the reader to the relevant litera-
ture in such a way that the article points beyond itself. As it is, the bibliographical survey
must be selective.
The most prominent tension in recent scholarship on Isaiah is between interpreters and
interpretations that emphasize the diversity of the book, and those that emphasize its
unity. Therefore, this article begins with an introduction to recent scholarship on that
theme, and then turns to survey major foci of scholarship within each of the book’s
major sections.
Theories of Composition and Redaction

Bernhard Duhm’s watershed commentary, last updated in 1892, divided the book of Isaiah
into three sections (1–39, 40–55, and 56–66) by three authors, which were combined at a
later date. While these divisions continue to serve a heuristic purpose, the parsing of sections
into ever-smaller bits continues with alacrity, particularly on the Continent – in parallel with
trends in Pentateuchal criticism. The tendency to fragment Isaiah into many compositional
layers is also much in evidence in later German commentaries such as those of Otto Kaiser3
(and, to a lesser extent, Hans Wildberger), and also in that of Jacques Vermeylen, who
viewed chs. 1–35 alone as a collection of texts from historical situations stretching over
500 years (Vermeylen 1977–1978; see also Vermeylen 1989).
This is not to say that a diachronic approach necessarily regards the book’s meaning
as entirely fragmented. A more recent effort to incorporate the findings of redaction
ª 2011 The Author

Religion Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
550 Christopher B. Hays
criticism while still interpreting the book as a whole is that of Ulrich Berges in Das Buch
Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt (1998; for a more recent example of Berges’ synthetic
approach, see 2006). Berges argues that Isaiah is to be seen as six collections assembles
around cores of Isaian, Deutero-Isaian, and Trito-Isaian oracles; he argues that the
concern of the finished book is the incorporation of other nations into Israel’s covenant
with its God. Whether or not Berges has correctly described the redactional process, his
basic insight that inclusivity (or exclusivity) toward foreigners is a major theme of the
book is richly affirmed by a great number of recent studies, more or less historical in nat-
ure, on Isaiah’s view of outsiders of various kinds.
A redactional approach may also demonstrate the unity of the book by emphasizing
the literary-thematic connections between its various sections, and treating the later texts
as Fortschreibungen by tradents who were well aware of the earlier texts. This method is
embodied most notably by H. G. M. Williamson, who laid out his method in The Book
Called Isaiah. There, he suggested that Deutero-Isaiah, the author of 40–55, was also the
redactor of 1–33, but ended by saying that to pursue the implications of that theory
‘would require a commentary’ (1994, p. 244; see also Sommer 1998). He has now begun
to issue a commentary on chs. 1–27; though as of this writing only the first volume, on
chs. 1–5, has appeared (2006). Williamson’s useful article ‘In Search of the Pre-Exilic
Isaiah’ (2004) lays out five methods for recognizing pre-exilic texts: (1) references to early
historical events corroborated by extrabiblical sources likely known to later writers, (2)
positive reflection to beliefs and practices that were later changed or condemned, (3) the
use of quotations and allusions by later writers, (4) literary tensions and signs of historical
and ideological unevenness, and (5) signs of historical development of ideology. William-
son’s modest conclusion is that the data point to the likelihood of the survival of a signif-
icant pre-exilic stratum within the book.
Marvin Sweeney has also taken up the ‘especially problematic issue’ of dating pro-
phetic texts on nonlinguistic grounds, and came to similar methodological conclusions
(2007; one of his case studies is Isaiah 10:5–12:6). Sweeney has furthermore lent his
support to the idea that there was a significant edition of the book of Isaiah compiled
during the reign of Josiah (Sweeney 1996, 2001) – a theory associated particularly
with Hermann Barth (1977).4 Sweeney takes a straightforward approach by generally
treating occurrences of the names Assyria and Egypt as references to those nations,
rather than as coded allusions to the later political entities that subsumed them. He
also cogently argues that not every reference to exile is to be assigned automatically
to the postexilic period, since the Assyrian conquest of the northern kingdom in the
eighth century and the exile of its population would have been seismic events as well
– ‘‘the greatest tragedy and challenge yet experienced by the people of Israel and
Judah’’ (Sweeney 2001, p. 238).
What is more certain than the conclusions about the formation of any single text is
that the ‘expansion hypothesis’ (Fortscheibungshypothese) championed in different ways by
both Williamson and Sweeney is increasingly persuasive compared to the ‘unification
hypothesis’ (Vereinigungshypothese) of Duhm and his more nuanced heirs, which sees the
book as made up of separate compositions united at a later date. As more and more
attention is drawn to the interconnections among the book’s sections, it becomes more
and more difficult to imagine that the authors and tradents of the book’s later strata
worked without paying close attention to the earlier strata.
Yehoshua Gitay has pointed out the ‘severe tensions’ between older redactional criticism
of Isaiah, which sought to break the book down into its constituent parts, and newer redac-
tional criticism, which seeks to move beyond fragmentization to read the book as a whole
ª 2011 The Author Religion Compass 5/10 (2011): 549–566, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00308.x

The Book of Isaiah in Contemporary Research 551
(2001; cf. the response by Conrad 2002). Gitay argued that the presuppositions of the older
method no longer hold, but that the newer approach is nonetheless built on it; thus he
called for a wholesale reconsideration of redaction-critical methodology.
One notable compositional issue that has continued to draw attention in the past decade
is the historical priority of 2 Kings 18–19 and Isaiah 36–37, and in general the role of Isaiah
34–39 as a link between what precedes it and what follows (e.g., Gonçalvès 1999). The pri-
ority of 2 Kings has remained the consensus position, although Raymond Person (1999) has
pointed out that the idea of its being inserted as a link between ‘First Isaiah’ and ‘Second Isa-
iah’ presumes a preexisting unified composition in a way that is much too simple.
Textual Criticism
Scholars have recently been gifted with a new edition of the Isaiah scrolls from Qumran’s
Cave 1 (1QIsaa and IQIsab), including new photographs, transcriptions, introductions,
and notes by Eugene Ulrich and Peter Flint (2010). It is to be the final volume in the
Discoveries in the Judean Desert series. In a separate essay, Ulrich (2009) demonstrates
again that the book’s text was still in flux, albeit in minor ways, in the period of the
Qumran scroll’s copying. Armin Lange (2009) has shown that citations of Isaiah among
the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) are drawn from very diverse textual traditions, dispelling the-
ories that 1QIsaa is a sectarian edition of the book. Both the Great Isaiah Scroll and the
Pesher to Isaiah from Qumran continue to fuel interpretations of various kinds (see
Brooke 2006 as a starting point), and the Targums and Peshitta to Isaiah have also
received attention.
Textual criticism of Isaiah has followed the subfield’s general turn away from the idea of
establishing the best text (or Ur-text) of the book, and toward an appreciation of early edi-
tions and versions of the book as testaments to distinct (and later) theological perspectives
and traditions (e.g., Baer 2001). To choose just one major theme, numerous scholars have
written on the messianic tendencies of LXX Isaiah (Lust 1998; Reiterer 2006; Schaper
2006). Nevertheless, the conclusion of Troxel in his substantial monograph on LXX Isaiah
was that its author ‘seems to have employed no [exegetical] method’, and that he is best
described as simply a translator, so that ‘‘claims that he liberally injected his own ideas misrep-
resent his work’’ (Troxel 2008, p. 291). The numerous recent contributions of Arie van der
Kooij to text-critical studies in Isaiah also deserve special mention here (e.g., van der Kooij
2006; van der Kooij and van der Meer 2010; cf. Van der Meer et al. 2010).
Centripetal Approaches to Isaiah 1–66

The tables have turned from a century ago when the modern critical study of the Bible
was still young – now it is holistic and theological exegetes who have had to struggle to
make their voices heard against the critical status quo. Nevertheless, in recent years there
has been a countervailing trend toward perceiving the unity of the whole book. This has
proceeded along various lines.
The entire project of using apparent seams and gaps in the text to divide it into redac-
tional layers has recently been called into question by R. Reed Lessing in Interpreting
Discontinuity: Isaiah’s Tyre Oracle (2004a).5 Lessing argues that the discontinuities in Isaiah
23 are better explained as endemic to a prophet’s rhetoric than as signs of different strata
from different historical periods.
A second approach to a unifying reading is the canonical perspective, from which the
history of reading the book as a whole within confessional communities becomes the

dominant hermeneutic for approaching a book. The canonical impulse is associated with
Childs, and his aforementioned commentary represents a mature and critical exercise of
his method, particularly relevant to those interested in Christian interpretation of the
book. Childs’ work is carried on most notably by Christopher R. Seitz, whose commen-
taries on Isaiah 1–39 (1993) and 40–66 (2001) have expressed ‘a general weariness with
traditional critical work’, and sought to ‘‘let the interpretation of individual passages be
guided, above all, by attention to larger context and the final presentation of the book as
a whole’’ (Seitz 1993, pp. xi–xii). Similarly, Randall Heskett’s Messianism Within the Scrip-
tural Scroll of Isaiah (2007) traces that theme through the whole book, acknowledging the
diachronic nature of the book’s formation while still ultimately asking how Isaiah ‘func-
tions as a scriptural book’ (see also Williamson 1998).
Another major commentary on Isaiah takes an approach that is more explicitly literary in
nature than those of Childs or Seitz: John D. W. Watts has attempted to read the book Isa-
iah as a drama in six acts (chs. 5–12; 13–27; 28–33; 34–49:4; 49:5–54:17b; 54:17c–61),
which is surrounded by an ‘envelope’ of chs. 1–4 and 62–66 (2005; see also Nitsche 2006).
In this way Watts sought to deliver ‘an understandable interpretation of the whole book’
that made it ‘come alive’. The commentary’s attention to detail is impressive, from the
extensive bibliographies and close philological work that characterize the series to Watts’
attempt to count the meter of every poetic verse in the book. However, Watts’ literary
hypothesis is the volume’s most characteristic feature, and it does not seem that his sense of
Isaiah as a drama (especially its division into ‘voices’ not indicated or identified by the text
itself) will prove compelling to most other scholars (see the discussion of Baltzer below).
Other recent studies have found literary cohesiveness in Isaiah by reading it as a liturgy in
eight acts (Goulder 2004b), or by tracing themes through large swaths of the book, such as
sickness and health (Kustár 2002), light and darkness (Vlková 2004), speech and vision
(Landy 2000b), the city (van Wieringen and van der Woude 2011), etc. Everson and Kim
(2009) is a collection of literary studies on the book including a number by prominent
scholars. In the wake of Katherine Pfisterer Darr’s influential Isaiah’s Vision and the Family of
God (Darr 1994), a number of other scholars have examined the book’s familial and ⁄ or gen-
dered imagery, particularly its portrayal of God as father and mother (Dille 2004),6 and its
marital and sexual metaphors (Moughtin-Mumby 2008). Hanne Løland’s Silent or Salient
Gender?: The Interpretation of Gendered God-Language in the Hebrew Bible, Exemplified in Isaiah
42, 46 and 49 (2008) is a notable recent addition to the conversation that takes metaphor
theory, gender theory, and feminist theology as its conversation partners.
In sum, although Duhm’s divisions still serve a heuristic purpose in the 21st century,
few scholars hold to them passionately or dogmatically, and they mean something very
different from what they meant originally. First, Second, and Third Isaiah now serve
mostly as shorthand for the three historical periods – Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian –
in which the book took shape. The division between the latter two sections is least cer-
tain of all – since, for example, the division after ch. 48 seems just as significant as that
after ch. 55 (see Holladay 1997). For all the book’s obvious historical diversity, both the
redactors’ weaving and our own habits of reading continue to make holistic interpretation
not only possible but inevitable.
Reception History
One of the most striking trends in recent scholarship on the book of Isaiah as a whole is
the renewed scholarly interest in the reception history of Isaiah. That reception begins in
the intertestamental period, with the translations of the Septuagint and the Versions, and

the copies and interpretations of Isaiah among the DSS (Lange 2009; Metzenthin 2010;
and see above under ‘Textual Criticism’).
Another major conversation concerns Isaiah’s reception in the New Testament, and the
subdiscipline of ‘Old Testament in the New’, which intersects both theological and literary
methods, has boomed in recent years, with dozens of studies on Isaiah.7 This project,
which has tended to be undertaken by New Testament scholars, demonstrates again the
immense significance that Isaiah had for early Christians, and for Jews in the same period.
John F. A. Sawyer’s thematically arranged The Fifth Gospel: Isaiah in the History of Chris-
tianity (1996; see also 2001), an ambitious work that spans many centuries of tradition, is
usually cited as a watershed publication for reception history of the book. Since it
appeared, a number of other major scholars have approached the topic from other angles.
Childs’ The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture credits Sawyer’s book explic-
itly as an inspiration, but criticizes it for focusing on misappropriation of the text, and
seeks to isolate the characteristics of a Christian hermeneutic of Isaiah. Blenkinsopp also
built on the research for his commentary to publish Opening the Sealed Book: Interpretations
of the Book of Isaiah in Late Antiquity, a less confessional look at exegesis of the book in
sectarian Judaism and nascent Christianity. Diverse shorter studies of the reception history
of Isaiah are found in the SBL Symposium volume ‘As Those Who Are Taught’: The Inter-
pretation of Isaiah from the LXX to the SBL (McGinnis & Tull 2006).8
Two series have recently appeared that publish excerpts of the comments of classical
Christian interpreters – The Church’s Bible by Eerdmans and Ancient Christian Com-
mentary on Scripture by Intervarsity – and the Isaiah volumes of both are now in print
(Elliott 2007; McKinion 2004; Wilken 2007). Both are useful resources worth a spot on
the bookshelf of a scholar or a pastor, but neither brings the reader into the world of
patristic exegesis as effectively as a study like that of Childs. In addition to their rather
opaque apparatuses that makes texts harder than necessary to track down in scholarly edi-
tions, both series’ Isaiah volumes seem to blunt the foreignness of patristic exegesis by
choosing passages that emphasize familiar themes such as Christological messianic inter-
pretations. This makes them more suitable for devotional reading than scholarship. James
Kugel’s Traditions of the Bible (1998) is a far more interesting compendium of ancient bib-
lical interpretation of the Pentateuch; perhaps a sequel that covers Isaiah will appear
1 day. The editors of the Eerdmans series (the Isaiah volume of which is the briefer and
somewhat more interesting of the two) made the controversial decision to use a transla-
tion of the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew as their base text, which emphasizes its
place in history-of-tradition scholarship rather than historical–critical exegesis. The past
decade has also seen assorted briefer studies on the interpretation of Isaiah in various
traditions and periods, from ancient to modern.
Isaiah 1–39
The first division of the book continues to generate the greatest volume of scholarship,
probably not only because it is the largest section, but also because it is exceedingly rich
in philological, historical, comparative, redactional, and literary issues (for 20th-century
scholarship, note Becker 1999).
The single most impressive work of philological scholarship on Isaiah in recent years is
Michael L. Barré’s The Lord Has Saved Me (2005), an exhaustive study of the psalm of
Hezekiah (Isaiah 38:9–20). His most striking conclusion is to overturn the longstanding
assumption that the psalm is a late Hebrew composition; instead he dates it (on linguistic
criteria) to the late monarchic period, and he sees no reason why it should not be from

Hezekiah’s reign. Beyond this, there are other philological studies, but they are on scat-
tered topics (note esp. Kruger 2000; Norin 2006; Roberts 2000).
Given the long history of Isaiah’s formation, nearly any study of Israelite or Judean his-
tory from the Neo-Assyrian Period to the Persian Period is potentially relevant to its
interpretation. Many of the texts attributed to Isaiah of Jerusalem are deeply immersed in
the international politics of the Neo-Assyrian period (see Roberts 2010 for an overview),
and so studies of Assyria’s activities in the Levant at that time have special relevance.
Within Assyriology there continues to be great intellectual ferment surrounding the
Neo-Assyrian period, deriving especially from the State Archives of Assyria project in
Helsinki.9
One particular historical event reflected in Isaiah that continues to fascinate scholars is
Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem in 701, which receives conflicting accounts in biblical
and Assyrian records. While some scholars are content to affirm solely the Assyrian
account (that Sennacherib withdrew because Hezekiah paid a heavy tribute) (Mayer
2003, pp. 168–200; Hallo 1999, pp. 35–50; esp. pp. 38–43) or solely the biblical account
(which acknowledges the tribute, but attributes the Assyrian retreat to a combination of
Egyptian and divine intervention) (Bates 1999, p. 57), others are seeking creative solu-
tions to this ‘nonconfirmatory dialectic’ (the term is borrowed from Zevit 2002). Perhaps
Jerusalem was spared because, as Stephanie Dalley has recently suggested, relations
between Assyria and Judah were very warm during Hezekiah’s reign – indeed familial, in
that she believes Judean princesses were married to Tiglath-Pileser III and Sargon II. K.
Lawson Younger rightly points out that the Assyrian account, though uncurated, is
shaped by ideology and literary concerns just as the biblical account is, so that the histori-
cal event likely differed from both accounts (Younger 2003). Younger deserves recogni-
tion for his numerous helpful studies on the Neo-Assyrian Empire and its impact on the
Levant (these include 1999, 2002). Finally, the exchange between J. J. M. Roberts and
James Hoffmeier in the volume Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period
touches on both the Siege of Sennacherib and the Ashdod Affair, and will also be of great
interest to Isaiah scholars, since it demonstrates how historical reconstructions inform
interpretations of the prophet and the book (Vaughn & Killebrew 2003).
Commentaries have played a significant role in the historical discussion as well – Blen-
kinsopp offers strong summaries of the state of research, and Marvin Sweeney’s historical
judgment and perception in his FOTL commentary are, in my opinion, particularly sharp
(Sweeney 1996).10 As the aforementioned articles already begin to suggest, there continue
to be new directions in historical11 and archeological methods12 that offer new perspec-
tives on Isaiah; these studies have been of special value in reconstructing the socio-eco-
nomic realities of eighth-century Judah and thereby assessing the prophet’s social critique
(Chaney 1999; Houston 2004, 2010). On the archeology of Isaiah’s period in general,
Ephraim Stern’s recent Archaeology of the Land of the Land of the Bible, Vol. 2 is an invalu-
able reference (2001).
One aspect of historical Isaiah scholarship that traditionally received much attention
from scholars, the biography and ⁄ or personality of the prophet, has fallen out of vogue in
light of an increasing conviction that older ideas of prophetic authorship were too simple
and naı̈ve,13 although two studies by major scholars appeared at the beginning of the last
decade (Blenkinsopp 2000b; Clements 2000).
Much of Isaiah 1–39 has rightly been taken as a source for the history of Israelite
religion. The topic of death, afterlife, and resurrection has been a particular focus, with var-
ious studies on the covenant with Death (Isaiah 28:15, 17) (e.g., Blenkinsopp 2000a; Hays
2010, forthcoming), the fall of Hêlel into the underworld (Isaiah 14) (e.g., Gallagher 1994;

Heiser 2001; Shipp 2002; Youngblood 2000; Zehnder 2001), and the texts in chs. 25–26
that speak of the dead rising (e.g., Schmitz 2003). The present author has compiled and
extended the conversation about death and life in Isaiah 1–39 in a forthcoming monograph
(Hays 2011). After analyzing the ways in which Isaiah adapted ancient Near Eastern images
of death and the afterlife to serve his rhetorical purpose, the monograph argues that that
the related themes of death and life were central to the prophet’s message. Since those
motifs were also taken up by his earliest tradents, they deserve to be considered among the
book’s primary themes. A notable new monograph on Neo-Assyrian imperial practices
regarding religion, by Steven Holloway, also sheds light (though primarily by analogy) on
Assyria’s interactions with Israel and Judah (Holloway 2002).14
Overlapping somewhat with the preceding categories are two very important trends in
ancient Near Eastern comparative work on Isaiah. First is the cogent argument of Baruch
Levine (2005) and others15 that monotheism has its roots not in Deutero-Isaiah, as is
often thought, but rather in Isaiah of Jerusalem’s reaction against the universalizing claims
of the Neo-Assyrian empire. Second is the willingness to take seriously the Egyptian
context of many of Isaiah’s oracles, especially those in chs. 18–20 (Israelit-Groll 1998;
Lubetski & Gottlieb 1998; Marlow 2007; Niccacci 1998). The recent collection of essays
by J. J. M. Roberts, The Bible and the Ancient Near East (2002)16 contains a number of
studies related to Isaiah as the field awaits Roberts’ forthcoming Hermeneia commentary
on chs. 1–39.
A very impressive new entry in the comparative discussion (and relevant also to redac-
tion criticism) is the revised Leiden dissertation of Matthijs J. de Jong, Isaiah Among the
Ancient Near Eastern Prophets (2007), which compares the editing of early strata of the
book of Isaiah to that of Neo-Assyrian prophecies from the same period.17 His method is
akin to Jeffrey Tigay’s in his brilliant comparative work on the evolution of the Gilga-
mesh epic as an empirical model for the growth of biblical literature (1975, 1982). One
of de Jong’s significant arguments is that the eighth-century Isaianic texts are the work of
a court prophet and were thus not only, or even primarily, words of judgment against
the Judahite state. Instead, one should expect to find oracles of salvation in this earliest
stratum.18
The volume of theological scholarship (both historical and applied) that employs Isaiah
1–39 is so immense and diverse that it is also very difficult to categorize, and therefore
difficult to summarize briefly. One notable place where Isaiah 1–39 appears frequently is
in theological approaches to peacemaking (e.g., Blenkinsopp 2008; Leiter 2004; Miller
2007; Nissinen 2008; Roberts 2007; Tucker 2000; Williamson 2008).
Literary study of these chapters has been similarly rich and diverse, as one would hope
in the case of one of the ancient world’s most brilliant literary works. Tull’s (2010) com-
mentary is particularly attentive to literary issues. Among scholars who have sought to
bring the methods of the larger literary guild to Isaiah studies, Francis Landy deserves
mention (e.g., 1999a, 1999b, 2000a, 2003, 2006). Stefan Schorch’s study of paronomasia
in the Hebrew Bible focuses particularly on Isaiah and thus draws attention to the pro-
phet’s literary genius and love of wordplay (Schorch 2000).
Clearly the most notable fashion within literary criticism of Isaiah has been intertextual
readings (to mention only a few such studies: Bergey 2003; Hibbard 2005, 2006; Polaski
1998, 2001; Rudman 2001). This might be understood as a reaction to the uncertain dat-
ing of many texts in Isaiah 1–39 (and beyond); that is, given the difficulty of arguing
direct influence of one text upon another, intertextuality has offered a less historically
fixed way of talking about the interactions and intersections of texts. In the most accom-
plished hands, intertextuality becomes a way for the interpreter to recognize the interplay

and interweaving of the book’s various sections. For example, Beuken, in his aformen-
tioned commentaries on Isaiah 1–27 (2003, 2007), begins his discussion of each pericope
with a reflection on the text’s placement in the whole book (Stellung im Buch), only later
turning to its diachronic location and formation (Diachronie); needless to say, this reverses
the prevailing habits of critical scholars over the past century.
Isaiah 40–5519
Recent commentaries on this section (hereafter DI) include Klaus Baltzer’s Hermeneia vol-
ume (2001), which treats these chapters as a ‘festival scroll’ for a cultic drama. This ‘liturgi-
cal’ approach, which draws on comparative data and owes much to the Myth and Ritual
school, must be distinguished from the approach of Watts (who envisioned a form of liter-
ary expression ‘‘[n]ot bound to either cult or king’’ [2005, 1:lxxxv]). Baltzer also departed
from the status quo by arguing for a late fifth-century date for DI, and by positing that
Moses is the servant referred to in the Servant Songs. However, all of these aspects of his
argument have met with resistance, and do not seem to have swayed many of his peers
(e.g., Wilks 2003; and the reviews of Sommer 2004 and Kratz 2003). The excellent Inter-
national Critical Commentary of John Goldingay and David Payne (2006) takes more
mainstream stances on these issues, setting the book in Babylon in the 540s, and as the
work of a ‘poet-prophet’ rather than a dramatist.20 Berges, in his commentary on chs.
40–48 (2008), splits the difference, acknowledging the dramatic nature of the text by
deeming it a ‘Lesedrama’, i.e., one intended to unfold in the imagination of the reader.
Two longstanding topics in Israelite religion continue to draw heavily on texts in DI,
namely the study of monotheism and of Israelite aniconism in comparison with the other
religions of the ancient Near East. Regarding the former, despite the aforementioned
research by Levine, the mainstream of the field continues to recognize DI as the earliest
locus for explicitly monotheistic theology in the Bible (Clifford 2010; Koch 2003; Leuen-
berger 2010; Smith 2002, pp. 191–99). DI’s use of anti-idol polemics is one of the dens-
est in any party of the Hebrew Bible, and Michael B. Dick has both studied that rhetoric
and coedited a new edition of the Mesopotamian ritual texts surrounding cult statues
(Dick 1999; Walker & Dick 2001; for other discussions, see Anthonioz 2011; Dick
2002). More generally, DI continues to be recognized as a locus at which the Bible
appropriates and transposes foreign (primarily Babylonian) religious language (Chan 2010;
Höffken 2005; Hutton 2007; Schaudig 2008; Weippert 2001).
From an historical vantage point, DI’s references to Cyrus and Babylon continue to
fuel numerous studies on the backgrounds and formation of the book (Albertz 2003;
Boling 1999; Braun 2003; Eng 2004; Gruen 2007). Although some would like to push
the composition of 40–55 well into the postexilic period, with the name Cyrus a later
fictionalizing addition (Coggins 1998), such theories remain speculative, and the best con-
clusion remains that the author of DI was working during the reign of Cyrus (Eng 2004;
Fried 2002; Höffken 2006). Others would like to dispense entirely with the idea of a
prophetic personality behind DI – Berges (2010) has sought to argue that a single prophet
was not responsible for DI, arguing instead for a ‘collective group’. Nevertheless, the
matter of the poet-prophet’s identity has been popular (Isbell 2009; McEvenue 1998;
Propp 2003). One notable aspect of the inquiry in the identity of DI is an accumulation
of data suggesting that the author(s) were situated in Judah rather than in Babylon, as is
generally thought (Goulder 2004a; Sherwin 2003); Tiemeyer (2011; cf. 2007) offers a
particularly extensive Forschungsgeschichte on the topic, whether or not her argument for a
Judahite provenance is ultimately accepted.

Various methods such as tradition history and intertextuality come into play as scholars
have sought to understand the role of Deutero-Isaiah in the formation of the book in the
wake of Williamson’s Book Called Isaiah. One notable focal point of these efforts has been
the relationship between DI and the Moses ⁄ Exodus tradition complex, with some
evidence for direct literary dependence of DI on the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32)
(Keiser 2005; for different approaches, see Berges 2004; Gosse 2007). In Remember the
Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts in Second Isaiah, Patricia Tull Willey
(1997) focused her intertextual study more on literary and theological issues than on
composition models.
By far the most heavily plowed field in Second Isaiah is the Servant Songs (42:1–4;
49:1–6; 50:4–11; 52:13–53:12). These were delineated long ago by Duhm as distinct
compositions, but many scholars have argued in recent years that the songs are in fact
integral to their contexts (e.g., Childs 2001, pp. 323–25; Seitz 2004; Smillie 2005). The
quantity of scholarship on these songs is so overwhelming that S. R. Driver is said to
have abandoned his Isaiah commentary rather than deal with it (reported in North 1956,
p. 1) – and that was a century ago! As with all biblical scholarship, the volume has only
increased over time; more recently, Childs has called Isaiah 53 ‘probably the most
contested chapter in the Old Testament’ (2001, p. 410). Given the broad failure to con-
clusively identify DI’s servant with any historical figure (whether on the basis of the songs
alone or a wider swath of texts that refer to the servant or servants), the more fruitful
approach may be to assume that the diverse images of the servant and servants reflect at
least a changing set of referents over time, whether or not all of the ‘songs’ are attribut-
able to a single author.
The present-day reader is not without guides in approaching the Servant Songs: C. R.
North (1956) bravely surveyed interpretation up through the first half of the 20th cen-
tury; Herbert Haag (1985) updated the survey through the mid-1980s; and two recent
edited compilations give a sense of the conversation to the end of the century, although
both focus primarily on Isaiah 53 (Bellinger et al. 1998; Janowski et al. 2004). These
volumes may mark a turn away from historical criticism toward reception history: the
editors of The Suffering Servant explicitly introduce their volume as a series of studies in
Wirkungsgeschichte, or ‘history of influence’, and the very title of the volume Jesus and the
Suffering Servant indicates that its agenda is grounded in Christian understandings of the
text. Whoever the servant of Isaiah 53 was, Isaiah’s picture of his atoning death became
one of the most powerful pieces of religious imagery in world history. Unfortunately,
even the latter of these two, The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources,
is a translation of an earlier German collection. The editors made an effort to update the
bibliography, but it is by no means complete. Significant recent studies not mentioned
include Berges (2000), Joachimsen (2007), Walton (2003) and Joachimsen (2011).
Isaiah 56–66
These 11 chapters have received less attention from scholars, although one might expect
increased activity in conjunction with rising interest in the Persian Period. Perhaps the
most widespread scholarly interest in Trito-Isaiah (TI) has been as a witness to postexilic
Judean religion (Middlemas 2005; Ruszkowski 2001), theology (Gregory 2007; Lynch
2008; Niskanen 2006), and society (Hammock 2000; Ruszkowski 2000; Tuell 2005). In
light of the shortage of uncurated Hebrew texts or Persian inscriptions describing the
imperial administration of the province of Yehud, TI is among the biblical texts that shed
light on the postexilic situation. However, many of the standard existing monographs on

Persian Period history and culture make too little use of TI, so there is work to be done
in this area.
Isaiah 56–66 has often been associated with frustrated hopes for the restoration commu-
nity, and thus with a return to a message of divine judgment after DI’s message of comfort.
In that light, it is somewhat surprising that TI has in recent years most often been taken up
for a more uplifting aspect of its message: its call for inclusion of those previously excluded,
notably foreigners (e.g., Croatto 1998; Flynn 2006; Gosse 2005; Hammock 2000). It is
important to note, however, that a number of critical readings of the passages concerning
the nations chasten readers from the notion that the latter portions of Isaiah are exuberantly
universalistic (e.g., Croatto 2005; Kaminsky & Stewart 2006; Willis 1998).
Because of the relatively late date of TI, the issues of intertextuality and inner-biblical
exegesis also come to the fore (Halpern 1998; Schaper 2004) in efforts to analyze how a
postexilic prophet employed existing scriptural materials.
Recent commentaries on Isa 56–66 include those of Burkhardt Zapff (2006) and
J. Severino Croatto (2001).
Conclusion: Future Directions

The same magnitude of scope and impact that has made Isaiah a fertile ground in the past
should continue to invite scholarship in the future, and I have indicated at a number of
places above where scholarship is particularly vibrant or seems to be needed.
If there is one thing that undermines the impact of research into Isaiah, it is the deep
divides between scholars regarding the composition of the book. Disagreement is natural
and inevitable, but when prominent scholars can differ by multiple centuries on the date
of a given text, outsiders to the debate could be forgiven for doubting whether there is
really any science to our scholarship. One can hope, along with Williamson (2004,
p. 200), that reasonable minds will come to agree more than they do now. Empirical
approaches grounded firmly in comparative data from Isaiah’s ancient Near Eastern world
– such as de Jong’s comparison to the redaction of Neo-Assyrian prophetic compilations
– seem to me to hold great promise in this regard. To look ahead to the direction of the
discussion, it seems to me that the later the book’s oracles are cast, the more speculative
the argument, and that we do well to take very seriously the historical contexts that the
book itself indicates – namely the Neo-Assyrian Period for 1–39, and the transition
between the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods for 40–66 – hypothesizing later periods
only where those contexts do not make sense, or where indicated by other data that is
generally accepted to establish the date of texts. To do otherwise is to prefer overambi-
tious speculation to empirical data.
Short Biography
Christopher B. Hays is the author of Death in the Iron Age II and in First Isaiah (FAT; Mohr
Siebeck, 2011). He translated the book of Isaiah for the new Common English Bible and
wrote the entry on Isaiah for the forthcoming Encyclopedia of the Bible from Oxford Univer-
sity Press. Hays has published articles on Isaiah and other topics in venues such as the Journal
of Biblical Literature, Vetus Testamentum, Biblica, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft,
Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Hebrew Studies,
Ugarit-Forschungen, Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections, and Journal of Theological Inter-
pretation. He has also contributed essays on Israelite religion and the comparative method in
various edited volumes. Hays received his Ph.D. from Emory University (2008), his M.

Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, and his BA from Amherst College. He teaches
ancient Near Eastern languages and history as well as Old Testament courses, and has been
active in archaeology and travel-study leadership in Israel.
Notes
* Correspondence address: Christopher B. Hays, D. Wilson Moore Assistant Professor of Ancient Near Eastern
Studies, Fuller Theological Seminary, 135 N. Oakland Ave., Pasadena, CA, 91182, USA. E-mail: hays@fuller.edu
1
Contemporary Isaiah research has been the subject of a recent monograph: Höffken (2004). Jesaja: Der Stand der
Theologischen Diskussion. The subtitle of that book may give the wrong impression of the contents, since its primary
interests are literary and compositional theories. Another recent survey of scholarship on Isaiah is much more
focused on theological approaches: Firth, David & Williamson, H. G. M. (eds.) (2009). Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and
Approaches. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, Blenkinsopp’s volumes offer good surveys of the field up to the
end of the 20th century, and see also now Sweeney, Marvin A. (2008). The Book of Isaiah in Recent Research.
In: Alan J. Hauser (ed.), Recent Research on the Major Prophets. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, pp. 78–92. A much
more basic introduction to the critical study of the book has been supplied by Baltzer, Klaus (2010). The Book of
Isaiah, HTR, 103, pp. 261–70.
2
The past decade has also seen the completion of W. A. M. Beuken’s commentary work on Isaiah, which spans
six volumes and three series in three different languages. Beuken essentially worked backward through the book,
beginning with his work in Dutch on 40–66 (Beuken 1979, 1982, 1989a,b), and continuing through his English
commentary on 28–39 (Beuken 2000), before finishing with his study on 1–27 (Beuken 2003, 2007), which was
published in German. Among other studies, the briefer critical treatment the book receives from Petersen (2002) is
judicious and worthy of note. There are of course other major commentaries on smaller portions of the book,
which will be taken up in turn in the relevant sections. The other recent commentaries on the whole book are of a
more popular bent; the most significant of these are by Goldingay (2001) and Brueggemann (1998).
3
A number of significant newer redaction-critical studies of Isaiah are contained in Kaiser’s Festschrift (Witte 2004).
4
Sweeney offers a fuller list of the theory’s proponents. See Sweeney 2001, p. 236, n. 6.
5
A briefer version of his argument may be found in 2004b. In a similar vein, I have argued for a compositional
unity in Isaiah 19 that has not typically been granted (Hays 2008).
6
Marc Zvi Brettler has argued that the many metaphors for God in Isaiah 40–66 are finally incompatible (Brettler
1998), with the result that they reinforce the incomparability of YHWH (cf. Isaiah 40:25). On the study of Isaiah’s
metaphors, see also Doyle (2000).
7
The sheer volume forbids trying to cite a representative sampling of articles, but recent monographs of signifi-
cance include Mallen (2007), Moyise & Menken (2005), Beaton (2002), Shum (2002) and Wagner (2002). See also
Hays (1998).
8
See particularly the introductory essay for further discussion and bibliography. Although they are slightly before
the period on which this article focuses, the volumes of Broyles and Evans’ Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah
(1997) are still well worth mentioning as well. Heskett’s Messianism Within the Scriptural Scroll of Isaiah (2007), based
on a Yale dissertation under Gerald Sheppard, examines the book’s messianic texts and their earliest interpretations.
9
Of note is the recent edition edited by M. Luukko and G. Van Buylaere (2002), which joins a similar earlier
edition of Sargon’s letters in shedding light on Assyria administration of its Western dependencies.
10
Despite the title of its series (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament), the commentary of Beuken (2000)
is somewhat more concerned with redaction-critical issues than with historical issues proper.
11
For example, John Holladay (2006) takes an economic-historical approach.
12
For example, Faust and Weiss (2005) delved in paleobotany to help reconstruct the Mediterranean Economy in
the Neo-Assyrian Period. Blakely and Hardin (2002) questioned some old conclusions about Neo-Assyrian military
history.
13
A number of the essays found in de Moor (2001) and in Ben Zvi and Floyd (2000) will be informative in this
regard.
14
Regarding the effects of Assyria on the Levant, a number of the contributions in Cohen (e.g., 2008) are also
noteworthy.
15
Levine builds on existing work by Peter Machinist showing that the biblical accounts of confrontations with
the Assyrians reflect the Judeans’ specific historical encounter with Sargonid rhetoric: see Machinist (1983, 2000);
see also Aster (2007).
16
Roberts is also among the contributors who touch on Isaiah in Kaltner & Stulman (2004).
17
For a simpler approach to arguing for a pre-exilic redaction, see Boadt (2001).
18
For a consideration of this question from a redaction-critical standpoint, see Dietrich (1999); – a review of
Becker (1997).
19
For 20th-century literature, see also Hermisson (2000) and Kim (2002).

20
Because much of the literary and theological material would not fit in the ICC volume, Goldingay expanded on
those aspects of his work as The Message of Isaiah 40–55: A Literary-Theological Commentary (2005). The Hebrew
commentary of Shalom Paul, Isaiah 40–66 (2008) is soon to be translated into English.
Works Cited
Albertz, Rainer (2003). Darius in Place of Cyrus: The First Edition of Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 40.1–52.12) in 521
BCE, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 27, pp. 371–83.
Anthonioz, Stéphanie (2011). À qui me Comparerez-Vous? Is 40, 25: La Polémique Contre L’idolâtrie Dans le Deutéro-
Isaı̈e. Paris: Cerf.
Aster, Shawn Zelig (2007). The Image of Assyria in Isaiah 2:5–22: The Campaign Motif Reversed, Journal of the
American Oriental Society, 127, pp. 249–78.
Baer, David A. (2001). When We All Go Home: Translation and Theology in LXX Isaiah 56 – 66. JSOTSup 318.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Baltzer, Klaus (2001). Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40–55. Margaret Kohl (trans.). Minneapolis: Fortress.
Translated from Deutero-Jesaja. Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 1999.
——. (2010). The Book of Isaiah, Harvard Theological Review, 103, pp. 261–70.
Barré, Michael L. (2005). The Lord Has Saved Me: A Study of the Psalm of Hezekiah (Isaiah 38:9–20). Catholic
Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 39. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America.
Barth, Hermann (1977). Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit : Israel und Assur als Thema Einer Produktiven Neuinterpretation
der Jesajaüberlieferung. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Bates, Robert D. (1999). Assyria and Rebellion in the Annals of Sennacherib: An Analysis of Sennacherib’s
Treatment of Hezekiah, Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin, 44, pp. 39–61.
Beaton, Richard (2002). Isaiah’s Christ in Matthew’s Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Becker, Uwe (1997). Jesaja: Von der Botschaft zum Buch. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und
Neuen Testaments 178. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
——. (1999). Jesajaforschung (Jes 1–39), Theologische Rundschau, 64, pp. 1–37; 117–52.
Bellinger, W. H. Jr. et al. (eds.) (1998). Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins. Harrisburg, PA:
Trinity.
Berges, Ulrich (1998). Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt. Herders biblische Studien 16. Freiburg: Herder.
——. (2000). Who Were the Servants? A Comparative Inquiry in the Book of Isaiah and the Psalms. In: Johannes,
C. de Moor and Harry F. van Rooy (eds.), Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets,
pp. 1–18. Leiden: Brill.
——. (2004). Der Zweite Exodus im Jesajabuch: Auszug Oder Verwandlung? In: Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and
Ludger Schwienhorst-Schönberger (eds.), Das Manna fällt auch heute noch: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie des
Alten, Ersten Testaments (FS Erich Zenger), pp. 77–95. Freiburg: Herder.
——. (2006). ‘Ich Gebe Jerusalem Einen Freudenboten’: Synchrone Und Diachrone Beobachtungen Zu Jes 41,27,
Biblica, 87, pp. 319–37.
——. (2008). Jesaja 40-48. HThKAT. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder.
——. (2010). The Literary Construction of the Servant in Isaiah 40-55: A Discussion About Individual and
Collective Identities, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, 24, pp. 28–38.
Bergey, Ronald (2003). The Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32.1–43) and Isaianic Prophecies: A Case of Early
Intertextuality? Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 28, pp. 33–54.
Beuken, W. A. M. (1979). Jesaja: Deel IIA. De Prediking van het Oude Testament. Nijkerk: Callenbach.
——. (1982). Jesaia: Deel IIB. De Prediking van het Oude Testament. Nijkerk: Callenbach.
——. (1989a). Jesaia: Deel IIIA. De Prediking van het Oude Testament. Nijkerk: Callenbach.
——. (1989b). Jesaia: Deel IIIB. De Prediking van het Oude Testament. Nijkerk: Callenbach.
——. (1998). De Psalmist Als Hizkia, Zoon Van David: Een Intertextuele Lezing Van Psalm 138 En Jesaja 36–38,
Skrif en kerk, 19, pp. 513–24.
——. (2000). Isaiah: Vol. 2, Part 2: Isaiah 28–39. Brian Doyle (trans.). Historical Commentary on the Old
Testament. Leuven: Peeters.
——. (2003). Jesaja 1-12. Ulrich Berges (trans.). HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder.
——. (2007). Jesaja 13-27. Ulrich Berges and Andrea Spans (trans.). HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder.
Blakely, Jeffrey A. & Hardin, James W. (2002). Southwestern Judah in the Late Eighth Century B.C.E, Bulletin of
the American Schools of Oriental Research, 326, pp. 11–64.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph (2000a). Judah’s Covenant With Death (Isaiah XXVIII 14–22), Vetus Testamentum, 50, pp.
472–83.
—— (2000b). The Prophetic Biography of Isaiah. In: Erhard Blum (ed.), Mincha: Festgabe für Rolf Rendtorff, pp.
13–26. Neukirchen: Neukirchener.
—— (2008). Reconciliation in the Middle East: A Biblical Perspective, Theology Today, 65, pp. 344–55.

Boadt, Lawrence (2001). Re-Examining a Pre-Exilic Redaction of Isaiah 1–39. In: L. Boadt and M. S. Smith
(eds.), Imagery and Imagination in Biblical Literature: Essays in Honor of Aloysius Fitzgerald, F.S.C, pp. 169–90.
Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America.
Boling, Robert G. (1999). Kings and Prophets: Cyrus and Servant: Reading Isaiah 40–55. In: Robert Chazan,
William W. Hallo and Lawerence H. Schiffman (eds.), Ki Baruch hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic
Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine, pp. 171–88. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Braun, Roddy L. (2003). Cyrus in Second and Third Isaiah, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. In: M. Patrick
Graham, Steven L. McKenzie and Gary N. Knoppers (eds.), The Chronicler as Theologian: Essays in Honor of Ralph
W. Klein, pp. 146–64. London: T&T Clark.
Brettler, Marc Zvi (1998). Incompatible Metaphors for YHWH in Isaiah 40-66, JSOT, 78, pp. 97–120.
Brooke, George J. (2006). On Isaiah at Qumran. In: Claire Mathews McGinnis and Patricia K. Tull (eds.), As Those
Who Are Taught, pp. 69–85. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Broyles, Craig C. & Evans, Craig A. (eds.) (1997). Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive
Tradition, 2 vols. Leiden: Brill.
Brueggemann, Walter (1998). Isaiah, 2 vols. Word Biblical Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Chan, Michael Jay (2010). Cyrus, Yhwh’s Bird of Prey (Isa. 46.11): Echoes of an Ancient Near Eastern Metaphor,
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 35, pp. 113–27.
Chaney, Marvin L. (1999). Whose Sour Grapes? The Addressees of Isaiah 5:1–7 in the Light of Political Economy,
Semeia, 87, pp. 105–22.
Childs, Brevard S. (2001). Isaiah. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Clements, R. E. (2000). The Prophet as an Author: The Case of the Isaiah Memoir. In: Ehud Ben Zvi and
Michael H. Floyd (eds.), Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy, pp. 89–101. Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature.
Clifford, Hywel (2010). Deutero-Isaiah and Monotheism. In: John Day (ed.), Prophecy and Prophets in Ancient Israel:
Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, pp. 267–89. New York: T & T Clark.
Coggins, Richard J. (1998). Do We Still Need Deutero-Isaiah? Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 81,
pp. 77–92.
Cohen, Raymond & Westbrook, Raymond (eds.) (2008). Isaiah’s Vision of Peace in Biblical and Modern International
Relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Conrad, Edgar W. (2002). Yehoshua Gitay: ‘What Is He Doing?’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 97,
pp. 237–41.
Croatto, J. (2001). Severino.Imaginar el Futuro. Estructura Retórica y Querigma del Tercer Isaı́as (Isaı́as 56–66). Comentar-
io Bı́blico. Buenos Aires: Grupo Editorial Lumen.
Croatto, J. Severino (1998). La Inclusion Social en el Programa del Tercer Isaias: Exégesis de Isaı́as 56:1-8 y 66:18-
24, Revista Bı́blica, 60, pp. 91–110.
——. (2005). The ‘Nations’ In the Salvific Oracles of Isaiah, Vetus Testamentum, 55, pp. 143–61.
Darr, Katheryn Pfisterer (1994). Isaiah’s Vision and the Family of God. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.
Dick, Michael B. (1999). Prophetic Parodies of Making the Cult Image. In: Michael B. Dick, (ed.), Born in Heaven,
Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East, pp. 1–53. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
——. (2002). Worshiping Idols: What Isaiah Didn’t Know, Biblical Research, 18, pp. 30–7.
Dietrich, Walter (1999). Jesaja—Ein Heilsprophet? Theologische Rundschau, 64, pp. 324–37.
Dille, Sarah J. (2004). Mixing Metaphors: God as Mother and Father in Deutero-Isaiah. London: T&T Clark International.
Doyle, Brian (2000). The Apocalypse of Isaiah Metaphorically Speaking: A Study of the Use, Function, and Significance of
Metaphors in Isaiah 24-27. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters.
Elliott, Mark W. (ed.) (2007). Isaiah 40–66. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Eng, Milton (2004). What’s in a Name? Cyrus and the Dating of Deutero-Isaiah. In: John Kaltner and Louis Stul-
man (eds.), Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, Essays in Honor of Herbert B. Huffmon, pp. 216–24.
London: T&T Clark.
Everson, A. Joseph & Kim, Hyun Chul Paul (eds.) (2009). The Desert Will Bloom: Poetic Visions in Isaiah. Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature.
Faust, Avraham & Weiss, Ehud (2005). Judah, Philistia, and the Mediterranean World: Reconstructing the Economic
System of the Seventh Century BCE, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 338, pp. 71–92.
Firth, David & Williamson, H. G. M. (eds.) (2009). Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and Approaches. Downers Grove, IL:
IVP Academic.
Flynn, Shawn W. (2006). ‘A House of Prayer for All Peoples’: The Unique Place of the Foreigner in the Temple
Theology of Trito-Isaiah, Theoforum, 37, pp. 5–24.
Fried, Lisbeth S. (2002). Cyrus the Messiah? The Historical Background to Isaiah 45:1, Harvard Theological Review,
95, pp. 373–93.
Gallagher, W. R. (1994). On the Identity of Hêlel Ben Šaªar, Ugarit-Forschungen, 26, pp. 145–6.
Gitay, Yehoshua (2001). Prophetic Criticism—‘What Are They Doing?’: The Case of Isaiah—A Methodological
Assessment, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 96, pp. 101–27.

Goldingay, John E. (2001). Isaiah. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

——. (2005). The Message of Isaiah 40–55: A Literary-Theological Commentary. London: T&T Clark.
Goldingay, John & Payne, David (2006). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 40–55. London: T&T Clark.
Gonçalvès, Francolino J. (1999). 2 Rois 18,13–20,19 Par Isaı̈e 36–39: Encore Une Fois, Lequel Des Deux Livres
Fut Le Premier? In: J.-M. Auwers and A. Wénin (eds.), Lectures et relectures de la Bible (FS P.-M. Bogaert),
pp. 27–55. Louvain: Peeters ⁄ Leuven University Press.
Gosse, Bernard (2005). Sabbath, Identity and Universalism Go Together After the Return From Exile, Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament, 29, pp. 359–70.
——. (2007). Le ‘Serviteur’ Israël-Jacob et le ‘Serviteur’ Nouveau Moı̈se Dans la Ligne de la Sagesse et du Psautier,
en Isaı̈e 40ss, BibNot, 133, pp. 41–55.
Goulder, M. D. (2004a). Deutero-Isaiah of Jerusalem, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 28, pp. 351–62.
—— (2004b). Isaiah as Liturgy. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Gregory, Bradley C. (2007). The Postexilic Exile in Third Isaiah: Isaiah 61:1–3 in Light of Second Temple Herme-
neutics, Journal of Biblical Literature, 126, pp. 475–96.
Gruen, Erich S. (2007). Persia Through the Jewish Looking-Glass. In: Tessa Rajak (ed.), Jewish Perspectives on Helle-
nistic Rulers, pp. 53–75. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Haag, Herbert (1985). Der Gottesknecht bei Deuterojesaja. Erträge der Forschung 233. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft.
Hallo, W. W. (1999). Jerusalem Under Hezekiah: An Assyriological Perspective. In: Lee I. Levine (ed.), Jerusalem:
Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, pp. 36–50. New York: Continuum.
Halpern, Baruch (1998). The New Names of Isaiah 62:4: Jeremiah’s Reception in the Restoration and the Politics
Of ‘Third Isaiah’, Journal of Biblical Literature, 117, pp. 623–43.
Hammock, Clinton E. (2000). Isaiah 56:1–8 and the Redefining of the Restoration Judean Community, Biblical
Theology Bulletin, 30, pp. 46–57.
Hays, Christopher B. (2008). Damming Egypt ⁄ Damning Egypt: The Paronomasia of skr and the Unity of Isa 19:
1–15, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 120, pp. 612–6.
——. (2010). The Covenant With Mut: A New Interpretation of Isaiah 28:1-22, Vetus Testamentum, 60, pp. 212–40.
——. (2011). Death in the Iron Age II and in the Rhetoric of First Isaiah. Forschungen zum Alten Testament. Tübin-
gen: Mohr Siebeck.
——. (forthcoming). The Egyptian Goddess Mut in Iron-Age Palestine: Further Data From Amulets and Onomas-
tics, Journal of Near Eastern Studies.
Hays, Richard B. (1998). ‘Who Has Believed Our Message?’: Paul’s Reading of Isaiah, SBL Seminar Papers, 37,
pp. 205–25.
Heiser, Michael S. (2001). The Mythological Provenance of Isa. XIV 12–15: A Reconsideration of the Ugaritic
Material, Vetus Testamentum, 51, pp. 354–69.
Hermisson, Hans-Jürgen (2000). Neue Literatur Zu Deuterojesaja, Theologische Rundschau, 65, pp. 237–84, 379–430.
Heskett, Randall (2007). Messianism Within the Scriptural Scroll of Isaiah. LHBOTS 456. New York: T&T Clark
International.
Hibbard, J. Todd (2005). Isaiah XXVII 7 and Intertextual Discourse About ‘Striking’ in the Book of Isaiah, Vetus
Testamentum, 55, pp. 461–76.
——. (2006). Intertextuality in Isaiah 24–27: The Reuse and Evocation of Earlier Texts and Traditions. FAT 16. Tübin-
gen: Mohr Siebeck.
Höffken, Peter (2004). Jesaja: Der Stand der Theologischen Diskussion. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
——. (2005). Zur Mardukinterpretation in Babylonien Mit Besonderer Hinsicht Auf Deuterojesaja, BibNot, 125,
pp. 11–23.
——. (2006). Religiöse Deutungen Von Kyros d. Gr. im Kontext der Einnahme Babylons 539 Vor Chr, Biblische
Notizen, 128, pp. 5–18.
Holladay, John (2006). Hezekiah’s Tribute, Long-Distance Trade, and the Wealth of Nations ca. 1000–600 BCE:
A New Perspective. In: Seymour Gitin, J. Edward Wright and J. P. Dessel (eds.), Confronting the Past: Archaeologi-
cal and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Holladay, William L. (1997). Was Trito-Isaiah Deutero-Isaiah After All? vol. 1. In: Craig C. Broyles and Craig A.
Evans (eds.), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah, pp. 193–217. Leiden: Brill.
Holloway, Steven W. (2002). Aššur is King! Aššur is King! Religion in the Exercise of Power in the Neo-Assyrian Empire.
CHANE 10. Leiden: Brill.
Houston, Walter (2004). Was There a Social Crisis in the Eighth Century? In: John Day (ed.), In Search of Pre-Exilic
Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, pp. 130–49. London: T&T Clark.
——. (2010). Exit the Oppressed Peasant?: Rethinking the Background of Social Criticism in the Prophets. In:
John Day (ed.), Prophecy and Prophets in Ancient Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, pp. 101–16.
New York: T & T Clark.
Hutton, Jeremy (2007). Isaiah 51:9–11 and the Rhetorical Appropriation and Subversion of Hostile Theologies,
Journal of Biblical Literature, 126, pp. 271–303.

Isbell, Charles David (2009). The Limmûdı̂m in the Book of Isaiah, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 34,
pp. 99–109.
Israelit-Groll, Sarah (1998). The Egyptian Background to Isaiah 19:18. In: Meir Lubetski et al. (ed.), Boundaries of
the Ancient Near Eastern World: A Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supple-
ment Series 273, pp. 300–3. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Janowski, Bernd, Stuhlmacher, Peter et al. (2004). The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Joachimsen, Kristin (2007). Steck’s Five Stories of the Servant in Isaiah LII 13–LIII 12, and Beyond, Vetus Testamen-
tum, 57, pp. 208–28.
——. (2011). Identities in Transition: The Pursuit of Isa. 52:13-53:12. VTSup 142. Leiden: Brill.
de Jong, Matthijs J. (2007). Isaiah Among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets: A Comparative Study of the Earliest Stages
of the Isaiah Tradition and the Neo-Assyrian Prophecies. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 117. Leiden: Brill.
Kaltner, J. & Stulman, Louis (eds.) (2004). Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, Essays in Honor of Herbert
B. Huffmon. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Kaminsky, Joel S. & Stewart, Anne (2006). God of All the World: Universalism and Developing Monotheism in
Isaiah 40–66, Harvard Theological Review, 99, pp. 139–63.
Keiser, Thomas A. (2005). The Song of Moses a Basis for Isaiah’s Prophecy, Vetus Testamentum, 55, pp. 486–500.
Kim, Hyun Chul Paul (2002). Isaiahs Recounted: Tracing Duhm’s Deutero-Isaiah Via History of Interpretation,
Journal of Theology (United Theological Seminary), 100, pp. 69–84.
Koch, Klaus (2003). Monotheismus und Politische Theologie bei Einem Israelitischen Propheten im Babylonischen
Exil. In: Sibylle Meyer (ed.), Egypt—Temple of the Whole World: Studies in Honour of Jan Assmann, pp. 187–216.
Leiden: Brill.
van der Kooij, Arie (2006). Interpretation of the Book of Isaiah in the Septuagint and in Other Ancient Versions.
In: Claire Mathews McGinnis and Patricia K. Tull (eds.), As Those Who Are Taught, pp. 49–68. Atlanta: Society
of Biblical Literature.
—— & van der Meer, Michaël (eds.) (2010). The Old Greek of Isaiah: Issues and Perspectives: Papers Read at the
Conference on the Septuagint of Isaiah, Held in Leiden 10-11 April 2008. VTSup 138, Leuven: Peeters.
Kratz, Reinhold (2003). Review of Wilks. The Prophet as Incompetent Dramatist [2003], RBL, 5, pp. 25–31.
Kruger, Paul A. (2000). The Obscure Combination Kbd Mś’h in Isaiah 30:27: Another Description for Anger?
Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages, 26, pp. 155–62.
Kugel, James L. (1998). Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kustár, Zoltán (2002). Durch Eine Wunden Sind wir Geheilt: Eine Untersuchung zur Metaphorik von Israels Krankheit und
Heilung im Jesajabuch. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Landy, Francis (1999a). Seraphim and Poetic Process. In: Fiona C. Black, Roland Boer and Eric Runions (eds.),
The Labour of Reading: Desire, Alienation, and Biblical Interpretation, pp. 15–34. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature.
——. (1999b). Strategies of Concentration and Diffusion in Isaiah 6, BibInterp, 7, pp. 58–86.
——. (2000a). The Covenant With Death. In: Tod Linafelt (ed.), Strange Fire: Reading the Bible After the Holocaust,
pp. 220–32. New York: New York University Press.
——. (2000b). Vision and Voice in Isaiah, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 88, pp. 19–36.
——. (2003). Torah and Anti-Torah: Isaiah 2:2–4 and 1:10–26, BibInterp, 11, pp. 317–34.
——. (2006). The Ghostly Prelude to Deutero-Isaiah, BibInterp, 14, pp. 332–63.
Lange, Armin (2009). ‘Which is Written in the Words of Isaiah, Son of Amoz, the Prophet’ (CD 7.10): In: Károly
Dániel Dobos and Miklós K} oszeghy (eds.), Quotations of and Allusions to the Book of Isaiah in Qumran Literature.
Pages 275-87 in With Wisdom as a Robe: Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida Fröhlich, pp. 275–87.
Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix Press, in co-operation with the Faculty of Humanities, Pázmány Péter
Catholic University of Hungary.
Leiter, David A. (2004). Visions of Peace in Isaiah. In: J. Kaltner and Louis Stulman (eds.), Inspired Speech: Prophecy
in the Ancient Near East, Essays in Honor of Herbert B. Huffmon, pp. 244–52. London: T&T Clark.
Lessing, R. Reed (2004a). Interpreting Discontinuity: Isaiah’s Tyre Oracle. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
——. (2004b). The Redactional Interpretation of Discontinuity in Prophetic Texts: Isaiah 23 as a Test Case,
Concordia Journal, 30, pp. 294–315.
Leuenberger, Martin (2010). Ich bin Jhwh und Keiner Sonst: Der Exklusive Monotheismus des Kyros-Orakels Jes 45,1-7.
Stuttgart: KBW Bibelwerk.
Levine, Baruch (2005). Assyrian Ideology and Biblical Monotheism, Iraq, 67, pp. 411–27.
Løland, Hanne (2008). Silent or Salient Gender? The Interpretation of Gendered God-Language in the Hebrew Bible,
Exemplified in Isaiah 42, 46 and 49. FAT II ⁄ 32. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Lubetski, Meir & Gottlieb, Claire (1998). Isaiah 18: The Egyptian Nexus. In: Meir Lubetski et al. (ed.), Boundaries
of the Ancient Near Eastern World: A Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon, JSOTSup 273, pp. 364–84. Sheffield: JSOT
Press.

Lust, Johan (1998). Messianism in the Septuagint: Isaiah 8:23b–9:6 (9:1–7). In: Jože Krašovec (eds.), The Interpreta-
tion of the Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia, pp. 147–63. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.
Luukko, M. & Van Buylaere, G. (2002). The Political Correspondence of Esarhaddon. Helsinki: Helsinki University
Press.
Lynch, Matthew J. (2008). Zion’s Warrior and the Nations: Isaiah 59:15b–63:6 in Isaiah’s Zion Traditions, Catholic
Biblical Quarterly, 70, pp. 244–63.
Machinist, Peter (1983). Assyria and Its Image in First Isaiah, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 103, pp. 719–37.
——. (2000). The Rab Šaqeh at the Wall of Jerusalem: Israelite Identity in the Face of the Assyrian ‘Other’, Hebrew
Studies, 41, pp. 151–68.
Mallen, Peter (2007). The Reading and Transformation of Isaiah in Luke-Acts. LNTS 367. London: T&T Clark.
Marlow, Hilary (2007). The Lament Over the River Nile—Isaiah XIX 5–10 in its Wider Context, Vetus Testamen-
tum, 57, pp. 229–42.
Mayer, Walter (2003). Sennacherib’s Campaign of 701 BCE: The Assyrian View. Julia Assante (trans.). In: Lester L.
Grabbe (ed.), ‘Like a Bird in a Cage’: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE, Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament: Supplement Series 363, pp. 168–200. London: Sheffield Academic Press.
McEvenue, Sean E. (1998). Quién Fue El Segundo Isaı́as, Revista bı́blica, 60, pp. 1–12.
McGinnis, Claire Mathews & Tull, Patricia K. (eds.) (2006). As Those Who Are Taught: The Interpretation of Isaiah
From the LXX to the SBL. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
McKinion, Steven A. (ed.) (2004). Isaiah 1–39. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
van der Meer, Michaël N., van Keulen, Percy, van Peursen, Wido & Romeny, Bas ter Haar (eds.) (2010). Isaiah in
Context: Studies in Honour of Arie van der Kooij on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Leiden: Brill.
Metzenthin, Christian (2010). Jesaja-Auslegung in Qumran. Zürich: Theologische Verlag Zürich.
Middlemas, Jill (2005). Divine Reversal and the Role of the Temple in Trito-Isaiah. In: John Day (ed.), Temple and
Worship in Biblical Israel, pp. 164–87. London: T&T Clark.
Miller, Donald E. (2007). Ain’t Gonna Study War No More: Isaiah 2:1–4, Brethren Life and Thought, 52, pp. 199–203.
de Moor, J. C. (ed.) (2001). The Elusive Prophet: The Prophet as Historical Person, Literary Character and Anonymous
Artist. Leiden: Brill.
Moughtin-Mumby, Sharon (2008). Sexual and Marital Metaphors in Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel. Oxford
Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University.
Moyise, Steve & Menken, Maarten J. J. (eds.) (2005). Isaiah in the New Testament. The New Testament and the
Scriptures of Israel. London: T&T Clark.
Niccacci, Alviero (1998). Isaiah XVIII–XX From an Egyptological Perspective, Vetus Testamentum, 48, pp. 214–38.
Niskanen, Paul (2006). Yhwh as Father, Redeemer, and Potter in Isaiah 63:7–64:11, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 68,
pp. 397–407.
Nissinen, Martti (2008). From Holy War to Holy Peace: Biblical Alternatives to Belligerent Rhetoric. In: Raymond
Cohen and Raymond Westbrook (eds.), Isaiah’s Vision of Peace in Biblical and Modern International Relations,
pp. 181–97. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nitsche, Stefan Ark (2006). Jesaja 24–27: Ein Dramatischer Text: Die Frage Nach den Genres Prophetischer Literatur des
Alten Testaments und die Textgraphik der Grossen Jesajarolle aus Qumran. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer.
Norin, Stig I. L. (2006). Was Ist Ein Gillajon?, Vetus Testamentum, 56, pp. 363–9.
North, C. R. (1956). The Suffering Servant, 2nd edn. London: Oxford University Press.
Paul, Shalom (2008). Isaiah 40–66. ML. Tel Aviv: Am Oved.
Person, Raymond F. (1999). II Kings 18–20 and Isaiah 36–39: A Text Critical Case Study in the Redaction
History of the Book of Isaiah, ZAW, 111, pp. 373–9.
Petersen, David L. (2002). The Prophetic Literature: An Introduction. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Polaski, Donald C. (1998). Reflections on a Mosaic Covenant: The Eternal Covenant (Isaiah 24:5) and Intertextu-
ality, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 77, pp. 55–73.
——. (2001). Authorizing an End: The Isaiah Apocalypse and Intertextuality. Leiden; Boston: Brill.
Propp, W. H. (2003). Who Wrote Second Isaiah?, Biblical Research, 19, pp. 32–6, 46.
Reiterer, Friedrich Vinzenz (2006). Wer Ist Der Angekündigte Regent? Ein Früher Baustein Der Messiasvorstellung
in Jes 16,4c–5d, Biblische Notizen, 130, pp. 5–16.
Roberts, J. J. M. (2000). The Meaning Of ‘£mh YHWH’ In Isaiah 4:2, Jewish Bible Quarterly, 28, pp. 20–7.
——. (2002). The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
——. (2007). The End of War in the Zion Tradition: The Imperialist Background of an Old Testament Vision of
Worldwide Peace. In: M. Daniel Carroll R and Jacqueline E. Lapsley (eds.), Character Ethics and the Old
Testament: Moral Dimensions of Scripture, pp. 119–28. Louisville; London: Westminster John Knox.
——. (2010). Security and Justice in Isaiah. Stone-Campbell Journal, 13, pp. 71–9.
Rudman, Dominic (2001). Zechariah 8:20–22 and Isaiah 2:2–4 ⁄ ⁄ Micah 4:2–3: A Study in Intertextuality. BibNot
107–108, pp. 50–4.
Ruszkowski, Leszek (2000). Volk und Gemeinde im Wandel. Eine Untersuchung zu Jesaja 56 – 66. FRLANT 191.
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck.

——. (2001). Der Sabbat Bei Tritojesaja. In: Beat Huwyler, Hans-Peter Mathys and Beat Weber (eds.), Prophetie
und Psalmen (FS Klaus Seybold), pp. 61–74. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Sawyer, John F. A. (1996). The Fifth Gospel: Isaiah in the History of Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
——. (2001). The Gospel According to Isaiah, Expository Times, 113, pp. 39–43.
Schaper, Joachim (2004). Rereading the Law: Inner-Biblical Exegesis of Divine Oracles in Ezekiel 44 and Isaiah 56.
In: Bernard M. Levinson and Eckart Otto (eds.), Recht und Ethik im Alten Testament, pp. 125–44. Münster: LIT
Verlag.
——. (2006). Messianism in the Septuagint of Isaiah and Messianic Intertextuality in the Greek Bible. In: Michael
A. Knibb (ed.), Septuagint and Messianism, pp. 371–80. Leuven: Peeters.
Schaudig, Hanspeter (2008). ‘Bel Bows, Nabû Stoops!’: The Prophecy of Isaiah XLVI 1–2 as a Reflection of Babylo-
nian ‘Processional Omens’, Vetus Testamentum, 58, pp.557–72.
Schmitz, Philip C. (2003). The Grammar of Resurrection in Isaiah 26:19a-C, Journal of Biblical Literature, 122,
pp. 145–9.
Schorch, Stefan (2000). Between Science and Magic: The Function and Roots of Paronomasia in the Prophetic
Books of the Hebrew Bible. In: Scott B. Noegel (ed.), Puns and Pundits: Word Play in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient
Near Eastern Literature, pp. 205–22. Bethesda, MD: CDL.
Seitz, Christopher R. (1993). Isaiah 1–39. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox.
——. (2001). Isaiah 40–66. In: L. E. Keck (ed.), New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 6, pp. 309–552. Nashville: Abingdon.
——. (2004). ‘You Are My Servant, You Are the Israel in Whom I Will Be Glorified’: The Servant Songs and the
Effect of Literary Context in Isaiah, Calvin Theological Journal, 39, pp. 117–34.
Sherwin, Simon J. (2003). In Search of Trees: Isaiah XLIV 14 and Its Implications, Vetus Testamentum, 53, pp. 514–
29.
Shipp, R. Mark (2002). Of Dead Kings and Dirges: Myth and Meaning in Isaiah 14:4b–21. AB 11. Leiden: Brill.
Shum, Shiu-Lun (2002). Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans: A Comparative Study of Paul’s Letter to the Romans and the
Sibylline and Qumran Sectarian Texts. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 156. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck.
Smillie, Gene R. (2005). Isaiah 42:1–4 in Its Rhetorical Context, BibSac, 162, pp. 50–65.
Smith, Mark S. (2002). The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. 2nd edn. Biblical
Resource Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Sommer, Benjamin D. (1998). A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
——. (2004). Review of Wilks, The Prophet as Incompetent Dramatist [2003], Journal of Biblical Literature, 123
pp. 149–53.
Stern, Ephraim (2001). Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. Vol. 2, The Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Periods, 732–
332 BCE. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday.
Sweeney, Marvin A. (1996). Isaiah 1–39, With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature. Forms of the Old Testament
Literature 16. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
——. (2001). King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
——. (2007). Dating Prophetic Texts, Hebrew Studies, 48, pp. 56–73.
——. (2008). The Book of Isaiah in Recent Research. In: Alan J. Hauser (ed.), Recent Research on the Major
Prophets, pp. 78–92. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press.
Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia (2007). Geography and Textual Allusions: Interpreting Isaiah XL–LV and Lamentations as
Judahite Texts, Vetus Testamentum, 57, pp. 367–85.
——. (2011). For the Comfort of Zion: The Geographical and Theological Location of Isaiah 40-55. VTSup 139. Leiden:
Brill.
Tigay, Jeffrey (1975). An Empirical Basis for the Documentary Hypothesis, Journal of Biblical Literature, 94, pp. 329–42.
——. (1982). The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Troxel, Ronald L. (2008). LXX Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the Translator of the Septuagint
of Isaiah. Leiden: Brill.
Tucker, Gene M. (2000). The Peaceable Kingdom and a Covenant With the Wild Animals. In: William P. Brown
and S. Dean McBride Jr. (eds.), God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner, pp. 215–25. Grand Rap-
ids, MI: Eerdmans.
Tuell, Steven S. (2005). The Priesthood of The ‘Foreigner’: Evidence of Competing Polities in Ezekiel 44:1–14
and Isaiah 56:1–8. In: John T. Strong and Steven S. Tuell (eds.), Constituting the Community: Studies on the Polity
of Ancient Israel in Honor of S. Dean McBride Jr, pp. 183–204. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Tull, Patricia K. (2010). Isaiah 1-39. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys.
Ulrich, Eugene C. (2009). Qumran Witness to the Developmental Growth of the Prophetic Books. In: Károly
Dániel Dobos and Miklós K} oszeghy (eds.), With Wisdom as a Robe: Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of
Ida Fröhlich, pp. 263–74. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix Press, in co-operation with the Faculty of Human-
ities, Pázmány Péter Catholic University of Hungary.

Ulrich, Eugene & Flint, Peter W. (eds.) (2010). Qumran Cave 1. II, The Isaiah Scrolls. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Vaughn, Andrew G. & Killebrew, Ann E. (eds.) (2003). Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period.
SBL Symposium Series 18. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Vermeylen, Jacques (1977–1978). Du Prophète Isaı̈e à L’apocalyptique: Isaı̈e, I–XXXV, Miroir D’un Demi-Millénaire
D’expérience Religieuse en Israël. Paris: J. Gabalda.
—— (ed.) (1989). The Book of Isaiah ⁄ Le Livre D’Isaı̈e: Les Oracles et Leurs Relectures Unité et Complexité de L’ouvrage.
Leuven: Peeters.
Vlková, Gabriela Ivana (2004). Cambiare la Luce in Tenebre e le Tenebre in Luce: Uno Studio Tematico Dell’alternarsi tra
la Luce e le Tenebre nel Libro di Isaia. Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana.
Wagner, J. Ross (2002). Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul ‘In Concert’ in the Letter to the Romans. Leiden:
Brill.
Walker, Christopher & Dick, Michael (eds.) (2001). The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia: The
Mesopotamian Mıs Pı̂ Ritual. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, University of Helsinki.
Walton, John H. (2003). The Imagery of the Substitute King Ritual in Isaiah’s Fourth Servant Song, Journal of
Biblical Literature, 122, pp. 734–43.
Watts, John D. W. (2005). Isaiah, 2 vols. Word. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Weippert, Manfred (2001). ‘Ich Bin Jahwe’—‘Ich Bin Istar Von Arbela’: Deuterojesaja Im Lichte Der Neuassyris-
chen Prophetie. In: Beat Huwyler, Hans-Peter Mathys and Beat Weber (eds.), Prophetie und Psalmen (FS Klaus
Seybold), pp. 31–59. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
van Wieringen, Archibald L. H. M. & van der Woude, Annemarieke (eds.) (2011). Enlarge the Site of Your Tent:
The City as Unifying Theme in Isaiah: The Isaiah Workshop—De Jesaja Werkplaats. Leiden: Brill.
Wilken, R. L. (ed.) (2007). Isaiah: Interpreted by Early Christian and Medieval Commentators. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans.
Wilks, John G. F. (2003). The Prophet as Incompetent Dramatist, Vetus Testamentum, 53, pp. 530–43.
Willey, Patricia Tull (1997). Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts in Second Isaiah. SBL
Dissertation Series 161. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Williamson, H. G. M. (1994). The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction. Oxford:
Clarendon.
——. (1998). Variations on a Theme: King, Messiah and Servant in the Book of Isaiah. Carlisle, Cumbria:
Paternoster.
——. (2004). In Search of the Pre-Exilic Isaiah. In: John Day (ed.), In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel, pp. 181–206.
London: T&T Clark.
——. (2006). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1–27. Vol. 1: Commentary on Isaiah 1–5. London: T&T
Clark.
——. (2008). Swords Into Plowshares: The Development and Implementation of a Vision. In: Raymond Cohen
and Raymond Westbrook (eds.), Isaiah’s Vision of Peace in Biblical and Modern International Relations, pp. 139–49.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Willis, John T. (1998). Exclusivistic and Inclusivistic Aspects of the Concept of ‘The People of God’ In the Book
of Isaiah, Restoration Quarterly, 40, pp. 3–12.
Witte, Markus (ed.) (2004). Gott und Mensch im Dialog: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburtstag. Berlin: Walter
de Gruyter.
Youngblood, Ronald F. (2000). The Fall of Lucifer (in More Ways Than One). In: J. I. Packer and Sven
K. Soderlund (eds.), The Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce K. Waltke, pp. 168–79. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan.
Younger, K. Lawson Jr. (1999). The Fall of Samaria in Light of Recent Research. Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 61,
pp. 461–82.
Younger, K. Lawson (2002). Recent Study on Sargon II, King of Assyria: Implications for Biblical Studies.
In: Mark W. Chavalas and K. Lawson Younger Jr. (eds.), Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative Explorations,
pp. 288–329. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.
——. (2003). Assyrian Involvement in the Southern Levant at the End of the Eighth Century B.C.E. In: Andrew
G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew. (eds.), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, SBL
Symposium Series 18, pp. 235–63. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Zapff, Burkard M. (2006). Jesaja 56–66. Die neue Echter Bibel; Würzburg: Echter.
Zehnder, Markus (2001). Jesaja 14,1f.: Widersprüchliche Erwartungen Zur Stellung Der Nicht-Israeliten in Der
Zukunft? In: Beat Huwyler, Hans-Peter Mathys and Beat Weber (eds.), Prophetie und Psalmen (FS Klaus Seybold),
pp. 3–29. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Zevit, Ziony (2002). Philology and Archaeology: Imagining New Questions, Begetting New Ideas. In: Barry
M. Gittlen (ed.), Sacred Time, Sacred Place, pp. 35–42. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Zvi, Ehud Ben & Floyd, Michael H. (eds.) (2000). Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy.
SBL Symposium Series 10. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.


The Book of Isaiah in Contemporary Research: Christopher B. Hays

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Book of Isaiah in Contemporary Research: Christopher B. Hays

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Book of Isaiah in Contemporary Research: Christopher B. Hays

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the main tension discussed in recent scholarship on Isaiah?

What is the main tension discussed in recent scholarship on Isaiah?

What are some of the major theories of composition and redaction mentioned?

What are some of the major theories of composition and redaction mentioned?

Religion Compass 5/10 (2011): 549–566, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00308.

The Book of Isaiah in Contemporary Research

Theories of Composition and Redaction

ª 2011 The Author

ª 2011 The Author Religion Compass 5/10 (2011): 549–566, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00308.x

Centripetal Approaches to Isaiah 1–66

ª 2011 The Author Religion Compass 5/10 (2011): 549–566, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00308.x

ª 2011 The Author Religion Compass 5/10 (2011): 549–566, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00308.x

ª 2011 The Author Religion Compass 5/10 (2011): 549–566, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00308.x

ª 2011 The Author Religion Compass 5/10 (2011): 549–566, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00308.x

ª 2011 The Author Religion Compass 5/10 (2011): 549–566, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00308.x

ª 2011 The Author Religion Compass 5/10 (2011): 549–566, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00308.x

ª 2011 The Author Religion Compass 5/10 (2011): 549–566, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00308.x

Conclusion: Future Directions

ª 2011 The Author Religion Compass 5/10 (2011): 549–566, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00308.x

ª 2011 The Author Religion Compass 5/10 (2011): 549–566, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00308.x

ª 2011 The Author Religion Compass 5/10 (2011): 549–566, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00308.x

ª 2011 The Author Religion Compass 5/10 (2011): 549–566, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00308.x

Goldingay, John E. (2001). Isaiah. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

ª 2011 The Author Religion Compass 5/10 (2011): 549–566, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00308.x

ª 2011 The Author Religion Compass 5/10 (2011): 549–566, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00308.x

ª 2011 The Author Religion Compass 5/10 (2011): 549–566, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00308.x

ª 2011 The Author Religion Compass 5/10 (2011): 549–566, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00308.x

ª 2011 The Author Religion Compass 5/10 (2011): 549–566, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00308.x

You might also like