Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary

Written by Shalom M. Paul Reviewed By Bo H. Lim

For some time modern commentaries on Isaiah were hard to come by but no longer. In the past decade and a half, a number of significant works have been published. The most recent of these is Shalom Paul's work on Isa 40-66 in the Eerdmans Critical Commentary series. This is a new series edited by the late David Noel Freedman aimed at textual, philological, literary, historical, and archaeological inquiry. Given Freedman's influence, the series appears to follow the aims of the Anchor Bible commentaries and is similarly represented by historical-critical scholars of various religious backgrounds. Paul is a Jew and describes the unique contribution of his commentary as

the exegesis of the Hebrew text with its emphasis on the philological, poetic, literary, linguistic, grammatical, historical, archaeological, ideational, and theological aspects of the prophecies, in which every word, phrase, clause and verse is examined and explicated, and, in addition, aided by both inner-biblical allusions, influences, and parallels, and extrabiblical sources, primarily from Akkadian and Ugaritic literature. (p. ix)

The Masoretic text is Paul's main interest, and inquiries into the Septuagint and the Great Isaiah Scroll (IQIsaa) are made only when they deviate from the MT. Paul does not to engage all the secondary literature on Isaiah yet chooses to interact with Medieval Jewish commentators, a segment rarely represented in scholarship. In addition, the commentary interacts with scholarship written in modern Hebrew and exposes readers to what is typically inaccessible.

Paul is Yehezekel Kaufmann Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Paul follows in the tradition of Jewish historical-critical scholarship in the manner of Kaufmann, Haran, and Sommer, who believe that an anonymous prophet deemed “Deutero-Isaiah” (DI) wrote chs. 40-66 in the second half of the sixth century BCE. These scholars reject the notion of a separate “Trito-Isaiah” (TI), a prophet or school of prophets who wrote chs. 56-66 in the Second Temple period. Rather than see a distinct break in the prophecy between chs. 55 and 56, Paul follows the view that the more significant turning point in these chapters is between chs. 48 and 49. He believes chs. 40-48 were preached or written while in Babylon and that chs. 49-66 represent DI's prophecies in Jerusalem upon the prophet's return to Palestine. Paul attributes the authorship of chs. 1-39, or “First Isaiah” (FI), to Isaiah ben Amoz, the prophet mentioned in the book itself. Rather than emphasize the differences between chs. 40-55 and 56-66, Paul highlights their common language and themes. Paul catalogues not only shared ideas within chs. 40-66, but provides an extensive list of similar phraseology throughout these chapters. In addition he identifies the following literary influences on DI: the primeval and patriarchal traditions, the Exodus traditions, Deuteronomistic traditions, the influence of FI, Jeremiah, other prophetic traditions, Psalms, and parallels with Lamentations. Paul concludes his introduction by describing the influence of Ugaritic and Mesopotamian traditions on DI, and the textual variants between the MT and other ancient translations.

Since Paul views chs. 40-66 as a unity, the commentary proper does not contain sections on composition and form for each pericope in the manner of other critical commentaries. Literary units are defined, but rarely is attention given to a text's social or historical setting. Chapters 40-66 are treated as a unified prophecy, so careful attention is given to its literary features. Attention is given to a pericope's shared language with other parts of the prophecy or other biblical or extra-biblical texts. For example, Paul's exegesis of Isa 54 explores its inner biblical allusions to Lamentations, Hosea, and Ps 89. Paul suggests numerous parallels between DI and ANE literature. He observes that the Babylonians attributed the cosmologic triad of the water, sky, and earth to Markuk, and he believes their mention in Isa 40:12 serves as a covert polemic against Babylonian deities since here they are attributed to Yahweh. Careful attention is given to reading texts in their literary context within chs. 40-66 and the book of Isaiah. So when he interprets ch. 56, he situates it in the context of the early Second Temple Period, but also demonstrates its numerous linguistic connections with ch. 55.

The strengths of Paul's commentary are those features I have mentioned above: careful attention to the philological and literary features of the text, comparatively modest speculation in regard to matters of composition, and exploration of biblical and extra-biblical allusions. The Hebrew font is retained and used extensively throughout the commentary, so facility with the Hebrew language is necessary in order to appreciate this work. English-only Bible readers in this case need not apply. Yet for this reason I could see how this commentary might be useful for a Hebrew exegesis course on Isa 40-66 since it covers the text phrase by phrase, attends to its linguistic and literary features, and does not weigh the reader down with the vast secondary literature. Paul's mastery of the biblical text and related literature is evident throughout his exegesis, and reading the commentary will facilitate a greater knowledge of Hebrew language and poetry as well as Isaiah's prophecy.

In what way will this commentary serve Christian ministers, teachers, and students since it is written from a Jewish critical perspective? Paul does provide ample evidence for the unity of the Book of Isaiah through his demonstration of literary connections within chs. 40-66 and between these texts and chs. 1-39. For example, in his interpretation of ch. 65, he identifies connections with ch. 1; 11:6-9; 63:7-64:11; and ch. 66. Yet Paul lacks a theology of Christian Scripture, so his understanding of these connections often remain at a literary level. His interests are historical: tracing the development of literary and religious traditions. Paul's commentary lacks theological reflection on the nature of canonical prophecy and therefore does not concern itself with the theological witness of the book of Isaiah as a unity, how this prophecy testifies of Christ, and Isaiah's contribution to Christian theology and ministry. In this regard I wonder how useful this commentary will be to pastors since it will need to be supplemented with other works. For students and teachers interested in engaging Isaianic studies, other commentaries need to be consulted since Paul chooses to interact with only a select group of scholars.


Bo H. Lim

Bo H. Lim
Seattle Pacific University
Seattle, Washington, USA

Other Articles in this Issue

Children's story bibles are not Bibles and, it turns out, neither are they for children...

This article is written in love and admiration for pastors in North America...

As I write this the UK Parliament is considering Clause 1(1) of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill...

I shall begin with a well-known exegetical conundrum and then branch out to a much larger issue that none of us can afford to ignore...