feeling he is talking to people way across the desert in . So a very simple it’s book, chapters one through thirty-nine. Somebody, the theory: here’s Isaiah’s critics say a great unknown, a greater writer than Isaiah--they call him “Deutero- or the a book, more or less in the Spirit of Isaiah, “second Isaiah”--wrote but it was 150 years later. And some way, since it was so similar, it got written on the same scroll, and it have any title so people forgot that it was by a didn’t different writer. Well you might say, the great difference? God inspired it “What’s all. Whether it is the first book Isaiah wrote, or the other by a great unknown 150 years later.” You might say that at this point. It is a very apparently simple theory. But hardly any conservative scholar holds that view today. Even among modernist scholars, hardly anybody holds any more to the theory today. “Two Isaiah” and Trito- [19:37] Isaiah” Looking at more recent higher critical attitudes, we find that it was not long after the "Deutero-Isaiah" theory was advanced, that people began to look at Isaiah forty on, and look back at one to thirty-nine, and find parts of that they said were it similar. And so, they said, the same evidences that show us that much of forty on written by Isaiah also shows many sections of chapters one through wasn’t written by Isaiah. So they broke one to thirty-nine all up into little weren’t sections. And then, while a "Trito-Isaiah" or "Third-Isaiah," was noticed, a great argument and discussion was carried on between those who said the book has a Palestinian background, is written by Isaiah in the time of Hezekiah, and those who said, "no, the last part from forty to sixty-six has a background of Babylonia, when the exile is all ready in progress." It was noted that those who said the background is Babylonian were presenting most of their evidence from chapters
feeling he is talking to people way across the desert in . So it’s a very simple theory: here’s Isaiah’s book, chapters one through thirty-nine. Somebody, the critics say a great unknown, a greater writer than Isaiah--they call him or the “second Isaiah”--wrote a book, more or less in the Spirit of Isaiah, but it was 150 years later. And some way, since it was so similar, it got written on the same scroll, and it didn’t have any title so people forgot that it was by a different writer. Well you might say, “What’s the great difference? God inspired it all. Whether it is the first book Isaiah wrote, or the other by a great unknown 150 years later.” You might say that at this point. It is a very apparently simple theory. But hardly any conservative scholar holds that view today. Even among modernist scholars, hardly anybody holds any more to the “Two Isaiah” theory today. “Deutero- and Trito- Isaiah” [19:37] Looking at more recent higher critical attitudes, we find that it was not long after the "Deutero-Isaiah" theory was advanced, that people began to look at Isaiah forty on, and look back at one to thirty-nine, and find parts of it that they said were similar. And so, they said, the same evidences that show us that much of forty on wasn’t written by Isaiah also shows many sections of chapters one through weren’t written by Isaiah. So they broke one to thirty-nine all up into little sections. And then, while a "Trito-Isaiah" or "Third-Isaiah," was noticed, a great argument and discussion was carried on between those who said the book has a Palestinian background, is written by Isaiah in the time of Hezekiah, and those who said, "no, the last part from forty to sixty-six has a background of Babylonia, when the exile is all ready in progress." It was noted that those who said the background is Babylonian were presenting most of their evidence from chapters