*BIFID, THEMATIC STRUCTURES OF ISAIAH
(after W.H. Brownlee & R.K. Harrison)

This view is based on the witness of IQIsa (1QSA means 1 = cave one/Q=Qumran/Isa=Isaiah)—Isaiah appears to be divided between chapters 33&34. Bifid means two volume work, now before I hear cries of inconsistencey and such hear me out and see why I think this actually shows the unity of the book of Isaiah.

When the Isaiah scroll was unrolled, which was dated to the 2nd Century BC based on paleography, archarologist and scholars were convinced that it would finnaly prove that Isaiah should be split at chapters 39 and 40 and they were finnaly going to be vindicated. To their dismay when they unrolled the scroll, there was no break between 39 & 40, instead there was a break in 1QIsa is between 33&34. Now let us look at an interesting pattern that Brownlee discovered (see attached table). Notice teh semetry and correspondance. None of the critical schoalars have been able to handle this symatry between the two spheres. As Avraham Gileadi in his book Apocalyptic Book of Isaiah 1982 says, in reference ot the bifid structure:

What distinguishes this and every major literary structure of the Book of Isaiah is that the end is seen from the beginning. One cannot, therefore, treat separately the parts from the whole, as scholars have done, or the message is lost from view, p. 174

Gileadi further superimposed a thrid structure to Isaiah on topof this Bifid structure that shows that the book was the work of a careful author and not the haphazard concretions of generations of some Isaianic school.
[list=1][*]Trouble at home -->1-39[*]Exile Abroad = Israel during Exile -->40-45[*]Happy Homecoming = Israel post exile -->55-66[/list=1]

What makes Gileadi's theory so appelaing is that it then explains, why scholars had recognized a division between 39 & 40, itis a real shift, but it not a shift of authors, rather it is a shift of subject. Moreover since most of the previous theories were based upon just how developed the religion of pre-exilic Israel could have been were based upon bankrupt evolutionary theories, the whole system needs to be jettisoned that was built on such a shaky foundation.



*Taken from my class notes of OT 717 Poetic and Prophetic Books of the Old Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divintiy School, Spring Semester 2002 with James K. Hoffmeir.


(forgot to put the year|)

GrayPilgrim:
*BIFID, THEMATIC STRUCTURES OF ISAIAH
(after W.H. Brownlee & R.K. Harrison)

This view is based on the witness of IQIsa (1QSA means 1 = cave one/Q=Qumran/Isa=Isaiah)—Isaiah appears to be divided between chapters 33&34. Bifid means two volume work, now before I hear cries of inconsistencey and such hear me out and see why I think this actually shows the unity of the book of Isaiah.

When the Isaiah scroll was unrolled, which was dated to the 2nd Century BC based on paleography, archarologist and scholars were convinced that it would finnaly prove that Isaiah should be split at chapters 39 and 40 and they were finnaly going to be vindicated. To their dismay when they unrolled the scroll, there was no break between 39 & 40, instead there was a break in 1QIsa is between 33&34. Now let us look at an interesting pattern that Brownlee discovered (see attached table). Notice teh semetry and correspondance. None of the critical schoalars have been able to handle this symatry between the two spheres. As Avraham Gileadi in his book Apocalyptic Book of Isaiah 1982 says, in reference ot the bifid structure:



Gileadi further superimposed a thrid structure to Isaiah on topof this Bifid structure that shows that the book was the work of a careful author and not the haphazard concretions of generations of some Isaianic school.
[list=1][*]Trouble at home -->1-39[*]Exile Abroad = Israel during Exile -->40-45[*]Happy Homecoming = Israel post exile -->55-66[/list=1]

What makes Gileadi's theory so appelaing is that it then explains, why scholars had recognized a division between 39 & 40, itis a real shift, but it not a shift of authors, rather it is a shift of subject. Moreover since most of the previous theories were based upon just how developed the religion of pre-exilic Israel could have been were based upon bankrupt evolutionary theories, the whole system needs to be jettisoned that was built on such a shaky foundation.



*Taken from my class notes of OT 717 Poetic and Prophetic Books of the Old Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divintiy School, Spring Semester with James K. Hoffmeir.

Thanks GP~

In Christ,
Blake

Thank you GP.

There's way too many good threads on this forum!

I must say, as a real newbe, that I am greatly heartened at the quality of thought so apparent across the board on this list, and especially for the observation of and thematic reliance upon chiastic structures in understanding ancient texts.

Your observation that dissection is best left for corpses, and that the unity of Isaiah, not the carving up of its living elements, is the key to understanding it, is to my old ears a great joy... The unity of the whole is the key, and not the dissection of the elements found therein...

geo

Dear Geo:

This is somewhat off-topic from the unity of Isaiah issue, but on the topic of Isaiah, have you ever read Richard Bauckman's "God Crucified"? He does a fabulous job of showing the importance of the latter part of Isaiah to NT thinking and the way he weaves and shows the types and fulfillments is just fantastic. A lot packed into a short work.

Dee Dee writes:


Dear Geo:

This is somewhat off-topic from the unity of Isaiah issue, but on the topic of Isaiah, have you ever read Richard Bauckman's "God Crucified"? He does a fabulous job of showing the importance of the latter part of Isaiah to NT thinking and the way he weaves and shows the types and fulfillments is just fantastic. A lot packed into a short work.

I have not even systematically read Isaiah yet. He is a major prophet of the Church Fathers, for he saw the future Christ and wrote what he saw. His is a major hermaneutical, as I understand the matter... There is so much that seems to just emerge in the NT out of his writings, as if they were two windows of the same events... Which I guess they are...

From the readings I have heard in our [Lenten] services, Isaiah is a staggering read. I have not read Bauckman - He is ploughing a rich field...

geo