I finished reading R. N. Whybray's commentary on Deutero-Isaiah (40-66) tonight.
It was an enjoyable work, particularly technical with some good analyses of
Deutero-Isaiah theology. It was very much the type of work one expects The New Century
Bible Commentary series (The Anchor Bible Commentary Series is still the
overall best).
Deutero-Isaiah is one of the most important works in the
Bible and one of the deepest. Written during the time of the Israelite exile in
Babylon, Deutero-Isaiah's purpose is to announce to those in exile that Yahweh
has not forgotten them. Indeed, the prophet announces that Yahweh is about to
free them from Babylonian captivity through his servant, Cyrus, and send them
back to their homeland. It's at this point that the prophet reveals the full
scope of Yahweh's plan. Not only is God going to redeem Israel but he is going
to redeem the whole world through Israel, bringing Gentiles into God's people,
bringing in the poor and outcasts, and reversing the Fall of Man, reversing the
curse upon creation, and establishing a New Creation. This is the presentation
of the great sweep of God's original plan and here, at Israel's lowest point,
the whole purpose Yahweh's promise to Abraham and the purpose of Israel is made
known.
I had only two major problems with Whybray's book. First, he
argues the case for chapters 56-66 being the work of separate post-Exilic
author. This is a popular viewpoint among scholars but I am still unconvinced.
In fact, having read Whybray's presentation of the evidence I am even more
convinced at the flimsiness of the position. Secondly, Whybray argues that the
Suffering Servant of Deutero-Isaiah refers to Deutero-Isaiah himself. I think
his argument here is pretty shallow and contorted. Traditional scholarship has
identified the Suffering Servant as a personification of Israel. I think this
traditional view is the correct one and even Whybray has to argue for
conjectured interpolations into the manuscript to argue his position. These are
theoretical interpolations not found in the LXX or the Dead Sea Scrolls and do
not break the meter of the poetry.
Still, despite these two objections, I was pleased with the
overall thrust of the work, most of its individual parts, and the historical-cultural
insights it taught me about Deutero-Isaiah.