Retrograde Canvas | An Art Criticism Blog
This is a surprising statement. It seems to suggest that Jackson is unfamiliar with the way historical critics assess the book of Isaiah. He also makes this same mistake earlier in the essay when he asserts that the “most common system” for dividing Isaiah is to attribute Isaiah 1-39 (minus the insert from 2 Kings in chapters 36-39) to the historical Isaiah son of Amoz, ca. 740-700 BCE (p. 72). The fact of the matter is that the mainstream scholarly consensus holds that there ARE multiple authors attested in Isaiah 1-39. Chapters 24-27 form a distinct literary section that scholars refer to as the “Little Apocalypse.” This material shares a variety of features in common with later apocalyptic works best represented in the Hebrew Bible by the book of Daniel. Many scholars date this unit to the Persian or even Hellenistic time period. Most scholars believe that Isaiah 1 was composed as a late, single speech designed to serve as an introduction to either chapters 1-33 or else the final form of the book. Much of chapters 36-39 was taken from the narrative in 2 Kings and added to the book (a point that Jackson accepts), and chapters 34-35 are also later historical material added to the work. So the fact is mainstream biblical scholars actually DO argue for the attestation of multiple authors for Isaiah 1-39. Uncovering these units is an important part of historical criticism.
Granted, in his essay Jackson seems to present his readers with the possibility that this specific material is late since it’s not mentioned in the Book of Mormon, but it’s wrong to leave LDS readers with the impression that scholars date Isaiah 40-66 the way they do simply because critical historians reject prophecy. We have actual archeological evidence that helps us to date this material that Jackson’s essay ignores. Moreover, as noted above, this polemic that belittles other gods and vindicates Israel’s deity Yahweh is one of the main themes that ties Isaiah 40-55 together as a literary unit.
Autobiographical patterns of relevance are culturally specific, diverse and subject to historical change, as the history of autobiography with its multitude of forms and writing practices demonstrates.Whereas its origins ultimately date back to antiquity (Roesler ), with Augustine’s Confessions () as a prominent ancient landmark, the history of autobiography as a (factual) literary genre and critical term is a much shorter one.
The landscape itself is strange
