13.

13. One important element in this development has its roots in the work of the historical critics. As we have seen, the conventional division was between chs. 1–39 and what followed, with 1–39 described as ‘Isaiah of Jerusalem’. But it has long been recognized that a large part of chs. 1–39 could not simply be ascribed to the eighth-century Isaiah. Much in the foreign nations’ oracles (13–23) seemed to come from a period later than that of Isaiah. Chs. 24–7 betray some of the features of the apocalypses, and have usually been thought of as the latest part of the whole book. Chs. 33–4 have characteristics which again suggest a late date, while 35 has so much in common with 40–55 that it has sometimes been attributed to Deutero-Isaiah. Chs. 36–9 are substantially identical with 2 Kings 18–2o, and the dependence has usually been held to be on the side of Isaiah. Detailed critical study, therefore, has found material going back to Isaiah himself only in chs. 1–12 and 28–32.