The Library

« first day (1791 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2811 days later) »

11:52 AM

@Davïd I understand the logical progression of the question. That is if it has already been allotted then why is Ezekiel doing it again? And it's not as if he is repeating the old allotment but it is different or at least being said differently. I think the real question is why are all the allotments described as going east to west. In a geographic region that is then east to west and long north-to-south.

But I am maybe misunderstanding the OP. He does not describe his thought process well.

1 hour later…

SP Combatant

1:21 PM

@Susan, thanks for the invite. Since you are familiar with the source below, can you clarify what differentiation the author is making?

The NT...contexts of "Isaiah" may be perfectly well understood as a reference to the book, not the author. The only passage where the prophet himself is involved in action rather than as speaker or author in the argument is at John 12:41 ("Isaiah said this because he saw his glory and spoke about him [NRSV]") [emphasis added]
IVP Dictionary of the Old Testament: Prophets [p370-371](https://books.google.com/books?id=w50mDAAAQBAJ&lpg=PR1&pg=PA370#v=onepage…

1 hour later…

Susan

2:44 PM

@curiousdannii Too much for comments, but the Gesenius link does work, and I think says basically the same thing (§114l), and without any note about diachrony, although he notes the emendation as an alternative at Jud 1:19.

Susan

3:01 PM

@SPCombatant Hi SP, welcome to the library. On your first question, I believe he's distinguishing between "Isaiah" (which he takes as "the book called ....") and "the prophet himself" (the person). So there's no formal contradiction there.

But for the rest .... I have a hard time with it myself (as noted), so I may not be the best person to ask.

Since you did, though :-) ...I think he's not claiming that there's something about the Greek that indicates NT "Isaiah" is not the person. He's starting from what he knows about the book of Isaiah and about how people cited "ancient" texts at the time and positing that it's possible to understand the references that way.

I think most people would agree that our modern insistence on quotation marks and proper attribution tied to particular person is anachronistic to the text, at least.

6 hours later…