Basic HTML Version
faulry premises, rhen rhe compurcr
can only give wrong resulrs.
Isaiah Too
Similar work ro Mr. Morron's has
becn done on rhe book of lsaiah by
Israelí scholar Y.
T.
Radday.
Scholars have long been puzzled by
che facc chac che book of Isaiah, wric–
ren by a prophet of rhe eighch cen–
cury B.C., memioned by name King
Cyrus of Persia who did noc live unril
che sixch cencury B.C.
Sorne assumed rhere muse have
been rwo dilferenr men who wroce
che book of Isaiah. One lived in rhe
eighrh cenrury, rbe other in rhe sixch
cencury B.C. The second aurhor, rhey
assumed, wroce che second porrion of
che book of Isaiah which concained
che reference ro Cyrus.
Scholars and Bible cricics have
gone ro vasc extremes in rheir
accempc ro determine rhe number of
che auchors of che book of Isaiah. Thc
auchorship of chis book is onc of che
rnost widely disputed issues in Old
Tesrarnent srudies! Sorne have
claimed rhcre were rwo Isaiahs. sorne
rhree. Others have felr porrions of
chaprcrs 56-66 were che work of sev–
era! wricers.
The
compucer has bcen
called in to consider che cexc.
Dr. Radday agrees wich Morcon
thac scyle is roo subjeccive and the
"only reliable author-specifying char–
acteriscics ... are those which are noc
governed by free choice, i.e., chose of
which che author is not aware himself
because of subtlery" ("Two Compuc–
erized Scaciscical-Linguiscic Teses Con–
cerning che Uniry of Isaiah,"
joumal
of Biblical Literature
LXXXIX, 1970,
p. 320).
Dr. Radday uses che samc general
principies as chose of Mr. Morcon,
which we have already discussed in
derail. Bur one
of
h.is tests involves
chac of mean word lengch. According
ro bis scudies, chapcers 40-66 of Isaiah
(amibuced by many scholars ro differ–
em auchors, a "Second Isaiah" and a
"Third lsaiah") show a definice dilfer–
ence in mean word lengrh from chap–
ccrs
L-39.
PLAIN TRUTH September-October 1972
However. che resulcs of word
lengrh srudy have been seriously gues–
cioned. Even A. Q. Morcon dismisses
che use of this cese as valueless:
''Unforcunately che words we use
depend on subjecc macrer and so the
lengrh of word we use is affecred by
che subjecc on which we wrire. Word
lengch is noc co be relied on"
(Paul,
the Man and the Myth,
coauchored
wich
J.
McLeman, p. 51).
Objeccivity in Question
The purpose of che compucer ceses
is "objeccivicy." Buc are the teses as
objeccive as sorne scholars claim? Noc
according ro Maynard C. Nieboer,
who says staciscics do nor give "pure
objecriviry." Rather, rhey show differ–
ences only wichin a prescribed arca
chosen by che scholar and wich only a
cercain probabiliry. Yer as Nieboer
poincs ouc, '·che specific concenc
which is puc inco chese differences,
such as cause, origin,
ecc.,
are
inter–
pretatiom
which are made by people.
le
is in chese interprerations where
stariscics cease ro
be
objective, and
presupposicions enter che picture"
("The Staciscical Analysis of A. Q.
Morton and che Aurhenciciry of rhe
Pauline Episcles,"
Calvin Theological
joumal
5,
1970,
p.
73,
iralics ours).
New Zealand scholar Bryan Drake
recendy raiscd similar guescions about
Radday's work. In che June
1972
journal of Biblical Literature,
Drake
poinred out chat che use of only one
or rwo criceria ("paramecers") is not
sufficienc: one muse make "use of a
large number of paramecers co define
simultaneously all characreriscics of
the objecc under srudy" ("Unan–
swered Questions in Compurerized
Licerary Analysis," p. 242).
Yer even chis will not yield
objec–
cive results. le muse firsr be carefully
cesred on liceracure of known auchor-
SURPRISING AS IT MAY
S&M,
the
Space Age was
predicted centuries ago. The first lesson of the Ambossodor
College
Correspondence Course makes it plain.