Additional Notes. 

        The reasonable criticism has been made that the theory of authorship of “Deutero-Isaiah” given earlier implies that the same applies to “Trito-Isaiah.” If that were so, it would seriously shake the theory, for there is nothing in chs. 56-66 to justify such an assumption. The term “Trito-Isaiah” is, however, a mere literary convenience. Part is almost certainly pre-exilic, part can be regarded as a portion of “Deutero-Isaiah” without any straining of probabilities, and the re­mainder is essentially timeless and is regarded by some as post-exilic mainly because of its setting in Isaiah.

        There is a widespread idea in certain circles that the manu­script discoveries at the Dead Sea have disproved the com­posite authorship of Isaiah. The older MS of the prophet must be dated about 150 B.C. If we accept the older view of composite authorship, it could only be disproved by a MS earlier than 200 B.C. (cf. p. 124); that suggested would demand a MS at least as early as 400 B.C. before it could be rejected on these grounds.

        More advanced students will find much of value in E. J. Young, Studies in Isaiah. The two chapters on The Immanuel Prophecy are of special value.