Book of Isaiah Overview

Introduction 📜
Gerald T. Sheppard writes:
“Scholars have, for many years, observed that the latter half of the book addresses the conditions of people in the Babylonian exile; in the times of Isaiah, Assyria alone was a threat and Babylon was viewed as a friendly, historically minor nation (see Isa. 39). Furthermore, on its own terms, the prophet’s message in Isaiah 40-55 describes social circumstances in which the audience is positioned in a time after ‘former things’ have been fulfilled. This fulfillment could have occurred only during the time of the Babylonian exile (see Isa. 40:21; 41:4, 27; 42:9), a fulfillment that provides the basis for the prophet’s argument that trustworthy ‘new things’ can be announced. Among these ‘new things,’ the prophet states that Cyrus will expedite the restoration of the nation of Israel and its return to the promised land. The logic of the prophet’s argument turns on a recognition that the historical setting is the Babylonian exile and that previous oracles have been fulfilled in that time. For that reason, the prophet can mock other prophets who pretend to promise things without similar proof, namely, that they actually have come to pass (see Isa. 41:21-24). This prophet to the Babylonian exiles could not be identified with the historical Isaiah without either violating the logic of the argument or introducing a strange understanding of prophecy, one at odds with even a traditional view of how prophets performed and what they foresaw. Still, a modern admission of underlying similarities in theme and subject matter between the two parts of the books inspired critics to call this later unknown prophet Second Isaiah. One could speculate, without explicit biblical support, that this later prophet must have been a gifted disciple of the eighth-century ‘First Isaiah.’” (Harper’s Bible Commentary, p. 543)

John Scullion writes on why scholars separate chapters of Isaiah because they have different authors:
“The reasons for separating chaps. 40-66 from chaps. 1-39 are always the same and convincing: 1) historical background: destruction, exile and suffering are presumed; there is familiariarity with the history of the 6th century, above all with Cyrus, and firsthand experience of Babylonian religion; and a prophet speaks both out of and into the situation of his contemporaries. 2) themes: there are the themes of comfort and salvation, a new salvation under a new covenant; God is presented as creator and maker, and his action in history as redeemer and saviour is rooted in his action as creator. 3) style and vocabulary: chaps. 40-66 are more prolix; there is constant repetition and doubling of words; there is familiarity with the style of the psalms of descriptive praise with their heaping up of present participles; Jerusalem and objects are personified.” (Isaiah 40-66, p. 17)

J. Alberto Soggin writes on the composition:
“As has been mentioned several times already, in 1892 B. Duhm suggested in his commentary that Isa. 56-66 should be separated from Deutero-Isaiah. From this time onwards, the independence of Trito-Isaiah from the texts which precede it has been generally accepted, outside conservative theological circles. The difference between chs. 56-66 and those which precede them is too great for the former to be considered as in any way the continuation of the latter. Throughout the greater part of Trito-Isaiah we continually find ourselves in the community of the restoration: there is mention of the temple and of rebuilding it, of sacrifices, of the observance of the sabbath and the regulations of the Torah, and htis observance is considered to be an essential qualification for membership of the community. None of these arguments appears even once in Deutero-Isaiah, and since the setting of Deutero-Isaiah is Babylon, it is difficult to see how that would be possible. However, in a number of places there are notable analogies between Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah: we have similar hope for the imminence of the kingdom of God in 61.1-3, and in 42.1-4 (the latter is a servant passage) we have an almost identical concept of the work of the spirit of God in man.
There are also notable affinities of style. The general setting for Trtio-Isaiah is Jerusalem and the community described by Haggai and Zechariah, that is, about twenty years after the latest part of Deutero-Isaiah and perhaps even later; in 60.13 the temple has been built and it is only necessary to adorn it. However, the situation in the country has certainly not improved; it remains critical because of the high incidence of crime in some areas and of incompetence in others, the immediate result of which is that the righteous suffer (56.9ff.). For this reason god shows his judgment by continually postponing the fulfilment of his promises (cf. also chs. 59-62), though he will not delay to intervene personally and to achieve justice for the elect. Another figure serves Yahweh in place of Cyrus (63.1-6); foreign nations will not be the object of the divine judgment, which will fall instead on the people of God because of their unfaithfulness (65.11). The walls have still not been rebuilt (60.10), so that if Trito-Isaiah is a little after the time of Haggai and Zechariah, we still have not reached that of Ezra and Nehemiah . . .
Finally, according to Duhm, 66.1f. would refer to Samaritans who were building their own temple. However, this theory seems improbable, seeing that, quite apart from the fact that we konw little or nothing about the final separation of the two communities, it is reasonably certain that the break did not come about before the fourth century BC: it seems better to think of criticism directed against the hopes of Haggai and Zechariah, which were perhaps considered in some circles to be rather exaggerated. Duhm also tried to argue for the unity of the book, but hardly anyone has taken up his approach. Trito-Isaiah is a book of a composite kind if ever there was one. The majority of scholars in fact regard it as an anthology containing about twelve passages which are all different in date or in purpose. Pfeiffer, Introduction, 480, seeks to explain the differences between Trito- and Deutero-Isaiah as the result of attempts to apply to the situation of the restoration the great promises formulated by Deutero-Isaiah, which apparently had not been fulfilled. This theory is well worth considering, as it would explain both the analogies and the obvious differences between the two works. It would remain to be seen whether the work were purely redactional or whether Deutero-Isaiah himself, whoever he may have been, continued his activity down to the last decades of the sixth century BC. Here, too, we have a solution proposed by the Scandinavian school: as in the case of Deutero-Isaiah, Trito-Isaiah will have been the product of the ‘school of Isaiah’ mentioned above, which will have continued its work over the centuries.” (Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 335-336)

Frederick L. Moriarty writes of Isaiah:
“His career may be divided into three periods, within each of which we can locate with confidence a number of the Prophet’s oracles. The first period, extending through the reigns of Jotham and Ahaz, is represented by the material in chs. 1-12. The highlight of this phase was Isaiah’s clash with the national policy of Ahaz in the crisis of 735-733 when Syria and Israel formed a coalition and attempted to coerce Judah into armed rebellion against Assyria. The second period brings us to the reign of Hezekiah, who was severely pressured by both Egyptians and Philistines to join in revolt against Sargon of Assyria. Few oracles can be assigned with certainty to this earlier part of Hezekiah’s reign when all Palestine lived under the threatening shadow of Sargon the Great. Chapter 20 certainly belongs here and, with the help of the Assyrian annals, can be safely dated to the years 714-711 when Ashdod and other city-states joined in an uprising against the powerful Assyrian. The position taken by Isaiah is clear from ch. 20. Walking about the streets of Jerusalem barefoot and clad only in a loincloth, the Prophet dramatically underlined the folly of trusting in Egypt and her allies. His policy appears to have prevailed on this occasion, for Judah escaped punishment when Sargon crushed the revolt. The last period coincides with the Palestinian campaigns of Sennacherib, who succeeded Sargon on the throne of Assyria in 705. The prose material in the historical appendix (chs. 36-39) provides important information for these trying days that eventually saw the vindication of Isaiah’s prophetic word. The military activity of Sennacherib in Palestine remains an historical problem; the two-campaign theory, which appears to satisfy the historical evidence better than other alternatives, will be taken up in the commentary.
To this latter part of Isaiah’s career belong the oracles assembled in 28:7-33:24. For at least forty long and testing years Isaiah performed his task as Yahweh’s spokesman. A late and unverified tradition reports that he was put to death under the impious King Manasseh, who thoroughly repudiated the reforms of his father, Hezekiah.” (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, vol. 1, pp. 265-266)

James King West writes on the additions/interpolations in Isaiah:
“Not all of chapters 1-39 come from the original Isaiah. Three sections in particular are later additions. (1) Chapters 24-27, ‘the Isaiah Apocalypse,’ represents a fully developed apocalyptic style which did not appear until the exile and later. It should be noted, however, that Isaiah’s own oracles are marked by certain features which the later apocalyptic school found compatible with its point of view, such as the dualistic contrast between light and darkness (cf. 9:1-7) and the prophet’s quiet trust that God is sure to act on behalf of his people (cf. 7:30). (2) Chapters 33-35 bear an exilic coloration; 34 and 35 are in the style of Deutero-Isaiah. (3) Chapters 36-39 are historical narratives nearly identical with II Kings 18:13-20:19, having been taken from the same source utilized by the Deuteronomist. Obviously they were attached to the Isaiah collection due to their accounts of the prophet’s involvement in the crisis of the Hezekiah period.” (Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 269-270)

Samuel Sandmel writes on the composition:
“Curiously, the happiest, most lyrical, most optimistic passages in the Tanak have found their way into the Book of Isaiah. The beating of swords into plowshares (2:4) and the lying down of the wolf and the lamb (11:6) are both from this book. In the view of many traditional intepreters, Isaiah emerges as a man of happy expectations for the future. These joyful passages, however, are not from Isaiah, the eighth-century prophet. The recognition that these parts are late insertions reveals Isaiah as even more of a prophet of doom than Amos and Hosea. In all three, but especially in Isaiah, the early Hebrew religion expresses a basic hopelessness. Israel’s doom, synonymous with mankind’s doom, was regarded as inevitable. Isaiah proffered his age a gripping, stirring faith but man’s inability to achieve that faith or abide in it spelled only disaster.” (The Hebrew Scriptures, p. 96)

Jay G. Williams writes on the composition:
“As a Judean, Isaiah seems to have placed great faith in the Davidic kingship as a source of hope. At the same time, he was quite critical of the particular kings who sat on the throne of Judah during his day. His messages say little about Uzziah and Jotham, but concerning Ahaz he is less than laudatory. Hezekiah receives somewhat more favorable treatment, but he too is attacked when he seeks to secure himself through political alliances. On the whole, however, Isaiah spends less time talking about the present kings than about the future king who will restore the glory of Israel. Although he does not use the term Messiah (the anointed one), the prophecies of Chapters 9 and 11 are thoroughly Messianic. There is much disagreement among scholars as to whether these passages are original with him, but to this author there seems to be no compelling reason to think they are not. If they are, Isaiah looked forward to a son of David who would again lead Israel to greatness, not through the power of the sword but through the strength of holiness. There are some indications that Isaiah actually expected the fulfillment of these dreams during his life-time, but such was not to be the case. In fact, after Hezekiah, the evil Manasseh came to the throne and adopted a thoroughly pro-Assyrian policy and many pagan religious practices. Tradition has it that in his old age Isaiah was killed by Manasseh who could not countenance his pronouncements. There is no way to confirm or deny this belief, but it is certainly within the realm of possibility that Isaiah eventually met a martyr’s death.” (Understanding the Old Testament, pp. 197-198)

1. ━━━
2. Dating
3. Isaiah 7 and 17 (and perhaps some chapters after 7 as well), which is certainly a series of oracles related to the Syro-Ephraimite crisis of the 8th century BCE. 2 Kings 16 and 2 Chronicles 28 detail this crisis, but we also have non-biblical sources in Assyrian records. In 735 BCE, the leaders of Aram and Israel (the northern kingdom, called Ephraim here) created a coalition to appose Assyria, and in the process turned on their fellow Hebrew neighbors in Judah as a result. So, you can imagine Isaiah, in Judah, having a fairly dim view of this political situation and consequently engaging in the oracular process. This would date Isaiah 7, 17 (and other related texts) very closely to the 735 BCE, a very precise dating. Of course, there are other layers here to consider, such as the fact that it is likely these passages weren’t written down prior to their oral delivery (and perhaps not until years later) and that a heavy-handed redactor compiled what we have in the book of Isaiah today which almost certainly reflects more than just the historical Isaiah’s prophecy.

The Prophet:
Son of Amoz
Probably born about 760 B.C.E. in Jerusalem.
Dates of his ministry:
Called shortly after death of King Uzziah (ca. 742 B.C.E.)
Last event in his life that can be dated is in 701 B.C.E. when Sennacherib came against Judah
May have prophesied into the reign of Manasseh
He had two sons, Maher-shalal-hash-baz (“spoil speeds, prey hastens”) – name pointed to Assyria’s coming invasion of Syria and Israel in 734 B.C.E.
Most scholars now divide the book into two sections: 1-39 and 40-66 due to the following differences:
Differences in historical setting indicate 1-39 fit the 8th century B.C.E. while 40-66 fit the 6th century B.C.E.
So Isaiah is actually a book that expands multiple centuries.
Jerusalem is standing firm (1-39), Jerusalem has been destroyed (40-66)
Exile is in distant future (1-39), exile is a reality (40-66)
Personalities are in the 8th century such as Uzziah (1-39), personalities are in the 6th century such as Cyrus (40-66)
Assyria is the threat (1-39), Babylon is the waning empire with Persia ascending (40-66)
I think loanwords are often the best bet in the absence of obvious historical anchors (e.g. a reference to Cyrus in Second Isaiah). If a text has no Greek loanwords, it’s prior to the Hellenistic era. If there are no Persian loanwords, it’s prior to ~460 BC per the findings of Aren Wilson-Wright. The date of some loanwords can also help you get an idea of when a story was composed, at least in a general form, as opposed as to when it was put to pen.
For Isaiah 1-39, Long and prosperous reign of Uzziah (783-842 B.C.E.) had given false sense of security, Syro-Ephraimitic War (c. 735 B.C.E.) caused faith to be placed in Assyria rather than in God, Israel (northern tribes) fell to Assyria in 722/721 B.C.E. – Judah became a vassal of Assyria although Jerusalem itself was spared.

━━━
Authorship
100% consensus among the academic mainstream. The context for Is 1-39 is clearly the Syro-Ephraimite crisis and the rise of Neo-Assyria in the 8th century BCE, while Isaiah 45 addresses the 6th century BCE Persian king Cyrus the Great by name. And the tone and imagery of the book shift radically with ch 40. Either you have to fall back on a supernatural explanation for those discrepancies, in which an 8th century prophet has a foretelling of events to come in the 6th century, or you’ve got two books woven together by different authors. There is still a legitimate debate over the possibility of a third author (so-called Trito-Isaiah) who wrote chs 56-66 later in the Persian period, but there is no real consensus on this point to my knowledge.
An interesting study of Deutero-Isaiah is Ben Sommer’s A Prophet Reads Scripture. Sommer looks at the allusions to other biblical traditions in Is 40-66 and discovers that, rather than being an active revision of the first Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah is actually a sophisticated reworking of a variety of biblical traditions. In fact, the closest connection of the text is to the Book of Jeremiah and not the first Isaiah at all. It’s a very readable account written for a scholarly and non-scholarly audience. If you go into it with an open mind and follow Sommer’s references closely, I think you’ll have a hard time concluding that the Book of Isaiah is a unified product of the 8th century BCE.
The New Jerome is a Roman Catholic large single-volume Biblical commentary, with nihil obstat and imprimatur, i.e. it has an official declaration that it is “free from doctrinal or moral error”, which does not mean that the people granting the nihil obstat and imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed. Not sure if you meant to restrict “conservative” to US Baptists, which is sometimes what people mean, but I think for most purposes the authors represent conservative scholarship.

The book has separate chapters on Isaiah 1-39 (Joseph Jensen, OSB, and William H Irwin , CSB), and for Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah (Carrol Stuhlmueller, CP). These chapters are not adjacent, as the book is in roughly historical order.

Note that the term “proto-Isaiah” is not used. In fact the former chapter notes in the introduction:
The canonical book of Isaiah consists of 66 chapters, but it has long been recognised that chaps. 40-55 and 56-66 are collections that date from exilic and post-exilic times; → Deutero-Isaiah, 21:3, 50. Chapters 1-39 consist of several smaller collections, some of which are products of complex development. The authentic words of Isaiah are found mainly in chaps. 1-11 (largely from the days of Ahaz) and 28-32 (largely from the days of Hezekiah). Authentic words of Isaiah are also found among the “Oracles against the Nations” (chaps 13-25) and perhaps also in the historical appendix (chaps 36-39, taken from 2 Kgs 18:13-20:19). The “Apocalypse of Isaiah” (chaps 24-27) and the collection in chaps 34-35 date wholly from later periods.
https://rsc.byu.edu/isaiah-prophets/scientific-analysis-isaiah-authorship

The so-called Isaiah problem dates back to A.D. 1100, when a Jewish commentator named Moses ben Samuel, Ibn-Gekatilla, denied that Isaiah was the author of certain chapters of the book of Isaiah. [1] Later, in A.D. 1167, Ibn Ezra also questioned the authorship of certain sections of the book of Isaiah. [2] J. C. Doederlein of the Wellhousen school is credited with having given the theory of multiple authorship its major initial support. [3] This theory grew until some scholars claimed that the book of Isaiah was a compilation of works from many authors and many periods of time. [4]
The ancient and formerly unquestioned tradition of the Christian church, inherited earlier from the Jewish tradition, was that the entire book of Isaiah was written by a single author, the prophet Isaiah. [5] Josephus (ca. A.D. 90) stated that King Cyrus read about himself in the prophecies of Isaiah. [6] However, the problem of authorship of the book of Isaiah originated among the Jewish sages and received considerable attention among the higher critics of the Old Testament over a period of several centuries. Those most responsible for the early popularity of the theory in the modern era were the biblical critics from Germany, especially Wellhousen. Scholars who divided the book of Isaiah into multiple authorship were referred to as “divisionists”; those who defended single authorship were referred to as “conservatives.” For every conservative scholar today there are eight to ten divisionist scholars. [7] The vast majority of divisionist scholars divide the book of Isaiah into three authorships which they refer to as Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, and Trito-Isaiah. Approximately one-third of the divisionists divide the book into two authorships. Several divisionists maintain that the book is a compilation of many different authors from many different periods of time, and this camp is growing rapidly. [8] According to some, little remains of the book of Isaiah which can be attributed to the prophet of the eighth century B.C. In his Dictionary of the Bible, John McKenzie claimed:
Most of the book of Isaiah does not come from the Prophet Isaiah, and even those discourses which are his come in the reports of those who wrote them down from auditions or from memory. The book is a compendium of many types of prophecy from diverse periods.
Historical arguments are often cited by those who advocate multiple authorship. References to historical events such as the conquest of Israel by Assyria, [14] the Babylonian exile, [15] and postexilic conditions [16] were interpreted by divisionists to have been written after the occurrence of such events.
It was claimed by divisionists that a prophet is sent to prophesy to the people of his own time and that his predictions do not extend beyond the horizon of his own day. Norman Gottwald claimed:
When [the prophetic writings are] studied in their context, apart from dogmatic preconviction, [it is clear that] no prophet leaped across the centuries and foresaw the specific person Jesus of Nazareth. It is a plain violation of historical context to think that they did so, and in practice those that interpret the prophets as predictors of Jesus obscure the setting in which the prophets functioned.
The most commonly discussed literary aspect of the book of Isaiah is authorship style. Divisionists claim that they see different authorship styles in the different sections of the book. But conservatives have provided extensive rebuttals to the divisionists’ arguments. James Smart, a divisionist, summed up the situation on both sides of the issue in the following assertion:
An honest recognition of the meagerness of the evidence demands of us a suspension of judgment. Yet one commentator after another has proceeded to base his interpretations upon assumptions that have rested on the flimsiest of foundations.
Computer programs were written to obtain data for analyzing the validity of claims made by scholars concerning the Isaiah problem. The Hebrew text was used for analysis, including the complete Hebrew text of the book of Isaiah, and random samples from eleven additional Old Testament books were used. (The eleven additional books, selected by stratified random sampling, were Amos, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Micah, Habakkuk, Zechariah, Daniel, Ezra, Malachi, and Nehemiah. These books served as Hebrew control texts for comparison with the book of Isaiah.) The book of Isaiah was divided into the various sections suggested by divisionists. The major sets of divisions analyzed for authorship style consisted of the following:
The commonly used twofold: Chapters 1–39 and 40–66, the so-called Deutero-Isaiah.
The more popular threefold division: Chapters 1–39, 40–55, and 56–66, the so-called Trito-Isaiah.
Radday’s division: Chapters 1–12, 13–23, 24–35, 36–39 (omitted by Radday), 40–48, 49–57, and 58–66.
Driver’s division: Chapters 1–12, 13–23, 24–27, 28–33, 34–35, 36–39, 40–48, 49–55, 56–62, and 63–66.
https://www.academia.edu/10189487/Unsupervised_Decomposition_of_a_Document_into_Authorial_Components_Proceedings_of_the_49th_Annual_Meeting_of_the_Association_for_Computational_Linguistics

Isaiah is a growth text. One plausible theory is that Deutero-Isaiah belonged broadly to the same community responsible for the continued maintenance of the book of Isaiah. Deutero-Isaiah has often been attributed to the circle of exiled Temple singers and musicians (see Claus Westermann, Ulrich Berges, Rainer Albertz, and others), drawing on the forms and language of psalmody. Joseph Blenkinsopp in The Beauty of Holiness: Re-Reading Isaiah in the Light of the Psalms (Bloomsbury, 2018) also argues that Proto-Isaiah itself has its origins close to the same circle of Temple musicians, pointing to striking similarities between Isaiah and the psalms (see also the many references to singing in Isaiah 5:1, 12:5-6, 14:7, 16:10, 23:16, 24:16, 27:2, 30:29, 35:10, 38:18, 20), particularly the Asaph psalms. Psalm 50 for instance portrays itself as a divine oracle declaring judgment on the wicked and blessings on the righteous. Albertz notes that the genre of salvation oracles found in Proto-Isaiah and Deutero-Isaiah not only resemble structures found in the Psalms but also reflect ANE parallels of “temple personnel as speakers of salvation oracles” (Israel in Exile, p. 171; SBL, 2003).
He also mentions the close relationship of salvation oracles with royal ideology, which was a major concern of Isaiah as the prophet to kings such as Hezekiah. Psalm 79 and 80 are exilic psalms that precede the time of Deutero-Isaiah but sort of lay the groundwork for what is found in the later servant songs and salvation oracles. Deutero-Isaiah is innovative in democratizing royal ideology to Israel as a whole. This contributed to the universality of Yahweh’s purposes (no longer only the God of Israel but of the universe), but also staked out an important political position against a literal restoration of the Davidic monarchy. So Deutero-Isaiah takes a very pro-Persian perspective at a time when Darius the Great faced rebellion and it eschewed the nationalist tendency that Haggai and Zechariah endorsed (with Haggai 2:23 even rescinding Jeremiah’s prophecy in Jeremiah 22:24-30), prophets who imbued Zerubabbel with quasi-messianic expectations.

Adding to dating, Isaiah 53 is part of the Servant Song cycle in Deutero-Isaiah (ch. 40-55). Deutero-Isaiah was written in the late exilic and early post-exilic period. The first portion was probably written c. 540 BC, i.e. shortly before Cyrus conquered Babylon (as the text draws on the Cyrus Proclamation yet does not reflect what happened when Babylon fell). The Servant Songs may have been written a decade or two later. Trito-Isaiah (ch. 56-66) dates even later, to the fifth century BC. The servant is usually understood as representing Israel, although the fourth song seem to pertain either to an individualized personification of Israel or an actual individual (speculative suggestions have included Zerubabbel, Haggai, Zechariah, or someone unknown to history).
William Osborne argues in Trees and Kings that tree metaphorical language is used by Israelites (and surrounding cultures) to indicate kingship. The basic premise is that trees represent life, and became a basic metaphor for Deity. By extension, kings ruled for deities. We see this play out in the Hebrew Bible to various extent, but the most obvious might be in Isaiah 11:1, where “A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit. ” This indicates a Messianic King.
Some scholars now divide Isaiah into two sections: 1-39 and 40-66 due to the following differences:
Difference in tone – judgment and gloom (1-39), salvation and hope (40-66)
Difference in literary style – not as easy to see in the English translations
Differences in theology
Differences in vocabulary
Jeremiah was almost killed for predicting the destruction of the Temple (Jer. 7:26) and was only delivered after a verse in Micah (Mic. 3:12) was discovered – if Isaiah 40-66 which spoke of the destruction of the Temple existed, why would Jeremiah, who prophesied after Isaiah, have been accused and jeopardized?
The most plausible is the three-division thing, Proto-Isaiah, then Deutero-Isaiah, then Trito-Isaiah:
So, 40-55 written by an unknown prophet in exile in Babylon and 56-66 written by the same prophet or another prophet who had returned to Jerusalem from exile in Babylon.

The author of 40-55, Deutero Isaiah is another prophet influenced by the Isaiah of 1-39 but who lived toward the end of the exile in Babylon – he spoke words of comfort and challenge to the Jews preparing to return to Judah.
The author of 56-66 is still another prophet who returned to Judah and realized that the words of the prophet of 40-55 had not come true as expected – had to deal with the disappointment of himself and others in 56-66.