The Spirit of the Lord upon the hill, and the question of Aramaic influence in Deutero-Isaiah

Prompted by my dream about there being "no Second Isaiah" (see "In New York, about the only garbage they won't pick up is sunglasses"), I read The Indivisible Isaiah: Evidence for the Single Authorship of the Prophetic Book (1964) by Israeli scholar Rachel Margalioth. Skimming her very long list (200-plus pages) of distinctive linguistic parallels between the two parts of the Book of Isaiah, I for a second misread "HIM" as "HILL" (which is of course easier to do when the word is in all caps).

Mrs. Margalioth is drawing attention to Isaiah's two references -- one in the "Proto" part of the book and the other in the "Deutero" -- to the Spirit of the Lord being "upon him," and she notes that in each case "the spirit of the Lord that rests 'upon him' befits him to bring forth judgment."

But I at first misread "upon him" as "upon [the] hill."

In the 1584 vision of John Dee and Edward Kelley (see "I posted my many-eyed whale dream on the 430th anniversary of Dee and Kelley's many-eyed whale vision," posted in 2022 and referenced just a week ago in "Blubbery Hill"), a many-eyed whale lies "upon the Hill."

The Firmament and the waters were joyned together, and the Whale CAME, like unto a legion of stormes: or as the bottomless Cave of the North when it is opened: and she was full of eyes on every side. . . . The waters sank, and fell suddenly away, so that the Whale lay upon the Hill, roaring like a Cave of Lions . . .

When Dee asks the angels to interpret the vision, they identify the whale as "the Spirit of God," and this is juxtaposed with a reference to judgment.

The Whale is the Spirit of God,

The Chambers are the degrees of wisdome,

The Thunders and windes are the ends of God his Will and Judgements.

In the vision, the whale is preceded by four winds. There is no direct reference to "thunders" in the account of the vision; the closest we get is the description of the whale as "like unto a legion of stormes."

⁂

Turning from the sync angle to the substance of Mrs. Margalioth's argument, the sheer volume of parallels she lays out -- words, expressions, and constructions found in both parts of Isaiah but nowhere else -- does make for a pretty compelling case that the entire Book of Isaiah is the work of one author.

One aspect of her book that confused me, though, was the discussion of Aramaic influence. I had heard from ex-Mormon scholar David Bokovoy that this is important evidence against the unity of Isaiah. For example, here is what he writes in his 2016 essay "The Truthfulness of Deutero-Isaiah":

Unlike what we find in the first half of the book of Isaiah, Aramaic has heavily influenced the language in Isaiah 40-66. Not only does this fact provide compelling proof that the material in 40-66 was written by other authors, it shows that these authors were living in a time when Jews were speaking Aramaic. Aramaic became the international language used by the Assyrians to govern their empire in the eighth century. But Jews living in Jerusalem during the time of the historical Isaiah spoke Hebrew. This explains why Hezekiah’s envoy pleaded with the Assyrians to make terms in Aramaic so that the people listening would not understand what was said (2 Kings 18). It also explains why we do not see any Aramaic influence in the material connected with the historical Isaiah. . . .

Dozens of examples of the strong Aramaic influence on the material in Isaiah 40-66 could be provided. This presents compelling evidence that these oracles were composed during the postexilic era when Jews were speaking Aramaic.

And here is what Rachel Margalioth has to say on the same topic:

Beginning with the Babylonian Exile, degeneration set in in the Hebrew language, and Aramaic influences began to take over. Mention should be made of the style of Nehemiah, that stalwart protagonist of Hebrew, and of his contemporary Ezra, whose style also shows the increasing influence of foreign tongues. How far removed is the style of the “second Isaiah,” which reaches the acme of pure and original Hebrew idiom, from that of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Is it conceivable that in the days of the return to Zion a book could have been written in such pure Hebrew?

The two scholars are commenting on the same Hebrew text. One sees in it such "strong Aramaic influence" that it can only have been composed after the exile. The other sees it as "the acme of pure and original Hebrew idiom" to such an extent that it could not conceivably have been written after the exile. I'm used to Bible scholars having wildly different interpretations of texts but not to their disagreeing so starkly on the basic facts of the text. If the Aramaic influence is as "strong" as Dr. Bokovoy thinks, how could Mrs. Margalioth not only have failed to notice it but on the contrary seen the text as noteworthy for its complete lack of Aramaic influence? Apparently no one else in the 1960s saw any Aramaic influence in Isaiah, either, since Mrs. Margalioth presents the purity of Isaiah's Hebrew as a manifest fact, with no hint that anyone else might disagree.

Not having learned Hebrew or Aramaic myself, I can only defer to those who have, and other things being equal I guess I would give the native Hebrew speaker's opinion more weight than that of the Utah goy, but I still find it perplexing that the question can be a controversial one. I've contacted Dr. Bokovoy for comment but so far haven't heard back from him.