Yes, it is dated to about the mid-2nd century BCE while the others are from the second half of the 2nd century BCE and later.Pseudo Ezekiel is a good example of what I mean and thank you for mentioning it because it sounds like it is the earliest text in the collection although I don't know if that is the case.
Writings in the Tanakh about the patriarchs and exodus event date many centuries later than the purported events.With these writings we are talking about about Traditions about the prophets and Patriarchs that were written centuries later. And so it creates this uncertainty for me about how reliable they are.
While the Masoretes were relatively meticulous with the tradition they inherited, their procedures cannot be projected back into the past. Indeed, the evidence from the Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch and biblical scrolls at Qumran converge to reveal a pluriform text tradition for the Torah in the centuries before the turn of the era. What happened in the centuries before that stretching back to the kingdom period is pure conjecture.In the case of the Torah we are talking about a text that was carefully copied over many centuries by a community that valued it.
That conclusion is unwarranted, particularly since a number of 'apocryphal' texts were revered by communities alongside those books that were later 'canonized'.So the Bible, both Testaments, is reliable in a way that the apocryphal writings like pseudo Ezekiel are not.
This is known as a 'canonical reading' and it is not a hermeneutic I ascribe to... in fact, I view it as a distorting lens that leads to misinterpretation of the earlier texts.There are actually many places where the Bible helps to explain itself, where one book in the Bible helps a lot to explain another book.
I presume you mean that Jeremiah was aware of whatever Isaianic texts that had been written prior, not that he was literally his contemporary student.Jeremiah ... was a student of Isaiah.