The Unity of Isaiah
THE UNITY OF ISAIAH
No other book in the Canon of Scripture evokes more vivid imagery of the coming Messiah than that of Isaiah. It is the writings of this prophet, Isaiah son of Amoz, which so distinctly point to the coming King, Christ Jesus. As result, Christians hold this book as the crowning jewel of Old Testament Messianic prophecy. Its incredible prophetic accuracy has reinforced the faith of countless believers throughout history, all the while driving the critics mad. Today Christians are faced with a challenge designed by textual critics to undermine the believer’s confidence in the book of Isaiah. The charge is simply this: Isaiah was not entirely written by the historical Isaiah, but instead multiple authors spanning various periods of time. Does this charge have any validity? That is the very question we will examine.
The Critical View: A Summary
It is primarily the naturalistic presuppositions that critics come to the text with that lead to a denial of the single author view of Isaiah. Due to their presuppositions they deny the possibility of predictive prophecy as seen throughout Scripture and more specifically the predictions of the prophet Isaiah himself. Prophecy instead is viewed as nothing more than culturally and historically contextual musings by a so called prophet, that relate directly to his current time and nothing future. This thought is reflected in the words of the now deceased A.B. Davidson, when he writes; “The prophet is always a man of his own time and it is always to the people of his own time that he speaks, not to a generation long after, nor to us.”[1] It is this denial of the supernatural that leads to the first of three basic objections to Isaianic authorship. The first objection could be summarized as follows: given the fact that chapters 40-66 describe Israel’s return from captivity and even mention their “deliverer” (Cyrus) by name, it could not have been written by a prophet who lived centuries prior to Cyrus and the exile. This anti-supernaturalism is that which first spurns the desire to separate Isaiah from its prophetic power. In fact, if one were to look at the history of the critical view it would become quite apparent that “The critical position runs parallel to the rise of anti-supernaturalism among European philosophers.”[2] In commenting on this very issue Dr. Oswald T. Allis said of the critical position:
“In text-books that represent the “critical” or “higher-critical” viewpoint it is regarded as a matter of prime importance to explain the supernatural, which often means to explain it away, and to deal with the Bible in such a way that the supernatural will really cease to be supernatural.”[3]
It can be stated then that the critical view of Isaiah’s authorship is inseparably linked to a denial of supernatural predictive prophecy.
Aside from this naturalistic presupposition, critics often cite literary differences found within the book as reason enough for separating Isaiah into at least two separate volumes. The common critic will note the seeming differences between Isaiah chapters 1-39 (“Proto-Isaiah”) and Isaiah chapters 40-66 (“Deutero-Isaiah”). There are even some more extreme critics that attempt to make a case for yet a third Isaiah (“Trito-Isaiah”). However, due to a lack of scholarly support for this position, I will not address the Trito-Isaiah view and instead focus on the more common Deutero-Isaiah view.
The claim is that Proto-Isaiah is filled with a vividly illustrative writing style, while Deutero-Isaiah has noticeably less of this type of material. Instead, Deutero-Isaiah is filled with rhetorical statements, and argumentative dialogue between God and His people. This leads to the second objection that states that the literary, stylistic, and subject changes from chapter 40 to the end of the book point to the existence of, in the very least, a “second” Isaiah.
The third and final common objection we will examine relates to the difference in theological focus found between the first and second halves of the book. The argument is simply this: the first 39 chapters focus on God’s majesty and judgment, while the remaining chapters stress God’s unique attributes and His role as deliverer of His people. Therefore, it must be assumed that multiple authors wrote from varying theological perspectives.
The basic charge boils down to this: predictive prophecy is impossible, and given some seeming literary differences and varying theological focuses found in the Isaiah scroll, we must conclude that the book should be divided into multiple parts with multiple authors from various points in history.
The Case for Unity: The Historical Witnesses
As we begin to examine the historical case for unity, it should be noted that at no point prior to the early 19th century was Isaianic authorship of the entire Isaiah scroll ever called into question by anyone except for a few radical scholars. The fact that this book in its entirety was without a doubt considered to be written by the prophet himself, even by those living within a few generations of his lifetime, should speak volumes to its unity.
One of the first historical references that may be displayed in defense of Isaianic authorship is a reference of Isaiah 61:3 in the Apocryphal book Ecclesiasticus (Circa 180 B.C.). Ecclesiasticus 48:24 reads: “By the spirit of might he saw the last things and comforted those who mourn for Zion.” The “he” spoken of here is the prophet Isaiah. Geoffrey Grogan, Principal of the Bible Training Institute in Glasgow Scotland, states that; “The last clause clearly refers to Isaiah 61:3.”[4] It can be assumed then that the author of this second century B.C. book believed that the Isaiah of the first 39 chapters was the same Isaiah of the final 27 chapters. Why else would the Apocryphal writer quote the Isaiah of chapter 60 as being the true historical Isaiah?
Further historical support can be garnered from the writings of the first century historian Flavius Josephus. In his work The Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus, writing of Cyrus, declared that Cyrus knew of his destiny by reading the book of Isaiah. Josephus records:
“This was known [his destiny to free the Jews] to Cyrus by his reading the book which Isaiah left behind him of his prophecies… This [the prophecy] was foretold by Isaiah one hundred and forty years before the temple was demolished. Accordingly, when Cyrus read this, and admired the Divine power, an earnest desire and ambition seized upon him to fulfill what was so written…”[5]
While it can not be verified whether or not Cyrus sought to fulfill these prophecies intentionally or if he did so inadvertently, it can be concluded however that Josephus and the Jewish community believed these prophecies, which came from the latter portion of the book, were predictive in nature and undoubtedly written by the historical Isaiah himself.
Another, and quite possibly the most historically damning argument against the critical view of Isaiah, is the witness of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran, are nearly without exception, dated to the second century B.C. According to Edward J. Young this particular manuscript (the Isaiah scroll) dates to “about 125 B.C.”[6] This copy of Isaiah is the oldest known extant manuscript we have of the prophet’s writing. Therefore, it constitutes the eldest witness to the book’s unity in authorship. Upon examination of the scroll it is found that nothing blatantly speaks to a division of authors in the mind of the scribe recording it, instead the opposite could be said true. When the traditional point of critical demarcation between authors is examined it becomes quite clear that “There is no gap in the scroll between chapters 39 and 40.”[7] In fact, as noted by Dr. Young; “Chapter 39 concludes just one line from the bottom of the column, leaving a space for about seven letters. Chapter 40 begins on the last line of the column and without any special indentation.”[8] Obviously the scribe, who was surely copying from an earlier manuscript, believed this scroll was authored by one man, Isaiah. With this information in hand I would say Dr. Young is correct in his estimation that; “The evidence both of Ecclesiasticus and the Qumran scroll…assert that in the third century B.C. the tradition of Isaianic authorship was well established.”[9]
We therefore, must conclude that the historical witness for the single authorship of the book of Isaiah is quite sound. Historically speaking, the single author view is the most testified standpoint both in historic tradition and record. It can be confidently stated that Isaiah in the form it appears today existed, at the very least, by the third century B.C.
The Case for Unity: The Literary Witness
Having already seen the historical information decisively in favor of the conservative view of Isaianic authorship, we turn our attention now to the literary data. It is the claim of the critics that the literary style changes in the latter chapters of Isaiah. Is this claim substantiated? A brief examination reveals this position to be lacking any true substance. Discussing the literary styles found within Isaiah, Geoffrey Grogan notes that; “A survey of the whole book reveals the high literary quality of so much of its material…there are also passages where the style is somewhat more pedestrian; but there are few of these, and they are not confined to any one part of the book.”[10] Speaking further to this issue Grogan states that “Variety of style is a characteristic of all great authors who write on diverse themes over a considerable period of time.”[11] The simple fact of the matter is that Isaiah is considered Hebrew literature of the highest quality by most, if not all scholars. This high level of writing is consistent throughout the entire book. It would seem apparent then that a single author is responsible for this high level of literary craftsmanship.
The book of Isaiah does more than just present consistently high levels of literary material; it also makes repeated use of specific language and theological terms. For instance, the phrase “the Holy One of Israel,” Isaiah’s favorite term for God, is used throughout the entirety of the book. It appears twenty-six times and is almost evenly distributed, with it appearing twelve times in chapters 1-39 and a total of fourteen times in chapters 40-66. Even a brief look at just a few chapters will reveal the consistent language found within Isaiah. As Dr. Gleason Archer has noted, “Conservative scholars have pointed out at least forty or fifty sentences or phrases which appear in both parts of Isaiah, and indicate its common authorship.”[12] In the following chart Dr. Norman Geisler summarizes just a few of the similarities in language found within both halves of the book.
Similar Phrases in the Two Parts of Isaiah[13]
|
Chapters 1–39 |
Chapters 40–66 |
It can be plainly seen that the language used within the first 39 chapters of the book is mirrored in the final 27 chapters. There should be no reason to question the fact that based upon language usage it would appear as if this book was written by a single author.
Finally, it should be noted that along with consistent language usage throughout the book, Isaiah uses theological consistency, despite what the critics may say. The theological argument has always been considered a weak accusation to say the least. This is especially true when it is pointed out that Isaiah consistently declares God is sovereign (24:1-3, 37:15-20; 48:8-11), further, Isaiah frequently puts forward God’s holiness throughout his writing (2:11-18, 37:23-25; 66:1-3). It is true however, that some of Isaiah’s theological emphasis changes through the course of the book. This fact should not be surprising. When the focus of God’s action toward His people changes surely the attributes of God revealed through His actions would change.
What we have seen thus far is only a microcosm of an incredible amount of literary information in support of Isaiah. Without even discussing the significance of references to certain trees (41:19, 44:14), and particular language use (i.e. 46:11, 52:11) that blatantly speaks to the origin of the Isaiah scroll being Palestine; we must conclude that the argument of literary and theological differences falls short of presenting any real information that would provide a sufficient reason to doubt Isaianic authorship.
The Case for Unity: The New Testament Witness
Now we come to what I believe is the most compelling argument for the conservative view of Isaianic authorship, the New Testament witness. How the New Testament authors view Isaiah is absolutely critical. As we shall see, they believed that the author of the first 39 chapters is the very same author of the final 27 chapters. Speaking in regards to the New Testament recognition of Isaiah, Dr. Allis notes that “Isaiah is quoted by name about twenty times…furthermore, in those books where he is quoted most frequently, citations are made from both parts of the book.”[14]
In the Gospel of Matthew we find a quotation of Isaiah 40:3. In Matthew 3:3 it is revealed that this prophecy was of none other than John the Baptist. Matthew, under the guiding of the Holy Spirit, recorded this as without a doubt a prophecy from Isaiah himself. Matthew further quotes Isaiah by name in Mt. 4:14 (Isa. 9:1), Mt. 8:17 (Isa. 53:4), and Mt. 12:17-21 (Isa. 42:1-4), just to name a few. It is quite obvious that Matthew believed Isaiah was the author of both halves of the book. Isaiah can also be seen being quoted in other Gospels.
For instance, in John’s Gospel we find both Isaiah 6:10 and Isaiah 53:1 quoted as being from the prophet’s pen. This provides attestation to both halves of the book once again. In Luke’s Gospel, we find emphatic evidence from the very lips of Christ in favor of Isaianic authorship. Recording Christ’s actions in the synagogue, Luke writes “The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written…”[15] Christ, in this passage, is unrolling the scroll to what we now recognize as Isaiah 61:1. Luke 4:18-19 picks up where Christ reads: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”[16] Christ recognized this prophecy not only as being fulfilled in Him, but as also being a fulfillment of what the prophet Isaiah himself had spoken. This fact is undoubtedly established by Luke’s record of Christ’s explanation of the passage in verse 21, which reads: “…He began by saying to them, Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”[17] It is quite apparent that the Lord Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, believed that Isaiah in its entirety was written by the historical prophet.
We find further witness in the writings of the Apostle Paul, the very man who wrote the majority of the New Testament. Paul, in the book of Romans alone quotes from the prophet a total of five times[18], spanning the entire book of Isaiah! Based on this information alone we can have absolute assurance that Paul believed firmly in Isaianic authorship.
After reviewing the New Testament evidence, we are left with only two options. First, we can accept the New Testament record as accurate and stand along side the likes of Paul and the Lord Jesus in our affirmation of Isaianic authorship, or we could accept the second option and side with the textual critics. If we stand in the camp of the critics we are then denying the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the writing of the New Testament, and not only that, but we are also making the Messiah into a fallible man. I believe we would be wise to be in agreement with Dr. Allis, who after reviewing all the New Testament information stated that; “Such evidence indicates with sufficient clearness that none of the New Testament writers dreamt that the name Isaiah was of doubtful or ambiguous meaning.”[19]
Conclusion
As we have seen naturalistic presuppositions are the driving force behind the denial of Isaianic authorship, rather than any real facts. Instead, the cold hard facts speak out against the critical view. The critics must overcome their lack of historical evidence for dual authorship. The witness of history is clearly in favor of there being only a single author. The lack of manuscript support for their position is another hurdle they cannot get around. The simple truth is that no manuscript has ever been found that divides the book of Isaiah into separate sections; instead we find the oldest manuscript witnesses in favor of the single author view. In literary form, it has been shown that the author of Isaiah was consistent in his language and use of specific terminology. It has also been shown that he brings forth certain theological concepts routinely throughout the book. Finally, it has been shown that the New Testament writers and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself believed the historical Isaiah was the author of the entire book. So we are left in a position that requires us to either accept the overwhelming evidence for Isaianic authorship, or to deny it totally and in turn declare both God the Son, and God the Spirit in to be in error.
[1]James Hasting, Hastings Dictionary of the Bible Vol. 4 (Honolulu: HI, University Press of the Pacific. 2004), 4
[2] Jerry Falwell, Edward Hindson and Woodrow Kroll, Liberty Bible Commentary (Lynchburg: VA, Old Time Gospel Hour,1982), 1298
[3] Oswald T.Allis, The Unity of Isaiah: A Study in Prophecy (Eugenge: OR, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000), 1
[4] Geoffrey Grogan, The Expositors Bible Commentary Vol. 6 (Grand Rapids: MI, Zondervan Publishing. 1986), 9
[5] Flavius Josephus, The Works of Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews Electronic Edition STEP Files (Hiawatha: Iowa, Parsons Technology, Inc. 1998) XI. i.2.
[6] Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah: Volume 3(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company,1997), 539
[7]Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Book House.1999), 368
[8] Young, The Book of Isaiah: Volume 3, 539
[10] Grogan, The Expositors Bible Commentary Vol. 6, 10
[12] Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: IL, Moody Press. 1994), 382
[13] Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 367
[14] Allis, The Unity of Isaiah: A Study in Prophecy, 42
[15] New International Version (Grand Rapid: MI, Zondervan Publishing. 1985)
[18] Ro. 9:27 (Isa. 10:22), Ro. 9:29 (Isa. 1:9), Ro. 10:16 (Isa 53:1), Ro.10:20 (Isa. 65:1), Ro. 15:12 (Isa. 11:10)
I want to get more insight and versed in OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY so I need more information and tuition