Perrydox.com is devoted to the pursuit of truth, whether plain or paradoxical, whether simple or sublime, or simply absurd yet absolute.
Isaiah – Authorship
“What Beethoven is in the realm of music, what Shakespeare is in the realm of literature, what Spurgeon was among the Victorian preachers, that is Isaiah among the prophets” (J. Sidlow Baxter, Explore the Book, v.3, p.217). Such exuberant praise is deserved and directed towards Isaiah’s “style – its grandeur and dignity, its energy and liveliness, it profusion of imagery, its vividness of description, its forceful play on words, its dramatic and rhetorical touches, and last, but not least, its wonderful variety” (ibid.) Among the Prophets, both Major and Minor, and even among the entire Old Testament and New, the book of Isaiah stands above if most if not all, in the eyes of many.
And yet, as with anything beautiful and sacred, controversies thrive and criticisms abound. When asked who I thought wrote Isaiah, I naively said, “Isaiah 1:1 is enough for me” asserting that Isaiah, the historical prophet, wrote the entire book. Naïve, not because I was unaware of the contested authorship suggesting 2, 3 or 7 authors; but naïve because I assumed such would be readily and eagerly accepted by a Bible believer.
Scholarly arguments have persisted within the last 150 years, but before that there was basic unanimity on the sole authorship among both Jewish and Christian scholars. The predominant view today is not of sole authorship but that there are at least two if not more. The real, historical Isaiah possibly penned chapters 1-39 suggests more modern scholars. A “Deutero-Isaiah” then wrote chapters 40-66. Some divide the authorship into as many as seven (Ewald), while others more vaguely assert “composite authorship” (Skinner). Eventually all of the separate parts became combined through the Sopherim, or scribes. It should be pointed out that the book itself does not claim to have different authors. That means that modern scholars suggesting multiple authors are making a claim that the book itself does not make.
As is common with prophetic books within the Bible, the authorship is ascribed at the very beginning: The vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah (Isaiah 1:1). Historically, this rages from 767-687 BC.
Such an inspired claim gives authenticity to the prophecy, because a vision is often directly tied to the genuineness of the prophet. The Seer is believed because of who he is, and he is a man of God and therefore a man of his word because of God. My view is simple, but I hope not naïve. I believe Isaiah wrote it all by inspiration. If there are multiple Isaiahs then the following questions must be asked. First, are all the Isaiahs inspired? Second, are the ones claiming multiple authors claiming all are inspired? Third, are the compilers of all the Isaiahs inspired? The controversies introduce more than just questions on authorship, but question the role of inspiration itself. Let’s see how this claim plays out, and what ultimately might be behind the claim – a lack of belief in divine inspiration.
There are at least three main arguments against sole authorship: 1) Historical references; 2) Topical differences; 3) Linguistic or style changes. Each of these will be dealt with very briefly as this is not intended to be a scholarly approach, but more a common sense approach by a believer in the Almighty God. I hope my simplicity does not offend.
I. Historical References
In claiming sole authorship by the prophet Isaiah, I am not ignoring historical references in latter Isaiah that humanly seem to imply it is written from a post-exile perspective (i.e., specifically naming Cyrus as the servant or deliver – 44:28; 45:1). Josephus, a historian in the first century AD, gives this striking and telling testimony concerning the authenticity of the Cyrus references:
1. IN the first year of the reign of Cyrus (1) which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity. And these things God did afford them; for he stirred up the mind of Cyrus, and made him write this throughout all Asia: “Thus saith Cyrus the king: Since God Almighty hath appointed me to be king of the habitable earth, I believe that he is that God which the nation of the Israelites worship; for indeed he foretold my name by the prophets, and that I should build him a house at Jerusalem, in the country of Judea.”
2. This was known to Cyrus by his reading the book which Isaiah left behind him of his prophecies; for this prophet said that God had spoken thus to him in a secret vision: “My will is, that Cyrus, whom I have appointed to be king over many and great nations, send back my people to their own land, and build my temple.” This 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; so he called for the most eminent Jews that were in Babylon, and said to them, that he gave them leave to go back to their own country, and to rebuild their city Jerusalem, (2) and the temple of God, for that he would be their assistant, and that he would write to the rulers and governors that were in the neighborhood of their country of Judea, that they should contribute to them gold and silver for the building of the temple, and besides that, beasts for their sacrifices. (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI )
Denying that such prophetic references are possible for the real Isaiah removes the supernatural aspect to inspiration. If we deny that Isaiah could foresee Cyrus, then why would we believe he could foresee a virgin giving birth to a son and calling Him Immanuel? Yahweh says,
- Isaiah 41:4 (HCSB) Who has performed and done this, calling the generations from the beginning? I, Yahweh, am the first, and with the last — I am He.”
- Isaiah 41:26 (HCSB) Who told about this from the beginning, so that we might know, and from times past, so that we might say: He is right? No one announced it, no one told it, no one heard your words.
- Isaiah 44:7 (HCSB) Who, like Me, can announce the future? Let him say so and make a case before Me, since I have established an ancient people. Let these gods declare the coming things, and what will take place.
- Isaiah 46:10 (HCSB) I declare the end from the beginning, and from long ago what is not yet done, saying: My plan will take place, and I will do all My will.
There is a domino effect to denying the Isaiah authorship, it usually begins or ends with denying inspiration. Seldom are beliefs isolated and have no effect on other beliefs. So much of Isaiah ties one thought to another, from creation, to monotheism, to the exodus and more.
There are more arguments to this historical perspective of Isaiah, but we shall comment no further. Inspiration, divine, supernatural, Holy Spirit driven authorship, answers what is not humanly possible.
II. Styles of Writing
In claiming sole authorship for Isaiah, again I am not ignoring different styles of writing or vocabulary (2 arguments against sole authorship) that are present; but acknowledging the accepted reality that authors change either over time or because of topic. This is true of me. I have been told that my preaching style changes according to the subject. Both “intense” and “humorous” have been used to describe my sermons. When I preach on Hell, I am not humorous. When preaching on marriage, I tend to be. Some might claim Hell and marriage are the same subject…see a little humor in this otherwise dry topic. Why humor? I introduced a new topic by illustration, and to illustrate that different topics encourage different approaches.
I also tend to have a different style whether teaching or preaching and even writing. My second book reads starkly differently than the first, even though both were written within 5 years of each other. Why? Topic and experience. Plus the bulletin articles I wrote 25 years ago I hope are inferior to today’s, and yet when I read them I see similarity. Truth is taught both in the beginning of my writing and today, but the styles differ.
It is possible for both similarity and differences to exist not only with the same author, but even within the same book. C.S. Lewis wrote both “The Chronicles of Narnia,” a fictional children’s series, and such acclaimed books as “The Screwtape Letters” also fictional and “Mere Christianity” and nonfictional apologetic. Same author, vastly different books. The same could be said concerning Charles Dickens and others. The point here is simple, when it comes to the Bible, in critiquing the Scriptures, people lose common sense and judge it with nonsensical arguments that they would not apply anywhere else.
Isaiah’s “career” covered a lifetime. Starting with Uzziah who began reigning in 767 BC and ending with Hezekiah who died in 687 BC, there is a total of 80 years from beginning to end. Exactly when Isaiah began in the time of Uzziah we do not know. Tradition states that Manasseh, Hezekiah’s son had Isaiah sawn in two in a hollow log (Heb.11:37). If true, then Isaiah lived all the way through Hezekiah’s reign. Considering the timeframe, is it unreasonable to suggest Isaiah prophesied, both verbally and in written form, for a period of 50 years? Do people change over such a long period of time? Five decades is a long time. Since the second part is considered mellower than the first, just the passing of time, from a young man’s passion to an old man’s hope and regret, can temper words and approach. Who would deny such common sense truth?
Although the arguments persist due to the admitted differences between the first and last parts, even the scholars arguing for different authors have to admit to the similarities:
“The critics themselves have been obliged to make the almost humorous plea that ‘Deutero-Isaiah’ (or Isaiahs) copied the style of the real Isaiah! Cheyne says: ‘The ‘Great Unnnamed,’ if a different writer from Isaiah, often imitated his style and knew his prophecies by heart’! L. Seinecke says, ‘No other prophet has so maintained the spirit of Isaiah as the author of chapters 40-66. With no other do we find his characteristic manner of speaking so well reproduced’! Orelli says that the author of the second part, if not Isaiah, has ‘assumed his form.’ Other examples might be given; but is there need? This badly battered argument of the critics has been floored and ‘counted out’ by those who backed it!” (ibid., 224)
Here is a thought that I would like to see pursued. If there is a second or third Isaiah; if this or these other Isaiah’s pretended to be Isaiah through imitation; and if they or others mesh all the parts together as one; and if there is no indication within the collated whole that there are multiple authors; does this not argue more for fraud than inspiration?
As alluded to earlier, part of the argument is over the drastic differences between the first and second sections. The first prophetic section (1-35) is far more negative than the final section (40-66). From a logical point of view, such would be expected. Condemnation often comes before comfort, and such it should. Yet, as we have suggested, both time and topic influence what is written.
But within both “halves,” there is hope, condemnation and therefore continuity. Notice the beautiful symmetry suggesting sole authorship from beginning to end:
- Heavens and Earth – 1:2; 66:1,22
- Sons – 1:2,4; 66:7,8
- Zion – 1:8,27; 66:7,8
- Destruction (i.e., fire) – 1:9-10, 31; 66:15-16; 24
- Sacrifices and Worship – 1:13; 66:23
As the books opens, so it closes. And those who assert that the first is more condemning than the second, and therefore too drastically different to be written by the same author, might want to focus on this. Notice the end positive ending to the prophetic section of the first negative section (indeed the whole last chapter); and then compare that to the negative ending of the second positive section:
- Isaiah 35:1-10 (HCSB) 1) The wilderness and the dry land will be glad; the desert will rejoice and blossom like a rose. 2) It will blossom abundantly and will also rejoice with joy and singing. The glory of Lebanon will be given to it, the splendor of Carmel and Sharon. They will see the glory of the LORD, the splendor of our God. 3) Strengthen the weak hands, steady the shaking knees! 4) Say to the cowardly: “Be strong; do not fear! Here is your God; vengeance is coming. God’s retribution is coming; He will save you.” 5) Then the eyes of the blind will be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped. 6) Then the lame will leap like a deer, and the tongue of the mute will sing for joy, for water will gush in the wilderness, and streams in the desert; 7) the parched ground will become a pool of water, and the thirsty land springs of water. In the haunt of jackals, in their lairs, there will be grass, reeds, and papyrus. 8) A road will be there and a way; it will be called the Holy Way. The unclean will not travel on it, but it will be for the one who walks the path. Even the fool will not go astray. 9) There will be no lion there, and no vicious beast will go up on it; they will not be found there. But the redeemed will walk on it, 10) and the redeemed of the LORD will return and come to Zion with singing, crowned with unending joy. Joy and gladness will overtake them, and sorrow and sighing will flee.
- Isaiah 66:24 (HCSB) “As they leave, the will see the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against Me; for their maggots will never die, their fire will never go out, and they will be a horror to all mankind.”
Finally, the Jews were meticulous concerning their Tanakh. Therefore my acceptance of one author is based upon the original recipient’s acceptance and their scholarship. They rejected the apocrypha due to this diligence which also included some pseudonymic writings (which 2nd and 3rd “Isaiah” would be). Therefore I am accepting the work of scholars that lived and studied closer to the original timeline. Plus this is a group of scholars that diligently preserved their religious heritage, and believed in divine inspiration. Later scholars are further removed from the historical setting, have no identity to preserve, nor do they as often believe in inspiration. “All antiquity, and all Hebrew (Jewish) scholars, know but one Isaiah” (ibid., p.223)
I acknowledge that this has not been a thorough, or even a scholarly answer to all the questions dealing with authorship. I even acknowledge using one source for my references. Nonetheless, I do hope that such an undistinguished approach is not intellectually bare. I hope that such an archaic view as believing that the real, historical Isaiah, inspired by God, revealed both in word and written form the book that bears his name, is not a naïve assertion.
Comments