Biblical & Theological Issues

by Richard Schultz –

The Strange Case of the Shrinking Prophet Isaiah ———

For the past two thousand years, the majority of Jewish and Christian believers as well as biblical scholars have attributed the canonical book of Isaiah to the eighth-century prophet Isaiah, son of Amoz, a resident of Jerusalem who is mentioned sixteen times in the book as well as in 2 Kings 19–20 and 2 Chronicles 26 and 32. A medieval rabbi named Abraham Ibn Ezra is credited with being the first to attribute the second part of the book of Isaiah (i.e., chs.40–66) to an anonymous prophet in Babylon on the eve of the Persian conquest a century and a half later. Ibn Ezra thereby preceded by more than six centuries the first German scholars to make a similar claim.

But once one has eliminated the prophet Isaiah as the sole source of the prophecies contained within the book, there is virtually no limit to the number of “contributors” that creative scholars can posit. Bernard Duhm, whose 1892 commentary set the agenda for Isaiah scholarship for nearly a century, “identified” more than half a dozen authors and editors as contributing to the final form of the book. Since no other prophetic figures are named in the book, scholars invented names like “Second Isaiah” and “Third Isaiah” to avoid the onus of anonymity. Today, it is not uncommon for a historical-critical scholar to claim the presence of half a dozen or more authors/editors in the space of a dozen or so verses (see, for example, Ronald E. Clements’ 1980 commentary on Isaiah 1–39).

And as the number of authors allegedly involved in the book of Isaiah has grown, the contribution of the traditional prophet Isaiah has shrunk correspondingly. Matthijs J. de Jong, in a 2007 monograph, dates only 95 verses to the eighth century, the period of Isaiah—twenty fewer than are contained in Isaiah 1–5! What has led to the virtual disappearance of the prophet Isaiah in the thinking of such scholars?

What types of evidence do they offer in support of their radical conclusions and how strong are their arguments? Is it still possible to defend the traditional view that Isaiah authored the entire book? What is at stake theologically in the modern debate?

Some Necessary Concessions
Before addressing these questions, we need to make a few introductory comments. First of all, we need to distinguish between the prophet Isaiah as the source of the contents of the book of Isaiah and Isaiah as the author/editor of the completed book. According to Jewish tradition, as expressed in the Babylonian Talmud Tractate
Baba Bathra 14b–15a, “Hezekiah and his colleagues” wrote Isaiah, along with Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. This claim has biblical roots in Proverbs 25:1, which describes “the men of Hezekiah” as compiling or copying additional Solomonic proverbs. What is important here is that this revered Jewish source was comfortable assigning editorial work to contemporaries of Isaiah rather than to Isaiah himself. This would be similar to a modern editor who undertook to compile and publish Billy Graham’s sermons. The basic content would be completely that of Billy Graham, while the editor would be responsible for selecting, excerpting, ordering, and possibly writing brief introductions to the individual sermons. Although Christians traditionally have viewed Isaiah as the author of the entire book of Isaiah, what they really are defending is that the book contains only his prophecies and those of no one else.

Secondly, and related to this, is the observation that the book does not clearly claim that Isaiah is the author of the entire book. The title in Isaiah 1:1 identifies the book as containing “the vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.” The word “vision” (Hebrew chazon, also used in Obadiah 1:1; Nahum 1:1, and Habakkuk 2:2–3) designates the contents as divinely revealed to the prophet who received them. But it is not a claim regarding authorship.

Furthermore, an evangelical view of Scripture does not exclude the work of inspired editors. The author (or authors) of 1–2 Chronicles drew substantially from the books of 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings in composing a post-exilic account of Israel’s history, editing the earlier account in theologically significant ways.

Thirdly, we are unable to verify definitively—or disprove—on the basis of external evidence that a given text originated with the prophet Isaiah. This is because many
texts lack precisely datable features. Most chapters do not refer to specific people or events. Prophetic texts can also describe future events, sometimes in detail and sometimes quite generally. Critical scholars claim that greater detail indicates that a prophecy must have been composed near or even after the time of fulfillment, but there is no objective basis for this claim. Although historical-critical scholars routinely seek to date prophetic texts, often ascribing them to much later periods, their conclusions are tentative at best and often speculative.

Fourthly, it must be acknowledged that there are many sincere Christian scholars who see no incongruence between affirming the divine authorship of Scripture and also affirming multiple “Isaiahs,” or even accepting some of the more radical viewpoints regarding the book’s growth and long editorial history. They may conceive of these “Second” and “Third” Isaiah figures as equally inspired and consciously continuing the prophetic ministry of their well-known predecessor by expanding and elaborating on his prophetic message in subsequent centuries. Or they see no incompatibility between claiming divine inspiration for a text and identifying in it layer upon layer of minute editorial additions, revisions, and corrections that raise questions about the nature or effect of that divine input.

Fifthly, for more than three decades now, the primary focus of Isaiah studies, somewhat surprisingly, has been on the growing evidence that points to one book of Isaiah, that is, to the striking thematic or editorial unity of the book. Here it must be noted, however, that most proponents of the one book of Isaiah expressly reject the one prophet view. Nevertheless, in setting forth their case, they often point to much of the same internal evidence of unity that proponents of the traditional view of Isaianic authorship have been citing for decades.

The Discovery of Multiple Isaiah’s – A Summary of Historical – Critical Arguments —-

Having offered several preliminary qualifying comments, we are ready to address our central question: Why do so many scholars claim that Isaiah could not have authored the entire book? They offer three or four basic arguments.

1. Too close for comfort
The most prominent stumbling block for many scholars is the explicit mention of the Persian ruler Cyrus in Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1 as the one whom God has chosen to authorize the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple. Cyrus, who took control of all Babylonia in 539 B.C., entered the stage of world history around one and a half centuries after the prophet Isaiah’s exit. It is claimed that Israelite prophets never issued such specific predictions, but a parallel example is found in 1 Kings 13:2 in which an unnamed prophet in King Jeroboam I’s day (ca. 930 B.C.) predicts what the future King Josiah (ca. 640 B.C.) will do (see the fulfillment recorded in 2 Kings 23:15–18). Admittedly, historical-critical scholars routinely dismiss this Josiah prediction as “fictional,” inserted into the 1 King 13 account after Josiah’s cultic reforms. For those who deny the existence of divine revelation, such an exact prediction is impossible; others simply would deny that the prophets ever did such a thing.
2. Addressing a fictive future audience Related to the preceding objection, it is (too) commonly claimed that the Old Testament prophets were primarily “forthtellers” rather than “foretellers,” more interested in giving Israel ethical guidance than in predicting future events. It is furthermore claimed that they proclaimed only what was relevant for their contemporary audience, which supposedly would exclude prophecies regarding the distant future. According to the post-Duhm view of Isaiah (see above), only “First” Isaiah addressed the situation in late pre-exilic Jerusalem, while “Second” Isaiah addressed those exiled to Babylon, and “Third” Isaiah addressed those who had recently returned to Jerusalem following the exile. Accordingly, when the prophet was speaking of returning from exile, so the argument goes, his message would be irrelevant for eighth-century Israelites. It would be incongruous for the prophet to speak, for example, to a future audience one hundred fifty years later in Cyrus’ day.
3. Theological diversity and sophistication Another objection to the one-author view is the claim that the theological and conceptual contents of the book of Isaiah are too diverse and, in some cases, too advanced to come from the eighth-century prophet. Some parts of Isaiah are highly nationalistic, others universalistic. “First” Isaiah presents a royal Messiah, a future just Davidic king; “Second” Isaiah speaks instead of a “servant” figure. “First” Isaiah speaks of gloom and doom, while “Second” Isaiah promises salvation and restoration. Justice and righteousness in “First” Isaiah are associated with violated social ethics within the covenant community, while in “Second” Isaiah justice and righteousness are God’s work. Furthermore, Isaiah 25:7–8 appears to speak of the termination of death and 26:19 of the resurrection of the dead, which are both often viewed as late post-exilic theological developments. Here the scholar’s own assumptions about incompatible diversity and the gradual development of religious thought determine what can—and cannot—be attributed to a single author, effectively limiting the scope of divine inspiration.
4. Not my style
Scholars have also noted differences between the styles of Isaiah 1–39 and 40–55, the former more prosaic and consisting of shorter oracles and the latter consisting of longer, more poetic texts. The latter also contains some striking stylistic “fingerprints,” such as repeated words (e.g., 40:1—“Comfort, comfort”; 52:1—“Awake, awake”).
Furthermore, Isaiah 56–66 has been described both as “scribal,” that is, reinterpreting earlier texts rather than issuing new prophecies, and “spiritualizing,” that is, draining earlier vivid imagery of its concreteness and emotional power (for example, compare the highway of Isaiah 40:3 with 57:14, or the nursing image in Isaiah 49:23 and 60:16). This claim rests on the assumption that a given author must employ a uniform style—even throughout sixty-six chapters composed in the course of a half
century of public ministry.

For these scholars, the evidence cited in support of multiple “Isaiahs” is overwhelming.

Will the Real Isaiah Please Stand Up?

So what kind of evidence can one cite to counter these arguments? Or to pose the question differently, what reasons would I give for continuing to hold to the traditional viewpoint that the eighth-century prophet Isaiah is the primary or sole source of the prophecies contained in the book by his name?

1. The claim of the initial title
As already noted, the initial title of the book (“The vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah”) acknowledges only one prophetic source. The mention here of four kings of Judah, who together reigned from ca. 785–698 (Cogan and Tadmor chronology), suggests that this title is referring to Isaiah’s entire prophetic ministry. The other two titles in the book (i.e., 2:1; 13:1; cf. 20:1–2) are less specific, but no other prophet is named. Also worth noting here is the absence of any additional titles in chapters 40–66. Positing an ongoing series of prophetic understudies (such as a “Second” and “Third” Isaiah) who continued to ‘prophesy’ in Isaiah’s name for more than two centuries on the basis of a single verse, Isaiah 8:16,² clearly lacks sufficient textual support. When more than one author or editor has been involved in the production of a text, the Old Testament is not reluctant to acknowledge this fact. This is noted, for example, in Proverbs 24:23 and 25:1, and the book of Proverbs accordingly contains multiple titles (Prov. 10:1; 24:23; 25:1; 30:1; 31:1).

Later Jewish and Christian sources also uniformly acknowledge only one Isaiah. A key witness here is the Jewish apocryphal book of Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus), which states regarding the prophet Isaiah in 48:24, “By his dauntless spirit he saw the future, and comforted the mourners in Zion” (NRSV)—mostly likely a reference to Isaiah 61:2–3.³ Jesus, as well as the New Testament authors, quotes from all parts of the book of Isaiah, quotes from all parts of the book of Isaiah, more frequently describing these words as what the prophet Isaiah said rather than what is written in the book of Isaiah. The first of these is in Matthew 3:3, which cites Isaiah 40:3: “This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: ‘A voice of one calling in the wilderness, “Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.”’” Historical critical scholars routinely dismiss this as merely an accommodation to the mistaken views of their Jewish contemporaries, but there is no a priori reason to conclude this.⁴

2. The lengthy public ministry of Isaiah
As already noted, Isaiah 1:1 claims for the prophet Isaiah a public ministry of at least a half century during which tumultuous events involving the kingdoms of Judah and Israel took place prompting the prophet to address a wide range of topics and audiences. Such a lengthy ministry clearly could involve some diversity in thematic emphases and forms of expression, as one also can find in the sermons and writings of contemporary Christian spokespersons such as Billy Graham and John Stott.

3. Stylistic, thematic, and structural unity
What is surprising, however, amidst the diversity found in the book of Isaiah, are the many indicators of unity that have been noted, only a few of which we can discuss
here. Isaiah’s favorite designation for God, “the Holy One of Israel” occurs twenty-six times throughout the book from 1:4 to 60:14 (plus one occurrence of “the Holy One of Jacob”). The book begins and ends with a reference to the “heavens and the earth” and “rebels” (see Isa. 1:2 and 66:22, 24). The central thematic emphasis of the entire book is the current state and future fate of Zion/Jerusalem. But a number of key images and motifs also are found throughout the book, such as physical infirmities (6:9; 29:9–10,18; 30:10–11; 32:3–4; 33:23; 35:5–6; 42:7,18–20; 43:8; 44:18;59:10), the highway (11:16; 19:23; 35:8; 40:3;42:16; 43:19; 49:11; 57:14; 62:10); and the banner (5:26; 11:10–12; 13:2; 18:3; 49:22; 62:10).

There are numerous striking verbal parallels within the book that weave it together, including the familiar description of the “lion with the lamb” in Isaiah 11:6–9 and 65:25, of divine judgment as a stumbling stone and snare in Isaiah 8:15 and 28:13, and of the joyful return to Zion of the exiled in Isaiah 35:10 and 51:11. These and additional textual details have been cited in support of either authorial or editorial unity, but there is no compelling reason to prefer the latter in exclusion of the former.⁵

4. Speaking to the wrong audience
We noted above the objection that Isaiah 40–66 addresses a future exilic audience regarding their imminent return from Babylon, as permitted by Cyrus, as well as announces God’s coming judgment against Babylon—something the eighth-century prophet would not do. A strong case can be made, however, that it was very appropriate for Isaiah to address his exiled fellow citizens. During King Hezekiah’s reign over Judah, Assyria had conquered the capital city of Samaria and exiled the leading citizens of the Northern Kingdom, Israel. They had also invaded and conquered much of Judah (see 2 Kings 18:9–13). The Assyrian King Sennacherib boasts of having conquered 46 fortified cities of Judah and taken 200,150 prisoners of war.⁶ So it clearly was fitting to address the exiled Israelites’ concerns. And since the King of Babylon, Merodach-Baladan (721–710 and 703), is mentioned in Isaiah 39:1 and the coming conquest of Jerusalem by Babylon is announced in Isaiah 39:6–7, it was fitting for Isaiah to speak of Babylon’s future, as well. It is also noteworthy that chapters 40– 55 retain throughout a “Palestine” perspective with no references to typical Babylonian flora, fauna, or topography, which makes sense if the prophet speaking in these chapters is located in Jerusalem.

5. A disorderly sequence
With regard to Merodach-Baladan, scholars have noted that the historical events of Isaiah 38–39 (Hezekiah’s illness, recovery, and visit by a delegation from Babylon) actually precede those of Isaiah 36–37 (Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem and withdrawal; see especially Isaiah 38:6).⁷ This observation prompts one to ask: Why would these chapters be arranged in nonchronological order? These chapters also occur in nonchronological order in 2 Kings 18–20 where there is no obvious explanation for this arrangement. One possibility is that the author/editor used the reference to the upcoming Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem in Isaiah 39:1 to help signal the transition from an emphasis on the Assyrian period (in Isaiah 1–39) to an emphasis on the period of Babylonian domination (in Isaiah 40–55). This would only make sense, however, if the section composed of Isaiah 40–55 (or 40–66) was already in existence when Isaiah 36–39 was included in the book, rather than being composed more than a century and a half later. It is unlikely, moreover, that chapters 36–39 would not be added to the book until that later time, since they are essential to concluding the theme of the Assyrian threat which dominates the first section of the book of Isaiah. ⁸

What Difference Does It Make?———-

I find the preceding arguments a sufficient basis for holding to a traditional view of the prophet Isaiah as the primary or even the sole source of the prophecies and the narratives (i.e., Isaiah 36–39; see 2 Chronicles 26:22 and 32:32) contained in the book of Isaiah. At the same time, I acknowledge that the book itself never claims that Isaiah is the sole author of the book and that many sincere Christian scholars understand the book’s compositional history very differently. The viewpoint that I have been defending here, however, takes the book’s title (Isa 1:1) and the New Testament witness seriously and seeks to avoid determining in advance what God could and could not communicate to his servants, the prophets, or the degree to which these prophets could address both the near and distant future. If one is convinced that Isaiah spoke of the righteous reign of David’s greatest son (see Isaiah 9 and 11) and God’s salvation-bringing Servant (see especially Isa. 49:1–13, 50:4–11, and 52:13–
53:12), whom the New Testament identifies as Jesus Christ, one is less surprised that he would also speak of Israel’s future political deliverer, the Persian king Cyrus.⁹

Richard Schultz is Carl Armerding and Hudson T. Armerding Professor of Biblical Studies at Wheaton College. He is the author of numerous scholarly articles on
the Old Testament, including the book of Isaiah, and is the author of the book, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets (Sheffield).

Notes
1 Oswald T. Allis, The Unity of Isaiah: A Study in Prophecy (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1974), 43.
2 Literally “my instructed ones,” this word usually is translated as “my disciples,” but compare the use of the same Hebrew adjective in Isaiah 50:4 and 54:13.
3 Another early Jewish text that is cited frequently in support of the unity of Isaiah is the Great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran which leaves three empty lines
between Isaiah 33 and 34 rather than between 39 and 40, where one might expect the gap instead if Second Isaiah begins with chapter 40. Most historical-critical scholars, however, also attribute Isaiah 34–35 and 36–39 to authors later than Isaiah of Jerusalem.
4 A thorough listing of these New Testament texts and clear defense of the evidential value are given by G. K. Beale, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), Chap.
5 “A Specific Problem Confronting the Authority of the Bible: Should the New Testament’s Claim That the Prophet Isaiah Wrote the Whole Book of Isaiah Be Taken at Face Value?”⁵ I list fifty verbal parallels in R. L. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets (JSOTS 180; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 339–41. A number of detailed structural outlines of the book of Isaiah have been proposed as additional evidence of unity, but these are at odds
with each other and thus reduce their value as arguments.
6 According to the “Annals of Sennacherib,” V. H. Matthews and D. C. Benjamin, Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East (New York: Paulist, 2nd ed., 1997), 177–79.
7 Merodach-Baladan was no longer King of Babylon when Sennacherib laid siege to Jerusalem in 701B.C.
8 The significance of this order is discussed more fully by John H. Walton, “New Observations on the Date of Isaiah” JETS 28 (1985): 129–32.
9 See further R. L. Schultz, “How many ‘Isaiahs’ were there and what does it matter? Prophetic Inspiration in Recent Evangelical Scholarship” in V. Bacote, L. Miguelez, and D. Okholm, eds. Scripture in the Evangelical Tradition: Tradition, Authority, and Hermeneutics (Downers Grove: IVP, 2004), 150–70; “Isaiah,” in K. J. Vanhoozer, gen. ed., Theological Interpretation of the Old Testament: A Book-by-Book Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007),194–210; and “Isaiah, Isaiahs and Current Scholarship” in J. K. Hoffmeier and D. R. Magary, eds., The Bible and the Academy: Critical Scholarship and the Evangelical Understanding of Scripture in the 21st Century (Wheaton: Crossway, forthcoming February 2012).

(First published in Areopagus Journal Vol. 12 No. 2 – Who Wrote the Bible?)