The Unity of Isaiah

© 2007 K. Dayton Hartman II

The Critical View: Guiding Principle

Predictive prophecy is impossible “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.” – A.B. Davidson

The Critical View: 3 Objections Anti-supernaturalism 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.

“The critical position runs parallel to the rise of anti-supernaturalism among European philosophers.” – Liberty Bible Commentary

The Critical View: 3 Objections “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.” – O.T. Allis

The Critical View: 3 Objections Literary Criticism The common critic will note the seeming

literary 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”).

The Critical View: 3 Objections 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.

A single author therefore did not write Isaiah.

The Critical View: 3 Objections Theological Criticism 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 Critical View: Summary 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 Witness

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 Case for Unity: The Historical Witness

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 Case for Unity: The Historical Witness 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.”

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.

The Case for Unity: The Historical Witness 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.

“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…” Antiquities of the Jews XI. i.2.

The Case for Unity: The Historical Witness 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.

The Case for Unity: The Historical Witness

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.”

This is the oldest existing manuscript.

The Case for Unity: The Historical Witness 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.” –Norman L. Geisler

“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.” – Edward J. Young

The Case for Unity: The Historical Witness “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.” – Edward Young

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 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.” 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.”

The Case for Unity: The Literary Witness 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.

“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.” – Gleason Archer

The Case for Unity: The Literary Witness Chapters 1-39 1:15b—“Your hands are full of

blood.” 28:5—“In that day the Lord

Almighty will be a glorious crown, a beautiful wreath for the remnant of his people.”

35:6b—“Water will gush forth in the wilderness and streams in the desert.”

Chapters 40-66 59:3a—“For your hands are

defiled with blood.” 62:3—“You will be a crown of

splendor in the Lord’s hand, a royal diadem in the hand of your God.”

41:18—“I will make rivers flow on barren heights, and springs within the valleys. I will turn the desert into pools of water, and the parched ground into springs.”

The Case for Unity: The Literary Witness

Isaiah consistently declares God is sovereign (24:1-3, 37:15-20; 48:8-11)

Isaiah frequently puts forward God’s holiness throughout his writing (2:11-18, 37:23-25; 66:1-3)

The Case for Unity: The Literary Witness 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 N.T. Witness “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.” – O.T. Allis

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 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.

The Case for Unity: The N.T. Witness

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.

The Case for Unity: The N.T. Witness 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...”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.

Luke’s record of Christ’s explanation of the passage in verse 21 reads: “…He began by saying to them, Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." 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.

The Case for Unity: The N.T. Witness Paul, in the book of Romans alone quotes

from the prophet a total of five times, spanning the entire book of Isaiah! 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)

Based on this information alone we can have absolute assurance that Paul believed firmly in Isaianic authorship.

The Case for Unity: The N.T. Witness

O.T. Allis summarized the New Testament witness this way: “Such evidence indicates with sufficient clearness that none of the New Testament writers dreamt that the name Isaiah was of doubtful or ambiguous meaning.”

Conclusion For the critics to prove their case they must

overcome all of the following: Their own lack of historical evidence for dual

authorship. The lack of manuscript support for their position.

(There are zero manuscripts that present Isaiah as two separate books)

The literary and theological balance of the book. The witness of Christ and the N.T. authors.

Conclusion After reviewing the evidence, we are left

with only two options: 1. 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.

2. We side with the critics.

Conclusion If we side with the critics we are: 1. Denying the overwhelming evidence in

favor of the conservative position. 2. Denying the inspiration of the Holy Spirit

in the writing of the New Testament. Making the Messiah into a fallible man.

Resources “The Book of Isaiah”

by Dr. Edward Young

“The Unity of Isaiah” by Oswald T. Allis