Isaiah: Authorship, Canonicity

Isaiah
with Lee Campbell previous page

Week 2: Authorship, canonicity and chapters 1-16

Authorship of Isaiah

In spite of the lack of concrete evidence that any part of Isaiah ever existed without any other part as far back as the 200’s BC, the dogma of most scholarship today is that two or more individuals authored Isaiah. This perspective arose, most notably in the deistic^[1] climate of 18^th century Europe. J. C. Doederlein, one of the earliest to argue for a second author,^[2] said explicitly that since Isaiah could not have forseen the fall of Jerusalem, the 70 year captivity, the return or Cyrus, Isaiah could not have written those chapters making such claims (e.g. chapters 40-66). Since this time, others have advanced arguments in support of dual or even multiple authorship. Others have argued for one author, Isaiah. These arguments fall into the following categories:

In support of multiple authorship.

Against multiple authorship.

Supernaturalism is preposterous.

The Cyrus prophecies tax credibility (c.f. 41:2-5 thru 48:14)

Anti-supernaturalism is entirely apriori

This is not the only example of a name prophecy (c.f. Josiah, 3 centuries ahead, 1Ki.13:2; Bethlehem, 7 centuries ahead, Mi.5:2); The Cyrus passages are so many in Isaiah, 2Chr.36:23 and Ezra 1:2 that critics must argue on this basis alone for extensive redaction; why refer to him as a foreign pagan (45:5/46:11) without explaining his nationality, if he was well known to Deutero-Isaiah?

The value of Isaiah falls apart for much of it focuses on the greatness and authenticity of Yaweh because, unlike other gods, he can predict the future (41:21-24)

This argument proves too much, for if these prophecies are actually contemporary recollections then so are the messianic prophecies in 53, which provably precede Christ by at least 2 centuries; this forces the critic to reject them as messianic prophecies in spite of their specificity and even though NT authors view them as messianic (c.f. Mk.15:28; Lk.22:37; Acts 8:35; 1Pet.2:22)

This anti-supernaturalistic bent doesn’t stand up well to the many specific and fulfilled prophecies (e.g. Daniel 9/Ps.22).

Differences in language and style argue for multiple authors.

Radday’s The Unity of Isaiah in the Light of Statistical Linguistics. showed that the variations in Isaiah are so strong as to prove multiple authorship

There is a radical change of style between chs. 1-39 and 40-66; the latter are much more lyrical and lofty in tone.

Other prophets do not address their future audience, yet Isaiah does in chapters 40-55, which are set 150 years after Isaiah’s death, and in chapters 56-66 which are set 200 years after Isaiah’s death

These analyses are subjective.

The whole enterprise of linguistic analysis is subjective analysis masking as objective analysis; These methods cannot accommodate variations in an author’s writing over the course of his life, variations due to differing subject matter or variations due to shifts in the authorial perspective; Radday’s analysis divides the text into pieces that are unacceptable to scholars for other reasons (e.g. it places 23-35 with the first part of the book; it combines 49-66 rather than 40-48 as a linguistic unit); other analysts have applied these methods to Isaiah and gotten entirely different results; Radday’s analysis that Genesis had a single author is unacceptable to the same scholars.

Remember that Isaiah's perspective changes from times where he will be alive to times where he will be dead; he could have used a secretary, particularly when he was an older man, the topic changes to a conciliatory tone over the judgment of Judah, it's return and the eternal reign of God.

If the criteria for subdividing Isaiah is so clear, why is there so little agreement between scholars about how the book should be divided up--one is left with the impression that the criticisms are highly subjective

This is rare but not unheard of (Ez.37-48; Dan.7-11; Zech.8-13 and shorter portions of other prophetic books).

The unity of the text argues for an Isaiah school.

An Isaiah school must have existed, from which Isaiah II and later an Isaiah III.

The unity of the text argues for a single Palestinian author.

The only supposed evidence for this school is the unity of Isaiah but this is what the critics are trying to prove; how can the differences be used to argue for multiple authors and the unity also be used to argue for multiple authors--it’s apparent that many of these arguments are substantially post hoc;

The entire book appears to have been written from a Palestinian perspective (40-66 are rocky, mountainous and full of Palestinian flora/fauna, yet Babylon is alleuvial)

The use of Holy one of Israel 13 times in chs.1-39, 13 times in 40-66 and only 7 times in the rest of the Bible.; Margalioth has shown many phrases which appear in both parts of the book but only rarely elsewhere;^[3] Young has shown numerous concepts that appear throughout Isaiah but rarely elsewhere;^[4] the unity of thought can be seen through comprehensive inductive studies ^[5]

All chapters are written in pure Hebrew w/o Aramaisms or Babylonian terms both of which characterize known post-exilic books;

Isaiah’s use of the prophetic perfect verb tense is a marked stylistic trait throughout the book (5:13; 8:23; 9:1-7; 10:28-31; 41:25; 45:13; 53:1-12)--future events were essentially accomplished in the purposes of God

The New Testament holds to one author

See the appendix, New Testament Citations from Isaiah

Jewish tradition holds for one author.^[6]

Later prophets (Nahum 1:15--Isa.52:7; Zeph. 2:15--Isa.47:8, 10);

see the next section entitled, Canonicity

LXX has one heading for the entire book;

Josephus holds to one author;

silence from the Qumran community about the supposed multiple authorship and

rabbinic tradition up to the emergence of rationalistic critical approaches holds to one author.

Canonicity

190 BC, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) refers to Isaiah as having comforted the people and predicted the future (Sirach 48:24; Isa.40:1/61:1,2)

100 BC, Isaiah was copied by the Qumran community

The Qumran copies and other available texts are essentially identical

Many NT references to Isaiah.^[7]

Historical events in fulfillment of the predictions herein (41:21ff; 44:6f; 45:21; 46:10; 48:5f)

An Overview of Chapters 1-16

Selected textual notes

Chapter 1:1

This format, "The word of the Lord/oracle/vision which came to the prophet/the prophet saw at such and such a time," is like that of all the prophets except Ezekiel, Jonah, Haggai and Zechariah.

"Isaiah" "Yahweh saves" or "Yahweh has wrought salvation"

"son of Amoz" Jewish tradition holds that Amoz was Uzziah’s uncle (i.e. Amaziah’s brother). At least, the naming of his father implies that he was from a prominent family.

"...concerning Judah and Jerusalem" Clearly, much more is discussed but the context and object of Isaiah’s ministry was Judah.

Chapter 6
Why is chapter six where it is? At least two possibilities exist:

The passages are recorded chronologically and this is when God’s commission occurred in the narrative. Thus the earlier chapters reflect earlier revelations of Isaiah prior to his vision.

The passages are not, necessarily, recorded chronologically. Thus the vision is placed after the first five chapters for literary and logical reasons (i.e. to set up the context for Isaiah’s commission.)

6:11-13; This is an important passage b/c it is indisputably written by Isaiah and b/c it makes a prediction over 150 years in advance…the very reason that the anti-supernaturalists reject so much of the rest of Isaiah as authentic.

vv. 11-12 say that Judah will be devastated and depopulated; something that happened over 150 years after Isaiah.

v. 13 says literally, "but [there will] still be a tenth-part in it [i.e. the exiled people] and it will return [w^esabah] and it will be for burning [i.e. subjected to fiery trials], like a terebinth or like an oak, which in [their] felling [still have] a root-stump in them, a holy seed [shall be] its root-stump."

w^esabah is held to mean "again" by higher critics meaning, "and it will again be subject to burning" thus eliminating the interpretation "it shall return" from the verb sub "to return"; this dampens the prediction but fails to eliminate it.

However, these analysts have failed to translate w^esabah properly because three verses later he gives his firstborn son the name "a remnant shall return," which is what Shear-jashub means, a translation that no critic denies; where else would he come up with such a name if not from 6:13? The same verb, sub is used in 6:13 and in 7:3.

Thus, vaticinium ex eventu - prophecy after the fulfillment, the driving principle in higher criticism is defeated

Chapter 7:14-17

Isaiah is challenging Ahaz to trust God rather than Assyria by permitting him to name a sign that Isaiah’s revelation from God is trustworthy but Ahaz is already committed and in false piety, says he will not put God to the test. John Wesley said, "If a man will not believe God, he will believe anything." Ahaz’s unbelief is so strong he will not permit proof of its falseness.

House of David....the Lord himself will give you a sign. "you" is plural until verse 16 when Ahaz himself is addressed.

"sign" a signal with supernatural elements; this sign touches on the Davidic covenant--how it will be fulfilled.

alma = maid or young woman but it always means an unmarried woman; bethshira = a technical term for a virgin but it is occasionally used of a married woman (Joel 1:18; Deut.22); alma is actually a better choice for a prophetic double reference.

Young says that in cognate languages (e.g. Ugaritic, Syriac and Arabic) alma is used to mean virgin and in fact, the earliest LXX translates it as parthenos the definitive Greek word for virgin.

Rabbinic commentary on this passage is interesting:

Rasheeth says, "Behold the almah...the girl will be one who has never had intercourse"

In the Talmud, Rabbi Humni in the name of Rabbi Joshua writes, "This is messiah of whom it is said, this day I have begotten you"

A real challenge with this passage is its connection with Ahaz’s time when it appears to refer to Christ. This is an apparent prophetic double-reference. The early reference appears to be to Mahershalalhashbaz (8:1-4). If the passage refers to the childs mental capacity, then it concerns the destruction of Syria in 3 years. If the passage refers to the childs moral capacity, then it concerns the destruction of Israel 12 years hence. Both fit the passage.

Major themes

Judah and Israel are incorrigibly rebellious--they will not trust God.

God is sovereign and will judge all rebellious nations.

A remnant of Judah will return after God’s judgment.

A messiah will arise with features both human and God-like.

A Suggested Outline for the Book

God’s complaint with his people.

The author is introduced (1:1)

Israel’s Problem (1:2-9)

God’s Desire for Israel (1:10-20)

God’s Response to Israel’s Rebellion (1:21-31)

God’s Predictions about Israel (2:1-5:30)

Isaiah is commissioned by God.

Isaiah’s vision and commission (6:1-13)

God challenges: Rely on me alone.

A case study: Ahaz’s faith in Assyria

God will use Assyria to judge yet he should be trusted (7:1-9:6)

God’s standards of morality are violated by Israel (9:7-10:4)

God has control of his own judgment (10:5-12:6)

God is the judge of all the nations

God judges all peoples when they rebel against him (13:1-18)

Babylon (13:19-14:23)

Assyria (14:24-27)

Philistia (14:28-32)

Moab (15:1-16:14)

Syria & Ephraim (17:1-11)

Reprise: God is the judge of all nations (17:12-18:7)

Egypt (19:1-20:6)

Reprise: God’s judgment upon Babylon and her allies (21:1-22:25)

God is triumphant over the nations (24:1-27:13)

So, it is foolish to trust the nations (28:1-34:4)

Edom (34:5-35:10)

A case study: Hezekiah’s faith in God (36:1-39:8)

God will restore Judah and put an end to sin.Chapters 40-48

He will do so in the person of the ‘servant.’ Chapters 49-55

The future of these redeemed will be glorious Chapters 56-66

Homework assignment

Read and annotate Isaiah 17-39.

Memorize 26:3-4; 30:18-21

Prepare answers for the following:

Explain the Immanuel prophecy, thoroughly. Include references.

List 5 reasons why Chapter 14 is not about Satan?

Consider chapters 1-39. Name 5 qualities of human beings and 5 qualities of God. Include citations of each characteristic.

previous page

Notes

^[1] Deism is quite antagonistic to the notion of supernatural intervention and hence to the idea that Isaiah could have foretold the future. Return to Text

^[2] This second author was referred to as Deutero-Isaiah. Return to Text

^[3] The Indivisible Isaiah, New York: Yeshiva University, 1964. Return to Text

^[4] Who wrote Isaiah?, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958, pp.58-60? Return to Text

^[5] The Book of Isaiah. Chapters 1-39, John N. Oswalt, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986, pp.17-23; specifically the central theme of the nature and destiny of the people of God; the topic of trusting God; the means by which God will satisfy his covenant promises to Abraham, Moses and David, etc.. Return to Text

^[6] O.T. Allis, The Unity of Isaiah, Presbyterian Reformed, 1950. Return to Text

^[7] See the appendix, New Testament Citations from Isaiah. Return to Text

1340 Community Park Dr., Columbus OH 43229 (614) 823-6500
Send questions or feedback to webmaster@xenos.org

©2008 Xenos Christian Fellowship (See our usage guidelines.)

In support of multiple authorship.	Against multiple authorship.
Supernaturalism is preposterous. The Cyrus prophecies tax credibility (c.f. 41:2-5 thru 48:14)	Anti-supernaturalism is entirely apriori This is not the only example of a name prophecy (c.f. Josiah, 3 centuries ahead, 1Ki.13:2; Bethlehem, 7 centuries ahead, Mi.5:2); The Cyrus passages are so many in Isaiah, 2Chr.36:23 and Ezra 1:2 that critics must argue on this basis alone for extensive redaction; why refer to him as a foreign pagan (45:5/46:11) without explaining his nationality, if he was well known to Deutero-Isaiah? The value of Isaiah falls apart for much of it focuses on the greatness and authenticity of Yaweh because, unlike other gods, he can predict the future (41:21-24) This argument proves too much, for if these prophecies are actually contemporary recollections then so are the messianic prophecies in 53, which provably precede Christ by at least 2 centuries; this forces the critic to reject them as messianic prophecies in spite of their specificity and even though NT authors view them as messianic (c.f. Mk.15:28; Lk.22:37; Acts 8:35; 1Pet.2:22) This anti-supernaturalistic bent doesn’t stand up well to the many specific and fulfilled prophecies (e.g. Daniel 9/Ps.22).
Differences in language and style argue for multiple authors. Radday’s The Unity of Isaiah in the Light of Statistical Linguistics. showed that the variations in Isaiah are so strong as to prove multiple authorship There is a radical change of style between chs. 1-39 and 40-66; the latter are much more lyrical and lofty in tone. Other prophets do not address their future audience, yet Isaiah does in chapters 40-55, which are set 150 years after Isaiah’s death, and in chapters 56-66 which are set 200 years after Isaiah’s death	These analyses are subjective. The whole enterprise of linguistic analysis is subjective analysis masking as objective analysis; These methods cannot accommodate variations in an author’s writing over the course of his life, variations due to differing subject matter or variations due to shifts in the authorial perspective; Radday’s analysis divides the text into pieces that are unacceptable to scholars for other reasons (e.g. it places 23-35 with the first part of the book; it combines 49-66 rather than 40-48 as a linguistic unit); other analysts have applied these methods to Isaiah and gotten entirely different results; Radday’s analysis that Genesis had a single author is unacceptable to the same scholars. Remember that Isaiah's perspective changes from times where he will be alive to times where he will be dead; he could have used a secretary, particularly when he was an older man, the topic changes to a conciliatory tone over the judgment of Judah, it's return and the eternal reign of God. If the criteria for subdividing Isaiah is so clear, why is there so little agreement between scholars about how the book should be divided up--one is left with the impression that the criticisms are highly subjective This is rare but not unheard of (Ez.37-48; Dan.7-11; Zech.8-13 and shorter portions of other prophetic books).
The unity of the text argues for an Isaiah school. An Isaiah school must have existed, from which Isaiah II and later an Isaiah III.	The unity of the text argues for a single Palestinian author. The only supposed evidence for this school is the unity of Isaiah but this is what the critics are trying to prove; how can the differences be used to argue for multiple authors and the unity also be used to argue for multiple authors--it’s apparent that many of these arguments are substantially post hoc; The entire book appears to have been written from a Palestinian perspective (40-66 are rocky, mountainous and full of Palestinian flora/fauna, yet Babylon is alleuvial) The use of Holy one of Israel 13 times in chs.1-39, 13 times in 40-66 and only 7 times in the rest of the Bible.; Margalioth has shown many phrases which appear in both parts of the book but only rarely elsewhere;^[3] Young has shown numerous concepts that appear throughout Isaiah but rarely elsewhere;^[4] the unity of thought can be seen through comprehensive inductive studies ^[5] All chapters are written in pure Hebrew w/o Aramaisms or Babylonian terms both of which characterize known post-exilic books; Isaiah’s use of the prophetic perfect verb tense is a marked stylistic trait throughout the book (5:13; 8:23; 9:1-7; 10:28-31; 41:25; 45:13; 53:1-12)--future events were essentially accomplished in the purposes of God
	The New Testament holds to one author See the appendix, New Testament Citations from Isaiah
	Jewish tradition holds for one author.^[6] Later prophets (Nahum 1:15--Isa.52:7; Zeph. 2:15--Isa.47:8, 10); see the next section entitled, Canonicity LXX has one heading for the entire book; Josephus holds to one author; silence from the Qumran community about the supposed multiple authorship and rabbinic tradition up to the emergence of rationalistic critical approaches holds to one author.