THE AUTHORSHIP AND UNITY OF ISAIAH

A Paper Submitted to Wayne W. Poplin

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

OBST 592

Liberty Theological Seminary

By

Rick Mangrum

Lynchburg, Virginia

Sunday, August 14, 2011

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1

DEFINITIONS AND OUTLINE------------------------------------------------------------------------1

BACKGROUND OF ISAIAH THE MAN------------------------------------------------------------3

OUTLINE OF ISAIAH THE BOOK-------------------------------------------------------------------5

SUPPORT FOR MULTIPLE WRITERS--------------------------------------------------------------7

SUPPORT FOR A SINGLE WRITER----------------------------------------------------------------13

CONCLUSION-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------22

SUMMARY-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------23

BIBLIOGRAPHY----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------24

INTRODUCTION

For the next few pages, this work will briefly examine the Old Testament book of Isaiah

and questions of its authorship. As with other books of the Bible there are differences of opinion

among Christian scholars as to who or how many writers created this book. This paper will

examine different points of view and attempt to answer the question of who wrote Isaiah. There

will also be a presentation of the importance of this question and the implications of the

alternative answers. In no way is this work presented as an exhaustive summary of this subject.

The research, publishing, and discussion of this topic are vast and diverse, spanning almost two

hundred years of scholarly effort. There are significant points of summary that can be defined in

the next few pages that hopefully will lead the reader to a greater curiosity.

DEFINITIONS AND OUTLINE

To establish the potential authorship and unity of any work, a definition of both unity and

authorship is in order. Authorship is defined as a “reference to the creator of a work.”1 Unity is

“the state of being one, a whole or totality as combining all its parts into one.”2 The question

addressed is who created Isaiah and was it created as one unit by one writer or as one or more

units by more than one writer. In examining biblical writings for unity, one should also consider

the “thematic and intertextual unity”3 of a work. For a work to have the quality of unity it should

have a common structure that gives context to all the individual parts. In short, it should all fit

together with a cohesive message.

1 Dictionary.com Website. < http://www.dictionary.com.html>, (Accessed July 25, 2011).

2Ibid.

3David Carr, “Reaching for Unity in Isaiah”, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, (March 1993): 62.

2

To the modern student of the Bible the unity of Isaiah may not seem an open question.

Isaiah is one book in all modern Bibles. For most of recorded biblical history it was considered

one work by one writer. It was translated in the Greek Septuagint as one book, into the Syriac

version of the Bible, the Peshitta, as one book and into the Aramaic version, the Targum, as one

book.4 In 1947 when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, two separate but almost identical

versions of the Hebrew texts found also presented Isaiah as one unit. In fact, the 1QIs scroll is

virtually identical to the Masorite Text upon which all modern Bibles are based.5 The first

serious challenge to Isaiah’s authorship of this book came in 1789, after the previously

mentioned biblical versions but prior to the discovery in Qumran of the scrolls. Although the

discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls seemed to many to answer the question of authorship and

unity, it is still an open point of discussion in scholarly Christian circles, based in part on the

publications and work on this question that began to appear in the late seventeen hundreds.

Other than scholarly debate the importance of this question may be challenged by some.

It is a question that goes far beyond the academic exercise of proving a theory. If Isaiah was

written my more than one person, it contradicts many passages in the Bible that follow it. If in

fact, Isaiah is not the one and only writer of this book the very authority of the New Testament

comes into question. Isaiah is mentioned as the writer of this book in the New Testament

twenty-one times.6 In Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts and Romans, Isaiah is specifically

4M.W.J. Phelan, The Integrity of the Book of Isaiah: New Evidence of Single Authorship (Waterloo, IA: Twoedge Sword Publications, 2005), p9.

5Ibid.

6Ibid., p10.

3

named as the writer of the Old Testament work. If there was indeed more than one writer,

someone other than Isaiah who wrote part of the work the authority of New Testament scripture

is fully in question.

In addition to direct references to Isaiah as the writer of the book the book itself is

referred to at least eighty-seven other times in the New Testament.7 Jude is the only New

Testament writer to avoid the mention of Isaiah the writer or Isaiah the book. The question of the

authorship and unity of Isaiah can clearly be defined as an important issue for any student of the

Bible to understand. To be gained from the study of this question is an understanding of the

nature of biblical authority itself.

In the work that follows, first Isaiah and man and Isaiah the book will be examined. The

background of the man as well as the structure of the book will be discussed. Then both the

multiple and single writer positions and their support will be examined. Finally the conclusions

of this writer will be presented. This is an exciting journey of learning examining one of biblical

scholarship’s most important questions!

BACKGROUND OF ISAIAH THE MAN

As we discuss the authorship of the book that bears his name we should consider the man

himself. Isaiah ben Amoz was a Judean probably from Jerusalem. He was a member of a very

well-known and distinguished family.8 Often in the Old Testament the father of a biblical figure

is mentioned in scripture to give that figure credibility to the present day readers of the text. The

7Ibid., p20.

8Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1994), p365.

4

inclusion of his father’s name in Isaiah 1:1 indicates that linking him to his father Amoz would

give him that credibility.9 He was on familiar terms with the court of King Ahaz so was likely

raised among others associated with the King. His writing indicates that he was a “well educated

student of international affairs.”10 His mission from God was to oppose to the people affiliations

and alliances with foreign powers. This would put him at odds with most of the society of Israel

who believed at that time that the path to prosperity and security was to align Israel with

powerful neighbors such as Assyria or Egypt.11

His ministry started with the death of King Uzziah and lasted through the reigns of at

least three other Kings: Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah. As God’s prophet, he exerted influence and

had the ear of not just the King but the people as well. He was well respected and regarded as a

religious authority, despite the fact that most Israelites would chose to ignore his guidance with

“theirs ears dull”12 to his message.

When Hezekiah died and handed the thrown to his son Manasseh, Isaiah’s days of

influence to the King would end. Eventually because of his outspokenness against the path of

the current government and his support from the people, tradition holds that he was killed by

Manasseh by being placed in a hollow log and the log sawed in half.13

9New American Standard Bible, p937.

10Alger, p365.

11Ibid., p366.

12New American Standard Bible, p945.

13Alger, p366.

5

How the life of the man relates to the question of the authorship of the book is indirect

and not supported by any clear evidence. It is logical that the writer of the book of Isaiah was

someone clearly in touch with the current state of the people. The first portion of Isaiah, as will

be detailed in the next section of this paper, dealt with the current state of Israel and God’s

coming judgment. Isaiah’s knowledge of the culture and current affairs would aid in writing this

part of the book.

The second half of Isaiah is what is in question as to authorship and will also be

discussed in the next section. Isaiah’s detailed knowledge of world affairs, of the neighboring

nations of Israel would have been invaluable in understanding and prophesying the future years

as are done in the second half is Isaiah. God can give prophecy to anyone, educated in a subject

or ignorant of it. There are also many examples of biblical writers who used their personal lives

and background to support their writing. Hosea’s marriage experiences created the background

for his writing for example. The background and life of Isaiah do at least indirectly align with

the content of the entire book. At the very least, there are no conflicts with the man and the

work.

OUTLINE OF ISAIAH THE BOOK

Understanding the structure of the book of Isaiah will aid in the discussion of the

authorship of all or part of it. There are as many interpretations of the outline of this book as

there are scholars writing on the subject. Alger’s outline has been chosen for this discussion.14

He divides Isaiah into eight sections or volumes. Volumes one to seven are the chapters

14Ibid., p363.

6

commonly referred to as Proto or First Isaiah. Volume eight is Deutero or Second Isaiah.

In Volume One to Volume Six the writer details the present day rebellion and coming

judgment for that behavior. There is a high level of symmetry or consistency in the content

within each of these volumes. Four of the Volumes contain four sermons on similar subjects.

All of the first six volumes speak plainly to the behavior of Israel and certainty of the coming

judgment. Volume Seven is the Volume of Hezekiah, detailing key events in the life of this

King, ending with a clear prophecy of the coming captivity in Babylon. Volumes One to Seven

contain chapters 1-39.

Alger puts Deutero Isaiah, chapters 40-66, in one volume. As do many scholars, he refers

to this section as the Volume of Comfort.15 There are three distinct parts, each dealing with an

aspect of peace that will be coming to Israel in their future. The three aspects of peace are the

purpose of peace, the Prince of Peach and the program of peach. Each part is very symmetrical

to the others, beginning and ending with very similar pattern. Each part deals with its aspect of

peach from a perspective of theology, soteriology and eschatology. It is clear that Alger’s point

of view is that Deutero Isaiah was written by one writer based on the style and structure of the

volume within itself.

Although there are many different perspectives on the structure of Isaiah, most scholarly

sources agree with Alger in grouping chapters 40-66 into a single unit. Each of the sources cited

in this work separate chapters 1-39 into different outlines. Alger’s was the most appealing to this

writer but all are substantial in their biblical support. There are some scholars who divide

15Ibid, p364.

7

chapters 40-66 into two units but that is a minority opinion that will be examined in the next

section. From the detail examined so far, it is clear that the idea of at least two significant

portions of the book of Isaiah is generally accepted. The number of writers is the next

discussion.

In addition to outlines for the book of Isaiah based on content there is also a clear

historical timeline. Books 1-39 clearly show the historical periods between 745 BC and 539 BC,

the Assyrian and Babylonian periods of Israel’s history. Chapters 40-66 clearly detail the

Persian period from approximately 559 BC to 490 BC.16 Again a clear division between two parts

of this book and not a clear indicator of one or more than one writers but more support for the

question at hand.

SUPPORT FOR MULTIPLE WRITERS

The question of the writer of Isaiah became a topic of discussion in the late eighteenth

century. Parts of society began to embrace deism, the belief either in God as is present only in

nature or a belief in God who created the world, then became indifferent to it.17 If God was

indifferent to the Earth after its creation then he had no part in it or the lives of its peoples as they

were recorded in the Old Testament. Under this line of logic there could be no supernatural

occurrences or influences in the Bible. Isaiah could not possibly have written the second half of

the book that bears his name since its events did not occur until many years after his death. This

16Thomas V. Brisco, TheHolman Bible Atlas (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 1998), p141-145.

17 Dictionary.com Website. < http://www.dictionary.com.html>, (Accessed July 25, 2011).

8

part of the book must have been written by someone else who lived through the later events then

recorded them under Isaiah’s name. This led to many theories about the multiple writers of

Isaiah. Here is a brief summary of the stages of Isaianic criticism and the most commonly held

arguments for multiple writers.

STAGES OF ISAIANIC CRITICISM

The development of the criticism of Isaiah came in four distinct stages.18 The first scholar

to formally publish an argument for a sixth-century Isaiah, one written long after Isaiah’s death

was Johann C. Doederlein in 1789. He would be become the first of many highly respected

scholars to embrace this idea. He logically reasoned that Isaiah, living in the eighth-century

could not have possibly prophesied the fall of Jerusalem in 587 or the seventy years of captivity.

It certainly would have been impossible to predict the rule of Cyrus. Cyrus was prophesied in

the latter half of Isaiah and he was referred to by name and the details of his rule spelled out in

unmistakable terms. He was so persuasive and logical in his arguments that other scholars like

Eichorn followed his theories as well. His “Deutero-Isaiah” idea was not embraced by all

scholars but by many in that day.

The second phase of criticism grew from the first. Ernst Rosenmueller wrote that if the

writer of Isaiah 40-66 was someone who lived long after eighth-century Isaiah, then the writer of

chapters 13-14 must have been someone other than Isaiah as well.19 Those chapters show a

strong foreknowledge of the coming exile and could not have been written by Isaiah either.

18Alger, p366.

19Ibid., p368.

9

Building on the doubt of the first two stages, Bernard Dunn then added the idea of three

writers! His study concluded that based on the “geography, flora and fauna”20 found in the

second half of the book the writer of chapters 40-55 was someone from the Lebanon region and

chapters 56-66 came from a writer living in Jerusalem around the time of Ezra. As far as we

know, Isaiah never lived in Lebanon and was long dead by the days of Ezra. Once again, this

theory was not embraced by all of the scholarly community but added to the growing body of

work supporting the idea of multiple writers of this book.

The four stage of criticism of Isaiah came in the twentieth century by Charles Torrey.21

His theory was that there were clearly more than writer but the earlier scholars had the dates all

wrong. He proposed that Isaiah wrote chapters 1-33, and a different writer created 34-66 but the

latter chapters came from a writer in Palestine near the end of the fifth century. This writer was

not speaking about Israel at all but about the people of Palestine. He believed that the names of

Cyrus and places such as Babylon and Chaldea were incorrect translations of the original texts.

From the late eighteenth to early twentieth centuries the theories supporting more than

one writer of Isaiah grew in stature and in the number of followers. Now to examine their

conclusions.

20Ibid.

21Ibid.

10

ARGUMENTS FOR DIVISION OF SOURCES

Overall, the general grounds for supporting multiple writers for Isaiah focus on key

differences between chapters 1-39 and 40-66. These key differences are in time and subject

matter, in language and in style and in theological ideas.22

Arguments around the differences in time are easy to understand. There is a clear

difference in time perspective from the first to the second part of the book, from chapter 39 to

chapter 40. From the first verse of chapter 40 the focus moves from the current conditions in

Israel to the Babylonian Exile future prospects of returning home. This “futuristic”23 focus

continued through chapter 66. Such a forward view is rarely held for so long in biblical writing.

Differences in subject matter follow the differences in time. The focus of the latter books is on

the rule of and life under Cyrus, a king not yet known to anyone living in Isaiah’s day.

Another clear difference in subject matter in the second half is the focus on yet-to-be

fulfilled prophecy. In chapters 1-39 the focus was on already fulfilled predictions, a completely

different perspective than the later books. In time and in subject matter there are clear

differences between the first and second parts of the book.

Differences in language and style are a second type of key difference proponents of

multiple writers study and detail. Many, many studies of word counts and specific words used in

the first as compared to the second part of Isaiah have been created.24 Even proponents of the

22Ibid., p369.

23Ibid.

24J. Harold Thomas, “The Authorship of the Book of Isaiah”, Restoration Quarterly,(October 1965): p46-55.

11

unity of the book have pointed out these differences. Franz Delitzsch, a noted German

theologian of the late 1800’s believed firmly in one writer for Isaiah. He also documented many

terms found only in Isaiah and only in chapters 40-66 and published his findings in 1867.

Thomas Cheyne in his work of 1898 documented over two hundred terms and phrases from

chapters 40-66 not used a single time in the earlier chapters. W. Kay in his work from 1875 had

previously argued a similar point. To many who spend their lives in the study of words, the

second part of Isaiah truly seems written by a different person. There are also significant

differences in style. These are based largely on the base of words used as just described and the

subject matter differences in the first and second parts. Writers generally use the same phrases

or word combinations throughout their writing lives, especially in works completed in the same

general time frame. Proponents of multiple writers will point out that this is certainly not the

case in Isaiah. The style is very different from the first to second part. The subject matter of 40-

66 is also so vastly different that a different writing style is clearly present. The writer(s) moved

clearly from pessimism in 1-39 quickly to the optimistic future of 40-66. Differences in

language and style are parallel to those differences pointed out in time and subject matter. One

builds on the other.

Differences in theological ideas are the third most common foundation of support for

multiple writers. Deutero-Isaiah’s focus on the infinite nature of God and his “sovereign

relationship toward the heathen nations”25 is proposed as a key difference in theological ideas

from Proto-Isaiah. This is far different than the first part of Isaiah’s clear focus on the

25Alger, p384.

12

“Messianic King and faithful remnant.”26 While these two ideas are not in conflict they are very

different in their focus and direction. The change in direction comes between 39-40. As with

time and language, the personality of the second half of the book is truly different. There is an

easily seen “shift”27 between these two chapters. Theologically the focus of 1-39 is on “former”

things with the focus of 40-66 on “coming/new things.”28

Some scholars see the theological change in simple terms. Ronald Childs in his work of

1980 simply calls 1-39 as the “statement of judgment” and 40-66 as the “promise that supersedes

the judgment.”29 Although he sees the overall theme of Isaiah as judgment and promise and

supports the unity of the book, his work illustrates the differences in theological ideas between

the two parts of the book. Walter Brueggemann in his work from 1984 illustrates the theological

differences by describing the mood of the writer.30 Proto-Isaiah was written by a “pastoral poet”

acknowledging the pain, grief and suffering of his people, deserved or undeserved. Deutero-

Isaiah was written as the “salvation oracle”.31 R.E. Clements called the two parts of Isaiah the

books of “threat and hope.”32 The differences in theological ideas, simple or complicated are

there for the reader to clearly see.

26Ibid.

27Carr, p70.

28Ibid.

29Walter Brueggmann, “Unity and Dynamic in the Isaiah Tradition”, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament,(June 1984): p89.

30Ibid., p95.

31Ibid.

32Ronald E. Clements, “The Unity of the Book of Isaiah”, Interpretation,(April 1982): p121.

13

As discussed, since the first publication challenging the unity of Isaiah in 1789 through

modern works, the foundation and generally differences between different parts of the book are

well documented, researched and discussed. There is of course another side to this debate.

SUPPORT FOR A SINGLE WRITER

As earlier stated until the late eighteenth century it was generally accepted that Isaiah the

man was the sole writer of Isaiah the book. The scholarly arguments to the contrary are

interesting and well presented, accepted by many. The general support for a single writer, as

well as responses to the strongest arguments for multiple writers will make up this section. First

biblical evidence for the unity is Isaiah will be presented, responses to each stage of Isaianic

criticism will be presented followed by the arguments against the division of sources and finally

some additional support for the unity of Isaiah will be detailed.

BIBLICAL SUPPORT FOR THE UNITY OF ISAIAH

The authority of the New Testament is one of the most important and open issues arising

from the possibility of someone other than Isaiah writing the book. If there is just one writer

with someone other than Isaiah writing the book’s prophecies after the fact in the second half of

the book, then there is certainly little if any divine inspiration for Isaiah. It is just the work of a

man. Conversely, if Isaiah was written by Isaiah the man, prophesying many years before the

fact, then divine inspiration is indeed a part of the book. The New Testament is firm in its

position that this is the case. The support in the New Testament that Isaiah the book is the

divinely inspired word of God is as clear as black print on white paper.

14

In Phelan’s The Integrity of the Book of Isaiah the support of the divine inspiration of

Isaiah using New Testament scripture is a very small part of his presentation of the entire issue.

This small part of his book is found by this writer to be powerful and persuasive.33 Each part of

Isaiah is solidly referred to in the New Testament as being the divinely inspired word of God.

Proto-Isaiah referred to as the word of the Lord clearly in Matthew 1:22-23. In

referencing the words of Isaiah 8:8 where the coming Christ is called Immanuel,34 Matthew calls

this scripture “spoken by the Lord through the prophet.”35 Clearly those words in Isaiah were

inspired by God.

Deutero-Isaiah is also referred to as divinely inspired by Jesus himself in Acts as he

quoted from Isaiah 53.36 Jesus referred to this portion of Isaiah as “scripture.”37 Scripture is

biblically defined by Paul in II Timothy as “inspired by God.”38 Jesus, in carefully choosing his

words endorsed the latter part of Isaiah as divinely spired.

Even Trito-Isaiah, the last portion of Isaiah said to be written by a third Isaiah writer is

endorsed in the New Testament as divinely inspired. In quoting Isaiah 61 in Luke 4:19-21, Jesus

33Phelan, p27.

34New American Standard Bible, p948.

35Ibid., p1362.

36Phelan, p26.

37New American Standard Bible, p1615.

38Ibid., 1849

15

called the passage scripture, again endorsing it as inspired by God.39 The New Testament is

repeatedly firm in its support of Isaiah as divinely inspired in its entirety.

This biblical endorsement takes away the foundation of the multiple writer position. If

Isaiah is divinely inspired, Isaiah the man could certainly have prophesied the coming rule of

Cyrus as done in the second part of the book. This support in itself is enough for many to

support the unity of the book and validity of one writer. Let us also look at responses to the

strongest positions taken by multiple writer supports from those who support the unity of the

book.

RESPONSES TO THE FOUR STAGES OF CRITICISM

For each step in the gradual development of the criticism of the unity of Isaiah there was

a contemporary response. Starting with the first publication by Doederlein, his contemporary

scholar Heinrich Gesenius also published a counter-view.40 Gesenius argued that Isaiah was

completely unified in its writing. His view was that every major theme of the book were treated

in a uniform way using language that was strikingly similar from the first to the second half of

the book. His strong opinion was that Isaiah had one writer who lived around 540 B.C. His

arguments offset those of Doederlein step by step. Gesenius’s work also countered the work of

Rosenmueller who had argued that Isaiah 13-14 in addition to 40-66 was written by a second or

even third writer. Gesenius’s work argued that the consistent, uniform use of language and style

from the beginning to the end of Isaiah gave clear evidence of one writer.

39Ibid., 1487.

40Alger, p367.

16

Duhm’s work, based on the geography and physical characteristics of the land as

described in the latter part of Isaiah, presented as a much different context from the first half of

the book also did not go unanswered. Highly detailed work by Paul Caspari, Moritz Drechsler,

Heinrich Hahn and Franz Delitzsch all answered the challenges of Duhm and others.41 Their

work stated, among many other arguments that the general knowledge of Isaiah through his life-

long work near the court of the King was more than enough to give him a broad and detailed

perspective of the geography, flora and fauna of Israel. This perspective was shown particularly

by Isaiah in the latter half of the book creating just the controversy Duhm described. In short,

Isaiah was a wise and developed intellectual who was capable of writing of much more than just

the immediate characteristics of his home.

As Isaianic criticism grew and lived from its birth in the late eighteenth century, each step

in its development has been firmly met with a counter-argument, supporting the unity of Isaiah.

The logic and persuasiveness of each side is up to the reader to interpret. Let us now turn to the

opposing side of each critical argument for multiple writers.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST DIVISION OF SOURCES

Each significant argument for the division of sources has its opposing view. Differences

in time and subject matter have long been the most well developed and accepted support for the

idea of multiple writers for this book. The two characteristics go clearly together as the time

element of the rule of Cyrus in 40-66 becomes the subject matter of his rule. Proponents of

41Ibid., p368.

17

multiple writers would have you believe these two elements of the latter part of the book are

completely inconsistent with 1-39.

That really is not the case. There was some preparation for the prophecy of Cyrus in 1-

39.42 These earlier chapters really represent a “staircase”43 leading from the Assyrian to the

Chaldean period. The air of Isaiah’s day was filled with the threat of defeat and exile. Samaria

has already been dominated and captured by the Assyrians in 722 and an attempt to do the same

to Jerusalem was made by Sennacherib in 701. Isaiah was deliberate in 36-39 giving vivid

accounts of these two defeats of nations that earlier seemed invincible. In detail 38-39 clearly

show the real reason for the event of the coming Babylonian defeat, the “pride of Hezekiah in

displaying his wealth to the Babylonian envoys”44 who had visited him. Chapter 39 ends with a

clear transition or prediction of the coming exile.

Careful reading shows that 1-39, while dealing with the current events of Isaiah’s day

were really just leading the reader up the steps to the coming exile and domination of a foreign

ruler. The time frame and subject matter of the two parts of the book may seem different but one

gradually builds to the next. Isaiah 1-66 is a complete story from the current day of the writer to

the days certain to come.

Differences in style and language are another argument for the division of sources. Can a

single writer such such different literary styles and words in a single work? Examining the work

42Ibid., p374.

43Ibid.

44Ibid.

18

of another great writer can shed light on this question. In the life of Shakespeare, four very

distinct periods are present. Each shows a different set of literary styles and word usage. Careful

and detailed analysis of Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet may lead the reader to begin working on

the theory of the division of sources for Shakespeare’s work. Shakespeare’s style evolved and

developed with his aging. The same could easily be said for Isaiah. There are also many

similarities in style that run throughout the book.

For example, a rhythmic-poetic pattern runs throughout the entire book.45 The same

poetic meter patterns are found in chapters 12, 25, 26, 38, 42 , 49, 50, 52, 60 and 66. The same

“elegiac” patterns of rhythm are found in 14 and 37. If there were more than one writer, they

had a lot in common in terms of their overall writing styles. A single writer is much more likely.

There have been many scholarly papers on the specific word types and counts used and

not used in the two part of Isaiah. They are all very interesting and thought provoking. There

are just as many that tie the book together wholly instead of tearing it apart. There are at least

forty sentences and phrases common to both parts of Isaiah.46 “For the mouth of Yahweh hath

spoken it,”47 occurs in chapters 1, 40 and 58. That is just one of many examples. Many are very

interesting.

Unique to the entire Bible is the phrase “streams of water.”48 It is found in Isaiah 30:25

45Phelan, p33.

46Ibid., p382.

47Ibid.

48Phelan, p36.

19

and 44:4. It is very unlikely that two different writers with no collaboration would have used this

phrase completely unique to all scripture. “O Holy One of Israel” is a favorite phrase of the

book of Isaiah.49 It also appears once in II Kings, Psalms and Jeremiah. In Isaiah it is used

twenty-five times stretching from chapters 1-60, twelve times in 1-39 and thirteen times in 40-

66. It is very unlikely than more than one writer would use such a unique phrase throughout the

entire work. For every difference in style and language between the early and later parts of Isaiah

there is at least one similarity.

Differences in theological ideas are the last of the most common arguments supporting

the division of sources. To this writer, they are obvious and significant. They are also not

contradicting of each other. The infinite and sovereign nature of God is evident in Proto-Isaiah,

hardly mentioned in the latter chapters.50 The suffering servant dominates the pages of Deutero-

Isaiah, not mentioned at all in the earlier chapters. Two distinctly different theological ideas.

There is also no conflict or contradiction in these themes. Alger is clear in his contention that

there is no content in the new themes of 40-66 that is not clearly indicated by the changing shape

of Israel under the earlier reign of the wicked Manasseh in earlier chapters.51 Manasseh’s

approval of idolatry and heathen gods clearly led to the weakening of Israel and the exile of the

latter chapters. The spiritual atonement of 40-66 evolved from the wickedness of Israel in the

49Ibid., p38

50Alger, p384.

51Ibid.

20

years prior. Again very different theological ideas that actually tie together, one building on

another.

Just as the time and subject matter differences of the two parts of the book actually complement

each other in that the first part led to the second, the different theological themes of the latter

chapters were built on the foundation of the first. The different theological ideas of the different

parts of the book actually support the unity if Isaiah to those on that side of the debate. There are

also supportive arguments for the unity of Isaiah independent of the off-setting arguments to the

pro-division-of –sources camp.

ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR ONE WRITER

There are many scholarly works and sources supporting the unity if Isaiah, way too many

to even mention here. There are two of particular interests to this writer due to their logical

approach. They are from Craig Evans and Walter Brueggemann.

Evans presents a convincing argument that the second and possibly third parts of Isaiah

are just the “all important parts of the theology and redemption.”52 In other words, the latter parts

of Isaiah complete the earlier. Isaiah announced judgment in Proto-Isaiah and redemption in

Deutero-Isaiah. All together the book of Isaiah tells us all that redemption begins first with

judgment. One cannot exist without the other. The book is one complete story. Regardless of

what Israel does, God is their “rock and refuge” above all else.53 The same God that issued a

52Craig A. Evans, “On the Unity and Parallel Structure of Isaiah”, Vetus Testamentum,(Vol. 38, 1988): p130-131.

53Ibid.

21

warning of destruction in the first part of the book reminds them “Fear not, for I have redeemed

you.”54

Brueggmann makes his compelling argument using the work of Brevard Childs.55 Isaiah

is a story of judgment and promise. Brueggmann summarizes Child’s work into key points.

First, the different positions of 1-39 and 40-66 are intended to show that under God’s law,

judgment is real as established in 1-39. It is not just promised, it is delivered. Secondly, God is

teaching us through Isaiah that judgment is not the end of the story. After judgment comes the

promised redemption. The latter chapters of the book are intentionally presented in a different

style form to show that there are two distinct parts to the decision to disobey God’s law. The

redemption is just as certain as the judgment. The whole of Isaiah is one complete story. The

first part is not complete without the second and vice versa.

These two scholars believe that the unity of Isaiah is proven by the content of the book

itself. Their work is completely contrary to those who believe that the differences between 1-39

and 40-66 indicate different writers. These two present their side of the debate that the

differences actually support the validity of one writer. One set of facts with two completely

different points of view.

54New American Standard Bible, p998.

55Brueggemann, p94-95.

22

CONCLUSION

I am clearly drawn to the unity of Isaiah side of the debate. Although the scholarly work

on the question that strongly supports the division of sources is persuasive, the evidence outside

of Isaiah is most convincing. For every key point in the development of the criticism of Isaiah

there is a clear counter-point from those who support its unity. For every strong traditional

argument for multiple writers based on the style, language and theology of the book there is an

answer from those who support its unity. Both sides are persuasive.

It is the biblical support of unity found outside of Isaiah that is the most convincing. The

New Testament seems firm in its support of one man writing the one book. As has been

discussed each of the three potential parts of Isaiah are all referred to in the New Testament and

each is clearly described as scripture inspired by God. It is that godly inspiration that would be

necessary for Isaiah the man to prophesy so far in the future. The Bible plainly indicates that this

inspiration is present.

Also convincing is the work showing the connection of the earlier and later parts of the

book. Brueggmann’s position that the first part of Isaiah is the foundation for the second is

convincing. From that point of view, it is truly one book. With the support of godly inspiration

indicated in the New Testament, it could have been written by one man.

This is no doubt a subject that will be discussed and debated for many years to come if

we are allowed to live on Earth that long. Luckily, one day we can all just walk up to Isaiah and

ask him!

23

SUMMARY

The question of the unity of Isaiah is an exciting one! It has been discussed an debated

for several hundred years by many biblical scholars of deep conviction and strong reputation. It

is a question worthy of anyone desiring a deeper understanding of scripture, both Old Testament

and New Testament. To many, there is not clear answer, just another question of faith. To

others, there is a clear answer based on support internal and external to the book.

In the end, it is a question that leads to deeper study of God’s word. Everyone benefits

from these questions.

24

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Archer, Gleason L., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1994.

Berges, Ulrich, “The Literary Construction of the Servant in Isaiah 40-55”, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, July 2010.

Brisco, Thomas V., The Holman Bible Atlas, Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 1998.

Brueggemann, Walter, “Unity and Dynamic in the Isaiah Tradition”, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, June 1984.

Carr, David, “Reaching for Unity in Isaiah”, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, March 1993.

Clements, Ronald E., “The Unity of the Book of Isaiah”, Interpretation, April 1982.

Evans, Craig A., “On the Unity and Parallel Structure of Isaiah”, Vetus Testamentum, Vol.38, 1988.

New American Standard Bible, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2006.

Phelan, M.W.J., The Integrity of the Book of Isaiah: New Evidence of Single Authorship, Waterloo, IA: Twoedged Sword Publications, 2005.

Propp, William H.C. “Who Wrote Second Isaiah?” Bible Review, October 2003.

Thomas, J. Harold, “The Authorship of the Book of Isaiah”, Restoration Quarterly, October 1965, 46-55.

Vande Weghe, Rob, The Texts and Books of the OT, Windmill Ministries Website: http://www.windmillministries.org/frames/CH9-6A.htm, (Accessed July 16, 2011).

Wood, John Halsey, “Oswald T. Allis and the Question of Isaianic Authorship”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, June 2005.