Gregory A. King
Until the last two hundred years or so, both Jews and Christians would have thought that the answer to the question posed in the title of this chapter was self-evident and simple. Yes, of course, Isaiah wrote the Old Testament prophetic book that bears his name, and there was no reason to think otherwise. After all, the church and the synagogue had both held this view for many centuries. Also, the superscription in Isaiah 1:1 seems to refer to the entire book with the title, “The vision of Isaiah… .” Additionally, New Testament writers repeatedly quote from the book of Isaiah and attribute it to the prophet by name (e.g., Matt 3:3; 4:14-16).
However, with the rise of biblical criticism in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Isaiah, along with the Pentateuch and Daniel (as well as other parts of the Bible), came under increasing scrutiny, and revisionist theories were put forward that stood in stark contrast to traditional beliefs. Regarding Isaiah, most scholars who were committed to the higher-critical approach concluded that, due to factors which will be discussed below, the prophet Isaiah could not have been responsible for the entire prophetic book that bears his name and that his authorship did not extend past chapter 39. Chapters 40-66 were attributed to an anonymous individual living around the time of Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon in 539 BC Since this person is anonymous and his prophecies were attached to those of Isaiah, he was labeled “Deutero-Isaiah” (Second Isaiah).
Pressing this line of argument still further, a number of critical scholars suggested that chapters 56-66 may have come from an even later hand, and this person was dubbed “Trito-Isaiah” (Third Isaiah). Moreover, noticing that certain references, which they considered to be telltale indicators of the so-called Deutero-Isaiah (such as the prophecies of Babylon’s destruction in Isaiah 46 and 47), were also found in chapters 1-39, certain scholars began attributing less and less of chapters 1-39 to the prophet Isaiah with the result that, at least in the minds of these critical scholars, the prophet Isaiah is credited with an ever-dwindling amount of material in the book that bears his name.
Objections to Isaiah’s authorship – There are several questions that should be addressed in connection with the aforementioned description. First, what are some objections that are raised against Isaiah himself being the author of the book that bears his name? Second, what response might be given to these objections? Finally, what are some positive evidences that favor Isaiah as the composer of the entirety of this prophetic book? We turn to these in order.
As to the objections against Isaiah as author, the following evidence is usually set forth. First, the time span presupposed by the book seems impossibly long to incorporate into the life span of the prophet Isaiah. Chapters 1-39 refer to a number of events that took place during the life of Isaiah, whose ministry extended from about 740 to 690 BC For example, the Syro-Ephraimite War of about 733 BC (Isa 7:1), Sargon’s conquest of Ashdod in 711 BC (Isa 20:1), and Sennacherib’s attack on Judah in 701 BC (Isa 36:1) all occurred during Isaiah’s ministry. By contrast, the references to the rebuilding of Jerusalem and its temple (Isa 44:28) and to the exodus from Babylon (Isa 48:20) allude to events that took place a couple of hundred years later, long after Isaiah’s death.
A second objection is connected with the first. The subject matter of Isaiah 40-66 is different from that of chapters 1-39. Isaiah 1-39 has as a major concern the threat posed to Judah and Jerusalem by the military might of the Assyrian Empire, a threat which was very real and present during Isaiah’s ministry in the second half of the eighth-century BC However, in the later chapters, the Assyrian threat is in the past and the focus is on God’s rescue of His people and their return to their land from exile, an event that took place following Cyrus’ overthrow of Babylon in 539 BC How could Isaiah have described events and conditions that would occur nearly two hundred years later?
A third objection points to the different vocabulary and style between the two sections of the book. Words such as “woe” and “judgment,” common in chapters 1-39, are infrequent in chapters 40-66. Moreover, terms such as “sing for joy” and “cry aloud,” characteristic of chapters 40-66, are rare in chapters 1-39. As to style, while chapters 1-39 include historical narrative (most of Isa 7 and 36-39) and prophetic symbolic action (Isa 20), chapters 40-66 consist almost exclusively of poetic prophecy.
Today, critical scholars credit the prophet Isaiah with an ever-dwindling amount of material in the book that bears his name.
A final objection, one that is insurmountable in the minds of many critical scholars, is the fact that Cyrus of Persia is mentioned by name twice in the so-called Deutero-Isaiah section of the book (Isa 44:28; 45:1). Since Isaiah likely died sometime around 690 BC and Cyrus was not born until about 580 BC, over 100 years later, and was not a prominent leader till many years after that, critical scholars declare that the prophet Isaiah could not have referred to Cyrus by name as anointed by the Lord to defeat Babylon and restore the people of God to their own land.
Responses to objections – What should be said in response to these objections to Isaiah’s authorship of the entire prophetic book? Regarding the first objection, it is certainly true that the time span in view in the latter chapters of the book stretches beyond the lifetime of the prophet. Some events that are alluded to, such as the return from Babylonian exile, clearly occurred long after his death. For those who believe either that there is no God, that God doesn’t know the future or that even if He does, He does not reveal it to humans, this presents indisputable proof that Isaiah could not have written the entire book, because no one could guess the future with such amazing accuracy.
However, for those who believe in divine foreknowledge, and who affirm the biblical teaching that God at times reveals the future to His faithful servants and inspires them to record the revelation for posterity, such an objection is not compelling. This is especially so in light of other displays of foreknowledge in Scripture. Jeremiah prophesied that the Babylonian exile would last for 70 years, before God would bring His people home (Jer 29:10); Daniel announced the rise and fall of nations (Dan 2, 7, 8), even specifying some kingdoms by name (Dan 8:20, 21); and Jesus predicted that the temple would be so thoroughly demolished that one stone would not be left on another (Matt 24:2). Even so, Isaiah, speaking by prophetic revelation, anticipated certain events that would transpire long after his death.
As for the different subject matter in chapters 40-66, it is true that these chapters deal with different themes and concepts than the earlier chapters, focusing to some degree on events connected with the Babylonian exile and the return of God’s people to their homeland. However, it should not be thought strange that Isaiah should speak of various concepts and themes during a lengthy ministry of some fifty years. One should not expect him to have merely a single focus.
To those who point out that the exile and return were still in the dim future in Isaiah’s time and who query how the prophet could describe these matters, it should be noted that the earlier chapters of Isaiah anticipate the coming danger from Babylon, placing the Babylonians first in the section of oracles against the nations (Isa 13-23) and concluding the entire section of chapters 1-39 with a warning of the exile that is to befall the people (Isa 39:6, 7). Perhaps in these ways Isaiah is indicating his recognition that ultimately the Babylonians will prove the greater threat to God’s people than the Assyrians who receive more attention in chapters 1-39.
Concerning the objection of the different vocabulary and style used in chapters 40-66, it is true that these chapters are different both in the vocabulary and the style employed when compared with the first half of the book. One can sense this difference even when reading the book in an English translation. However, it does not necessarily follow that such a feature is inconsistent with Isaiah as author. It should not be surprising that the different subject matter and themes of these chapters would make use of a different vocabulary and style, for the latter is related to the former.
Furthermore, it is only to be expected that a towering prophetic genius, such as Isaiah, would be capable of using a wide vocabulary and various styles and genres. Just as modern authors, such as C. S. Lewis, could write books as diverse as Mere Christianity and The Chronicles of Narnia, using different literary genres and a wide ranging vocabulary, so biblical prophets, especially those of Isaiah’s erudition, were not limited to a single style or a narrow range of vocabulary.
Regarding the fact that Cyrus is mentioned by name over 100 years prior to his birth, it is correct to say that this is an unusual feature of Scripture. However, unusual is not the same as unprecedented, for Scripture tells of an unnamed prophet who confronts Jeroboam while the latter is offering a sacrifice at his idolatrous shrine at Bethel, and the anonymous prophet names Josiah (1 Kgs 13:2) as the one who will eventually desecrate this illegitimate place of worship. The confrontation with Jeroboam occurred about 930 BC, while Josiah was not born until around 650 BC, some 280 years later.
Evidences for the unity and single authorship of the book – Having addressed the objections to Isaiah as author of the prophecy that bears his name, we turn to some positive evidences of the unity and single authorship of the prophetic book. First, there is no textual evidence that suggests that the book of Isaiah ever existed as anything other than a unified whole. Though we do not possess an abundant number of Old Testament manuscripts, as is the case with the New Testament, the ones we do have support the unity of the entire book. For example, the single most famous manuscript among the Dead Sea Scrolls is the book of Isaiah, dating from pre-Christian times, and it gives no suggestion of a break between Isaiah chapters 39 and 40. Thus, any theory advocating that the latter chapters of Isaiah came from a later time and a different author has no textual support whatsoever.
A second evidence is found in the unifying features discernible in the entire book that infers the single authorship of the whole document. Many features could be catalogued, but one worth noting is the use of the phrase “the Holy One of Israel” to refer to God. Though it is used only thirty-one times in the Old Testament as a whole, twenty-five of these instances are in Isaiah, making it a somewhat distinctive feature of the book. Interestingly, these twenty-five appearances are nearly evenly distributed among the portions of the book that are considered to come from different authors, with twelve occurrences in chapters 1-39 and thirteen in chapters 40-66. Thus, this somewhat distinctive phrase serves to integrate the entire book.
“Both parts of Isaiah [1-39 and 40-66] have in common an unusual number of the same unique attributes of God, specific designations for the Jewish people, the same special formulas of prophecy, similar words of consolation and rebuke, similar expressions on the future of Zion and Jerusalem, and the ingathering of the exiles, the same forms for emotions of joy and gladness, failure and destruction – all this points to a common and single mentality” (Rachel Margalioth, The Indivisible Isaiah [New York: Sura Institute for Research, 1964], 41).
A third evidence was the tendency among the Israelite community to attribute even the smallest prophetic document to the originating prophet. For example, the twenty-one verses that compose the prophecy of Obadiah, though very small in size, were not attached to another prophetic book but were credited to the prophet himself. Conversely, when a section of a prophetic book was thought to have come from someone other than the prophet, as was the case with Jeremiah 52, it was clearly stated (Jer 51:64). In light of this practice, it would be highly unusual for the last twenty-seven chapters of Isaiah, containing some of the most eloquent, beautiful and treasured passages in the entire Old Testament, to have come from a prophet whose name was lost and to simply be attached to another prophetic book as if they had come from that prophet. Thus, the practice of those involved in collecting the prophetic books supports the view that the entire document came from the prophet himself.
Yet a fourth evidence is found in the support offered by the repeated New Testament references to verses from both parts of Isaiah, attributing these passages to the prophet himself. A number of references could be mentioned, because Isaiah was a favorite among the writers of the New Testament documents. However, one especially telling passage is from John 12:38-41, which quotes from both Isaiah and the so-called Deutero-Isaiah. John 12:38 quotes Isaiah 53:1, while John 12:40 cites Isaiah 6:10. Notably, both are credited to the prophet Isaiah himself. It is clear that the New Testament authors considered Isaiah as the author of the prophetic book that bears his name, including the latter chapters of the book often considered to have come from someone else.
Conclusion – Though some scholars have abandoned the view held for many centuries by both Jews and Christians that the prophet Isaiah was the author of the entire book that bears his name, there are persuasive reasons not to embrace their position. Adequate answers can be offered to the objections made against the authorship of Isaiah, while a number of evidences can be set forth in favor of the unity and single authorship of the entire book. The historic position that the whole book should be attributed to the prophet himself can be maintained by thoughtful believers who take Scripture seriously and who affirm that God foretells the future through His prophetic servants.