4-3_young [the Authorship of Isaiah]

8/14/2019 4-3_young [the Authorship of Isaiah]

1/6

The Autorshipof saiahEdward J Young.

Edward ]. Young is Professor of OldTestament at the Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. He is theauthor of a standard ntroduction tothe ld Testament (Tyndale, Eerdmans),which has gone through several editionsand reimpressions, as well as of severalother books and many periodical articles.Who was the human author of the prophecy of Isaiah? This is one of the leading questions that confronts Old Testament scholarship today, but it is a question which many practically ignore, forthey feel that there is no need to devotemore attention to it than has alreadybeen devoted. Among modern scholarsthere seems to be rather general agreement that, whoever was responsible forthe book in which we now have it, twas not the eighth century prophetIsaiah. On the other hand, the prophecyitself bears a heading which ascribesauthorship to Isaiah, the New Testament clearly considers the book to beIsaiah's work, and this has also beenthe traditional position of the ChristianChurch until the rise of unbelieving rationalism in the eighteenth century.

MODERN VIEWS OF AUTHORSHIP OFTHE PROPHECY.That Isaiah was the author of the entirebook which bears his name is, as wehave just stated, the verdict of a unanimous tradition within the Christian

Church until the latter part of the eighteenth century. Among the Jews, the tradition was also practically unanimous,there really being only two known exceptions, and neither of these was ofmuch significance. The modern viewreally began to make its appearance whenKoppe, who edited the German editionof Bishop Lowth's commentary, suggested in a footnote to chapter 50 of the prophecy that this chapter might have beenthe work of Ezekiel or of someone elsewho lived at the time of the Babylonianexile. Soon it was maintained that theentirity of chapters 40-66 were writtenat the time of the exile. Were thesechapters, however, the work of one manor of many? For a time there seemed tobe no settled answer, but the strong voiceof Gesenius, speaking early in the nineteenth century, came out in favor of theview that these chapters were the workof one man, and this view seemed topredominate among those who wouldnot listen to the testimony of the Bibleto itself.This unknown author of chapters 40-66was generally referred to as Isaiah ofBabylon , or Isaiah of the exile , orDeutero or Second Isaiah. Criticsspoke of him in glowing terms. He was

the great exponent or really the discoverer of ethical monotheism, withwhom no other prophet could be compared. In 1892, however, he toppled fromhis throne, for in that year BernhardDuhm's commentary on Isaiah appeared. Duhm held that only chapters 40-55could be ascribed to Second Isaiah,and furthermore that Second Isaiahdid not live in Babylonia, but in Palestine. Within the compass of chapters40-55 were the four passages whichDuhm labelled Servant Songs , themost prominent of which was the famous fifty-third chapter. These songs,according to Duhm, were taken from acollection of songs which was written

11

8/14/2019 4-3_young [the Authorship of Isaiah]

2/6

lLJV U l vu U U U U l e u y e e l n ; e l l l e r l u e l I IUeof the exile, and were later incorporatedinto the body of chapters 40-55.As for chapters 56-66 Duhm assertedtha t these were the work of anotherman, whom he designated Trito Isaiah,who also, according to Duhm, lived inPalestine. To say that these were revolutionary ideas is to put it mildly. Duhm'swork soon began to have its influence,and soon it was carried to extremes, onewriter even asserting that only a fewverses of chapters 40-66 had anythingto do with Babylonia. The principal pointof division among scholars had to dowith the question whether Trito Isaiahwas an individual or whether a numberof writers had written the material thatcomprises chapters 55-66. Today Duhm'sinfluence is still paramount, although,as a result of form-critical studies, thereis more of a tendency to see genuineIsaianic influence throughout the prophecy. Isaiah, so it is asserted, had dis-ciples who wrote in his spirit, and thisaccounts for the influence of Isaiahthroughout the entirity of the prophecy.At any rate, whatever view of authorship is maintained, it is stoutly insistedthat Isaiah himself was not the authorof the entire prophecy.Wha Shall We Believe?t is perfectly clear that scholarship has

been unable to come to a satisfactoryposition with respect to the question ofauthorship. In fact, all too often it issimply assumed without any argumentwhatever that the author of chapters40-66 must have lived in the times ofthe exile or later. In modern writingslittle serious heed is paid to the claimsfor Isaianic authorship of the book. Whatthen should our position be as Christians?In order to answer this question we mustnote what is really involved in the ques-12

l IUU U l l : s a I a n l Cis so important that we hold to the cor-rect position. To state it succinctly, whatis involved is simply the authority of theNew Testament. t is perfectly clear thatthe New Testament attributes the authorship of the entire prophecy to the eighthcentury Isaiah. t is furthermore clearthat the New Testament intends (des-pite what is often said today) to attributeauthorship to Isaiah. The New Testamentspeaks not so much of the prophecy ofIsaiah (although it does so speak) as ofthe individual man himself. Hence, wehave phrases such as, Well did theHoly Spirit speak through Isaiah or,Isaiah becomes bold and says. f one

will examine the usage which the NewTestament makes of the prophecy hewill soon see that the New Testamentvery definitely does intend to attribute authorship to Isaiah. Now i f theNew Testament is mistaken at thispoint, how do we know that it is notmistaken at other points? This is thequestion at stake: can we rely upon theNew Testament or not?When we turn to the infallible witnessof the New Testament we note that ituses the prophecy of Isaiah more thanall the other prophecies of the Old Testament combined. One passage in particular calls for our attention. In John12 :38 we have a quotation of Isaiah53:1 which is designated as the sayingof Isaiah the prophet ... which he spoke.This passage, taken from what the critics generally designate second ordeutero Isaiah and which, accordingto Duhm, is part of an old song about aleprous rabbi, is by the New Testamentattributed to Isaiah the prophet and interpreted as referring to the unbelief ofthe Pharisees. In verses 39 and 40 thereis a quotation from Isaiah 6 which thecritics are willing (in as much as itrelates his call in the first person) to at-tribute to Isaiah himself. Here reference

8/14/2019 4-3_young [the Authorship of Isaiah]

3/6

is made to the prophet with the words,Isaiah said again. This passage, taken

from the 'critics' first Isaiah is used bythe inspired writer of the Gospel to provethe truthfulness of a quotation from the'critics' second Isaiah. Finally, asthough to anticipate the modern emphasis upon the Sitz im Leben of theprophecies, John goes on to say, Thesethings (Le., the truth of verses 38 and40) said Isaiah, when he saw his (Le.,Christ's) glory, and spoke of him (verse41). Thus, in this particular quotationboth parts of the prophecy are tied to-gether and both are attributed to theeighth century Isaiah. In as much as theNew Testament is the Word of God, thequestion is settled. God has spoken, andwe have but to follow His Word, irrespective of what the latest criticaltheories may be.In a brief article of this nature it willnot be possible to note all of the NewTestament quotations, but the reader willfind it profitable at least to consult thefollowing: Matthew 3:3; 8:17; 12:17; 13:14; 15:7; Mark 7:6; Luke 3:4; 4:17; John1 :23; Acts 8 :28, 30, 32, 33; 28 :25; Romans9:27, 29; 10:16, 20. cf. my Introductionto the ld Testament pp. 199-222 forfurther discussion.)Secondary Considerations.That the New Testament attributes Isaia-nic authorship to the prophecy canscarcely be questioned by serious c h o l r ~ship. For the believer in the authorityof Scripture, such inspired testimony issufficient. We may note, however, thatthere is an abundance of evidence, bothexternal and internal, which, as wemight very well suspect, supports thetestimony of the New Testament.Let us note then that the heading of theprophecy attributes the work to Isaiah(for a discussion of the heading cf. myThe Prophecy of Isaiah Vol. I pp. 27-33)

and that no other name has ever beenattached to the prophecy as the author.Those who deny the Isaianic authorshipof the entire prophecy must explainhow Isaiah's name came to be attachedto the prophecy, and this they have notbeen able satisfactorily to do.In support of the ascription of the heading we have the evidence of tradition.As early as the second century B.C. wehave the witness of the book of Eccle-siasticus who definitely believed inIsaianic authorship. Indeed, the mannerin which he employed the book showsthat in his day the tradition of Isaianicauthorship had been long established.This is supported by the great manuscript from cave No. 1 at Qumran whichcomes from the second century B. C. tis most interesting to note that betweenchapters 39 and 40 there is no particularbreak. Chapter 39 concludes one linefrom the bottom of the column, leavingspace for a few letters at the endof the line. Chapter 40 begins on thelast line of the column with no indentation whatever. Nor is there any changein the copyist. t thus appears that therewas no intention to make a break at thispoint. Here then is further evidence ofthe antiquity of the tradition, and fromthe scroll it would appear that this tradition had long been in existence. Weare probably on safe ground i f we as-sert that the tradition of Isaianic authorship goes back at least to the third cen-tury B. C.This poses some problems for those whorefuse to accept the witness of the NewTestament. f the so-called secondIsaiah was such a great prophet, how isit that all trace of him has disappeared,and that his work was attached to thewriting of first Isaiah who in the eyesof the critics was by no means as great .J\as second Isaiah? When one begins to'contemplate this problem seriously herealizes how difficult it is of solution.

13

8/14/2019 4-3_young [the Authorship of Isaiah]

4/6

Indeed, there is no solution, and it isunderstandable that scholars have beenso quiet about it. From Isaiah 40-55 itis impossible to learn anything about thesupposed second Isaiah whom thecritics think was the author of thesechapters. All trace of him, who he was,where he lived, what he did - all hasbeen lost. Yet, we are told that he wasthe greatest of the prophets. Is it askingtoo much that those who refuse to believe the Word of God should give usan explanation of how chapters 40-55came to find the place in the prophecythat they now occupy? What happenedto the memory of this great prophet thathis works were attached to those of theeighth century Isaiah?The Message of Isaiah.One of the strongest of the secondaryarguments in defense of the Isaianicauthorship is found in the progress ofthe message of the prophecy. Chapterone serves as an introduction in whichthe principal themes, later to be developed, are given in germ form. In chapterstwo through five the prophet brings inthe two great themes with which hewill later deal in more detail, namely,the salvation to come and the judgment.After presenting an account of his prophetic call, he points out, in what may belabelled a Messianic cluster of prophecies, that the hope of the nation lies notin trust in any human king, but in theMessiah.The work then groups itself about twomain historical periods, that of Ahaz andthat of Hezekiah. Step by step, however,it prepares itself for the threat of exileto Babylon (chapter 39) and so pavesthe way for the messages of comfortfound in the last twenty-seven chapters.The importance of this preparation isoften overlooked or ignored. f chapters40-66 be severed from what precedes, i tis practically impossible to explain them.4

On the other hand, chapters 1 39 arethen left incomplete; it is obvious thatthey prepare for something, but forwhat?Without 40-66 we are left without ananswer. The comfort ye of chapter 40depends upon the threat found in chapter39, and 39 clearly prepares for 40.Divorce the two, and the comfort yeof 40 raises some insoluble questions.Furthermore, in 1-39 there is stress uponthe Person of the Deliverer. t was necessary that this be so, for during thedays of Ahaz there was a desire to forget the promises of God and to turn toa human deliverer. Isaiah points the nation to the promises and declares that aChild will be born who will deliver Hispeople and who will reign eternally.Who is this Child and what is His work?Isaiah makes abundantly clear who Heis, but it is in the second portion of theprophecy that he stresses the nature ofHis work. The One described in chapter53, despite all that critics say to thecontrary, is the One presented in chapters 7 and 9 Were we left only with1 39 we would not know the identityof the Redeemer. We need both partsof the prophecy, and the critical partition simply destroys what is a beautifulunity and harmony.In this connection it is well to noticethe importance and the significance ofchapters 36-39 in the prophecy. Thesechapters serve as a connecting bridgeor link between 1 35 on the one handand 40-66 on the other. In chapters36-37 we have the account of the invasion of Sennacherib and this pointsback to the time of Assyria which underlay for the most part the messages ofthe first thirty-five chapters. Chapters38-39 on the other hand tell of the coming of the Babylonian envoys and contain a prediction of captivity to Babylonand thus point forward to the Babylonianperiod which underlies much of whatwe have in 40-66. These four chapters

8/14/2019 4-3_young [the Authorship of Isaiah]

5/6

occur with some variations in II Kings,but it is obvious, as I have sought toshow in detailed fashion in my com-mentary, The Prophecy of Isaiah, Vo . II,that the original of the chapters is foundnot in Kings but in Isaiah. This is astrong argument in defense of the unityof the book.Another point that is often overlookedis that there are reflections, in one wayor another, in later prophecies upon thecontents of Isaiah 40-66. Jeremiah inparticular employed the earlier prophecies, probably far more than any otherprophet. f Jeremiah used material foundin Isaiah 40-66, Isaiah 40-66 musthave been earlier than Jeremiah, andsuch indeed is the case. What do thecritics say about this? Insofar as theypay any attention at all to this consideration they insist that the borrowing is onthe part of 40-66. This of course, wouldbe to make mince meat of the OldTestament prophecies, for it wouldplace 40-66 at a very late date andmake the author of these chapters de-pendent upon Jeremiah and the otherprophecies. A careful examination of theprophecies in question, however, showsthat the dependency was not upon thepart of the author of Isaiah 40-66 butthe other way round, upon Jeremiah,Nahum, Zephaniah, etc. Those who areinterested in working this out for thenlselves may consult my article, Isaiah 34And Its Position in the Prophecy TheWestminster Theological Journal, Vol.XXVII, May 1965, No. 2, pp. 93-114).In this connection we nlay note thatthroughout the entire prophecy there isan almost uncanny similarity in theusage of words and combinations ofwords. As is well known, the phrase,The Holy One of Israel occurs in bothsections of the prophecy. t reflects uponIsaiah's call t the ministry and is acharacteristic expression of his book.Rare words, such as caprice or thorn

bush appear in both parts of the prophecy but apparently nowhere else inthe Old Testalnent. This is true of lTIanyother words and phrase and peculiarcombinations of words. Those who areinterested in pursuing this matter furthershould read the valuable work of RachelMargalioth: The ndivisible Isaiah. Thematerial presented in this volurne is unanswerable. t is perfectly obvious thatthe author of 40-66 was also the authorof 1-39.Why Not Believe in Isaianic Authorship?f then the arguments for Isaianic author

ship are so strong, why do the)' not command universal assent? Why, particularly in popular works such as SundaySchool manuals, are we still subjectedto phrases such as "Second" Isaiah, or

Isaiah of the exile ? In part, the answerto this question may be that many havenever taken the trouble to familiarizethemselves with the arguments for Isaianic authorship. Bible believing scholarsmake it a point to try to read on bothsides of the question, but there are notmany critical scholars who are willingto do the same thing. The biblical posi-tion is often dismissed as obscurantist,or fundamentalistic or the theology ofrepristination or the like.There are of course some positive arguments adduced for rejection of Isaianicauthorship, and they are the following.It is asserted, and rightly, that the nameof Isaiah is not found in chapters 40-66.This, of course, is true, but for that matter, neither is the name of anyone elseas author appended to these chapters.Certainly they do not bear the heading"Second Isaiah . And whereas, i f thesechapters are from Isaiah, there is muchin the argument and in the style and inthe theology which shows that they comefrom the same hand as the author of1-39, i f however, these chapters arefrom some second Isaiah of the exile,

15

8/14/2019 4-3_young [the Authorship of Isaiah]

6/6

there is nothing in them to support thatfact. This theory of a second Isaiahmust first be imposed upon the chapters,and then they must be made to fit thattheory, and anyone who has studiedcarefully the vast literature on the sub-ject knows that such is the case. Hence,the fact that the name ofIsaiah is missingfrom these chapters in itself proves no-thing as to authorship.Secondly, it is maintained that the styleof the chapters 40-66 is so differentfrom that of 1 39 that they cannot pos-sibly both come from the same writer.We have already made some brief com-ments on style and vocabulary. Sufficeit to say that if there is a difference ofstyle, and to a certain extent there is,this is precisely what we should expectupon the basis of Isaianic authorship.In part the change in style is due to thesubject matter. There is however, a con-sideration more important than that. twould seem that chapters 40-66 camefrom late in the reign of Hezekiah, in thelatter part of the prophet's life. t isquestionable whether these chapters wereever uttered orally. Rather, the HolySpirit superintended the aged prophet ashe wrote out these chapters, dealingwith the greatest of all themes, the gloryof the sovereign God and His sovereignty in the salvation of His people. Thefact that these chapters were written andnot delivered orally would to a greatextent account for any changes of style.We must also note that as a man growsand matures, his style of writing willchange and improve. Are we to expectthe aged Isaiah to write in just that stylewhich he might have employed whenthe Lord first called him into the workof prophecy? Lastly, although there is adifference of style to a certain extent,we have noted throughout the prophecythat certain words and combinations ofwords, found nowhere else in the OldTestament, characterize this work. The16

argument from style does not disproveIsaianic authorship.Lastly, it is claimed that these chapters(Le. 40-66) have a Babylonian background, and in particular the mention ofCyrus shows that Isaiah cannot havebeen the author. t is true that in a cer-tain sense there is reflection upon theexile, but Babylon is mentioned more inchapters 1 39 than in 40-66. As to theprophecy of Cyrus, who lived many yearsafter the eighth century Isaiah, we wouldsimply say that God is the God of prophecy and history. Why could He nothave revealed to Isaiah the name ofCyrus just as He revealed to the man ofGod the name of Josiah I Kings 13 :2),some three hundred years before Josiah's birth?In connection with the prophecy con-cerning Cyrus, we may note that it presents Cyrus as one to come in the fardistant future. Cyrus is clearly not a con-temporary of the prophet. f the pro-phecy were written by one living at thetime of Cyrus, it would seem that hegave a wrong and untrue impression inmaking it appear that Cyrus would notappear upon the scene of history for along time to come. On the other hand,if the prophet were Isaiah, this is justwhat we should expect.In what we have written we have soughtto show some of the reasons why we arecompelled to believe that the New Testa-ment is correct in ascribing authorshipto Isaiah. f the prophecy is his work,we have before us a well developedargument of a most magnificent kind,the like of which the world has neverseen. f it is not from Isaiah, we havea collection of fragments about whichwe really know very little and whosemeaning is lost to us. God s Word tellsus that Isaiah saw Christ's day and spokeof Him. Does any mere man have knowledge sufficient to deny the truthfulnessof that statement?