How Many Isaiahs?

The Problem

Until 1775 there was no question among scholars as to the authorship of Isaiah. The author was recognized universally as Isaiah the son of Amoz, born c740 BC, apparently a member, or close to, the royal family. He was also believed to be the chief of the prophets in his time, as had been Elijah.

In 1775, J. C. Doederlein advanced the theory that chapters 40-66 were written by someone else. It became common among "higher critics" to talk of a "second" Isaiah, who wrote near the end of the Babylonian captivity (c550-539 BC). Another critic, B. Duhm, suggested a "third" Isaiah, who wrote chapters 55-66. Others have suggested additional authors, or entire editorial teams who fabricated the book from fragments of various authors.

Why?

The basis of these theories is in three general arguments.

Specific Arguments for More than One Isaiah

Isaiah 40-66 refer to post-exilic times

There are three parts to this argument:

These arguments assume that a prophet is only a historian and a "forthteller", but never a "foreteller." Prophetic visions of the future as the basis for a prophecy are discounted. In response to these claims it should be noted that:

Biblical prophets always wrote to their contemporaries
in real life situations

One is inclined to ask whether the critics have read the prophetic books. Joel wrote about the "last days" as did many of the prophets. Jeremiah (who is not challenged) wrote of future events prior to their happening. Amos predicted the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel well in advance of the events. The book of Revelation is entirely about the future.

Even if one were to accept the hypothesis of more than one Isaiah, it then should be noted that "first" Isaiah made many predictions about the fall of Israel, the destruction of the Assyrian king, the rise of Babylon, the end of the siege of Jerusalem, the recovery of Hezekiah, the fall of Tyre, etc., in advance of those events.

Isaiah 44:24-45:25 is too detailed

This passage mentions Cyrus the Mede by name as the conqueror of Babylon. Therefore the critics assume that the passage must have been written after the events.

If this is an argument against Isaiah the son of Amoz as the author, then why do the critics ignore Isaiah 21:2 in which "first" Isaiah names the Medes and Persians as the conquerors of Babylon. Isn't this also too specific?

The detail in these passages proves prophetic foreknowledge rather than disproving it, just as "first" Isaiah's knowledge of the rise of Babylon well in advance proved his prophetic foreknowledge. The entire section from chapter 36-39 is intended to demonstrate the validity of the prophecies of "first" Isaiah. Why deny the same foreknowledge to "second" Isaiah?

Isaiah 40-66 does not name Isaiah as the author

Why should they? Isaiah has already named himself in the title page in 1:1. The lack of mention of an author's name actually strengthens the case for a single author.

Jeremiah and other pre-exilic prophets didn't refer to Isaiah
as the author of 40-66

Why should Jeremiah mention Isaiah? He was writing a hundred years later, immediately before the captivity. He was presenting prophecies (foreknowledge again) about events that would happen immediately, not reviewing the literature.

It is interesting to note that several pre-exilic prophets, including Jeremiah make statements which are similar to the so-called "second" Isaiah, who supposedly had not yet written. Compare the following:

Revivals occurred under Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah. These seem to presuppose an understanding of Isaiah 40-66.

The writing style of chapters 40-66 is different
from that of 1-39

There is a major change in the style and language of the second section. However, this change is not as great as is suggested. The writing is still poetic and musical, filled with word pictures. Some critics have actually suggested that there is so much similarity that "editors" appended the second section to the first because of the similarity! Someone needs to make up their minds.

The change of style is to be naturally expected since there is a change of subject. We have several examples of the same phenomena in the writings of other Biblical authors, whose works are not challenged:

Obviously, each of these is written in a different style because of different subjects and purposes, but by the same author. Why not acknowledge that Isaiah also would write in different styles for different purposes?

It is dangerous to historical study to assume that more than one style means more than one author. Suppose that a future historian were to unearth the writings of Dwight Eisenhower. From his writings the historian might deduce four Eisenhowers: the one who wrote military documents in World War II; the one who wrote numerous documents as President of the United States; the one who wrote miscellaneous documents and letters as an invalid; and the one who wrote academic documents as the President of Columbia University.

It should be noted that Isaiah 1-39 were mostly preached (or sung) with urgency to give warning and exhortation before judgment came to pass. Isaiah 40-66 was written, presumably with less time pressure, after the final decree of judgment had been passed, to give comfort to the remnant and to explain the brand-new concept of redemption. The difference between preaching and writing alone would account for the difference in styles.

The theology of Isaiah 1-39 and 40-66 is different

The argument is that the first section emphasizes the sovereignty of God, judgment, and the remnant, while the second section emphasizes the infinity of God, redemption and does not mention the remnant.

In this case, the critics are so busy trying to tear the book apart that they have failed to read it to see its purpose. It has been emphasized in class that the book follows a logical flow:

There is no reference to the remnant in the second section because that is who is being addressed! No one else is left but the remnant.

The critics should also note that each of the major divisions of the first section ends with the prophetic promise of reconciliation and the comfort of the King upon the throne.

Unity of Isaiah

All of the arguments against Isaiah the son of Amoz being the author of the entire book are weak, and each fails to recognize the purpose and content of the book. The following internal and external evidences strengthen the case for a single author and the unity of the book:

There is only one title page

Isaiah 1:1 specifically identifies the author as Isaiah the son of Amoz and specifies the time of the writing as being within the reign of four kings of Judah. There is no reference to any other author.

The New Testament only recognizes one author

There are 66 direct quotations from Isaiah in 20 of the 27 books in the New Testament. Some scholars have identified another 19 passages as allusions to Isaiah. No other author is ever suggested. In fact, many passages specifically identify Isaiah as the author of the second section--Matt. 3:3; 8:17; 12:17; Luke 3:4; 4:17-20; John 1:23; 12:38; Acts 8:28-33; Romans 10:16-20.

The New Testament assumes only one author

John quotes from both sections of Isaiah in the same passage--John 12:37-41. Verse 38 is quoted from Isaiah 53:1; verse 40 is quoted from Isaiah 6:10. There is no suggestion of two authors.

The entire book is unified by a unique name for God:
"The Holy One of Israel"

The name "Holy One of Israel" is used of God 12 times in the first section and 13 times in the second section. It is only used 6 times in the entire rest of the Bible, and some of these are quotations from Isaiah. This strongly suggests that Isaiah the son of Amoz, who met the Holy One of Israel in chapter 6, is the single author.

There is no break between the sections in the
best manuscripts of Isaiah

The best known example of this, which confounds the critics, is the oldest known manuscript, which was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. In this manuscript, the last line of chapter 39 is written on the same fragment of parchment as the first line of chapter 40.

External sources such as Josephus and the apocrypha
identify only one author

An example is the apocyrphal book of Ecclesiasticus. Ecc. 48:23-28, written well after the time of Isaiah, refers to only one author for the book.

No historical source doubts the single authorship
of the book prior to 1775

This is an argument from silence, but surely if there were real doubt about Isaiah's authorship, some mention, or at least a question would have been raised in the intervening 2500 years.

The ancient Jewish canon recognizes one author

The ancient Jewish canon includes both sections of Isaiah as a single book. We have to ask, What do the latecomer modern critics think that they know that the people of the time did not?

Organization

Finally, it is interesting to note the organization of Isaiah. While the organization does not prove its unity, it is suggestive. Keeping in mind that the chapter and verse divisions of the book are not inspired, it is nevertheless interesting to observe:

Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

This is the central truth of all His-story.

Final Note

Isaiah has been said to be the work of editors, putting together the works of supposed "first," "second," "third," etc., Isaiahs into a single document.

The book of Isaiah was undoubtedly edited. We have seen that numerous individual poems, lectures, historical accounts, etc. have been organized into a logical and chronological format for the benefit of future readers.

Where the critics err is that they fail to recognize that the editor was Isaiah himself. Most likely, the book is not in chronological order, but in subject order. It is probable that chapter 6 was written before any of the rest. The bulk of chapters 2-35 may have been written piecemeal and then reorganized. Chapters 36-39 were probably written after the bulk of the prophecies in the first section. Chapters 40-66 were probably written next to last. It seems likely that the very last portion of the book to be written, by Isaiah the son of Amoz, was chapter 1, which summarizes the entire book, and which bears his name on the title page, 1:1.