The Integrity of Isaiah
New evidence of single authorship
Introduction
The controversy
For over two thousand years the book of Isaiah was accepted as the
exclusive work of the son of Amoz, the friend of Hezekiah. The
translators of the Septuagint regarded the book as a single work1,
as did the translators of the Peshitta, and the compiler of the
Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel, thought to have been a pupil of
Hillel, although what we now possess under his name is likely to be
of a later date.2
The Dead-Sea sect also believed in the integrity of the book, as the
well-known discovery at Qumran in 1947 of two different but almost
complete copies of Isaiah (1QIsa,
& 1QIsb) has shown.3 1QIsb
contains chapters 10–66 with some omissions and is almost
identical to the Masoretic Text, but the more important scroll, 1QIsa,
is virtually complete, although it contains a tiny number of minor
deviations from the Masoretic Text.4
This work, made from seventeen sheets of leather sewn together to
form a single scroll twenty-three feet, ten inches long, by ten and a
half inches high,5
contains all 66 chapters in 54 columns of text, and is normally dated
to the late second century bce.6
The fact that two different scribes, witnessing to two different
textual types treated the whole of Isaiah as a single work,
strengthens their evidence enormously of course.
Furthermore, the New Testament itself adds its very considerable, and
for the believer, decisive
weight to the traditional viewpoint, as may be seen from the
eighty-seven occasions where it cites the prophet's words. In no less
than twenty-one of these instances, the quotation from the book is
accompanied by a reference to the prophet Isaiah by name, (these will
be examined later). In addition to this, the Masoretic Text, the
standard Hebrew text of the Hebrew Canon, and the unanimous testimony
of all the ancient texts, versions, Jewish traditions, and the early
Christian Church, report the book to be a single work.
At the end of the eighteenth century however, this view that had held
sway for millennia began to be challenged. Isaiah, it was asserted
was a compilation by different authors, and various so-called proofs
of this were brought forth by the critics. Since then, this
view-point has gained a massive momentum so that it is now considered
to be the orthodox scholarly position. We are assured that critical
scholarship has demonstrated the separate existence of the work of no
less than three authors, usually referred to as Proto-Isaiah,
Deutero-Isaiah, and Trito-Isaiah.
The authority
of the New Testament
The issues raised by this challenge to the traditional belief, are
firstly and obviously, that the Hebrew Canon is charged with
containing pseudonymous works, but secondly, and more importantly,
the authority of the New Testament is gravely undermined, as the
twenty-one occasions where Isaiah is referred to by name, relate to
every section of the book, and, therefore, to all three of the
modernist's authors.
Either the evangelists and Paul were unaware of what has supposedly
been unearthed by the critics, and thereby face the charge of gross
ignorance; or they were not ignorant at all, but accommodated
themselves to the prejudices of those they wrote for, and, thereby,
knowingly and deliberately maintained a falsehood. For believers
then, the matter is not merely of academic interest, but affects his
or her faith in the Inspiration of the New Testament. A New Testament
that through ignorance or deliberate policy propagates and maintains
a falsehood cannot be Divinely Inspired, or relied upon as our guide
in the most vital issues which confront us all, the issues of life
and death in their eternal dimensions. Clearly then the matter must
be resolved, and either the New Testament, or the views of the
critics must be abandoned; the matter is as stark as that. I set out
below the way I have tackled this vital subject.
Plan of the work
In Chapter One I review firstly, the development and basis of the
sceptic's arguments, and the impact they have upon the traditional
belief in the integrity of Isaiah. In the second part of the Chapter,
I show the views held by the Inspired writers of Scripture, and
demonstrate how thoroughly they are opposed to the modernist.
In Chapter Two, I examine the exceptional literary genius of Isaiah,
as well as his extremely wide vocabulary, the formulæ that are
peculiar to him, and the significance of this for our investigation.
I then move on to consider the theological themes found in Isaiah,
and the way in which some of the subject matter of Isaiah, controls
the provenance of his writings.
In Chapter Three I set out my own findings relating to the literary
form of the book of Isaiah, which I believe have important
consequences for the debate on the authorship of the book. I believe
that this has the potential to make a real breakthrough in the
controversy, but also believe firmly that credit for this new
evidence should also be awarded to Isaac M. Kikawada, Arthur
Quinn, and Duane Garrett, who are the pioneers in this field, and
whose findings in the Torah, I have but applied to Isaiah, and
earlier, to the book of Job.
In Chapter Four, I examine the link between the healing of Hezekiah,
and the defeat of the Assyrian army then besieging Jerusalem, and
also suggest a new reason for the contrast in style that is to be
found when comparing Isaiah 1–39, with 40–66. It
must be said that to a certain extent I have indulged in speculation
in this chapter, but I trust the reader will agree, it is speculation
that is reasonable, is based upon an extremely literal understanding
of the book of Isaiah, and is minimalist; nonetheless, the reader
must be prepared to examine some unusual evidence at this point.
In Chapter Five I show the extremely intricate and particularly
compelling literary structure outlined for the book of Isaiah by
E. W. Bullinger, based upon the techniques of Lowth, and
Boys. This poses a severe challenge for the sceptic I believe.
Finally, in the Conclusion, I seek to show that the integrity of the
book of Isaiah has been fully established, by which I mean not just
the literary integrity of the book, but also its moral and spiritual
qualities, as well as its authoritative claims upon all believers.
Supplementary material will be found in the three Appendices.
A caveat
I wish to point out that in the chapters that follow, I will
frequently refer to Proto-, Deutero-, and Trito-Isaiah. This is done
merely for the sake of convenience, and is not in any way at all to
be understood as a recognition of the validity of these modernist terms.
1
Swete, H. B., An Introduction To
The Old Testament In Greek, Peabody, Massachusetts,
Hendrickson, 1989, based on the Cambridge University Press edition of
1914, p. 220. Return
to text
2
See the article, Text And Versions,
by Burkitt, F. C., Encyclopædia
Biblica, edited Cheyne, & Sutherland Black, London, A.
& C. Black, 1903, column 5028f. The critical apparatus of the Variorum
Bible, which gives every textual variant available at the
time of printing reveals this, as throughout the book of Isaiah
references are made to the Peshitta, abbreviated to Pesh.,
and the Targum of Jonathan, the Targum most frequently referred to
by the abbreviation Targ. The
Variorum Teacher's Edition Of The Holy Bible, edited Cheyne,
Driver, Clarke, Goodwin, & Sanday, London, Eyre &
Spottiswoode, 1880, in.loc. Return
to text
3
See Jones, Douglas, R., in the articles Isaiah-II
And III, in Peake's
Commentary On The Bible, edited, Black, Matthew, & Rowley,
H. H., Sunbury-On-Thames, Nelson, 1977, p. 516. Return
to text
4
Ibid. Return
to text
5
Davis, J. D., Davis' Dictionary Of
The Bible, London, Pickering & Inglis, the 1972 impression
of the fourth, revised edition, p. 355, and Wiseman, D. J., Illustrations
From Biblical Archaeology, London, The Tyndale Press, 1958,
p. 78. Return
to text
6
See Hoegenhaven, Jesper, in the article The
First Isaiah Scroll From Qumran (1QIsa)
And The Massoretic Text. Some Reflections With Special Regard To Isaiah 1–12,
(article reference JSOT 28 (1984) 17–35) in Journal
For The Study Of The Old Testament issue 28, Sheffield, The
Department Of Biblical Studies, The University Of Sheffield, 1984, p.
17. Return
to text