The Human Writers of the Old Testament, Part 2 (E.J.Young)

This is the second of a three part series on "The Human Writers of the Scriptures" by E J Young.

_____________________

The question may very well be raised how the Spirit actually controlled the writers of Scripture so that they wrote expressly what He desired and yet at the same time were responsible individuals whose personalities were not stifled. How, for example, could the prophet write, “The words of Amos . . . which he saw?” Does not this verse contain a glaring contradiction? If the words are truly those of Amos, how could they at the same time be those which had found their origin in God? If God was the Author, how could Amos also be regarded as an author?

Legitimate as such questions are, however, they cannot be fully answered. God has not seen fit to reveal to us the mode by which He communicated His Word to His servants, placing that word in their mouths and “carrying” them until the Word was accurately committed to writing. We have come, in other words, into an area of mystery. There is much about this precious Scriptural doctrine which God has not revealed. The Scripture is silent as to the mode which God employed to preserve His Word from error. In this as in so many doctrines of the Bible there is mystery. It is of course, to be expected that such would be the case. We are but men and our understanding is at best limited and finite. We can only know as a created being knows. God, on the other hand, is the One who in His understanding is infinite. We cannot probe into His dealings in such a way as to obtain full and comprehensive knowledge thereof. He is not such a One as can be brought down and placed under the scrutiny of the microscope of the human mind.

In the doctrine of the Trinity likewise there is mystery. He who thinks that he can remove that mystery and fully understand the doctrine deceives no one but himself. This deep truth must be received in faith, and the believing heart rejoices simply because God has revealed this mystery in His Word. How wondrous is this revelation which God has given of Himself! How great, we are compelled to say, is our Holy God! When the mind delights itself in the thought that He is the one living and true God, it finds itself suddenly brought face to face with the fact that He is also Triune. Likewise, when it contemplates the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it is worshipping Him beside whom there is no other. The One reminds us of the Three, and the Three bring us to the One. Before Him, the one God in three Persons, we bow in adoration. We praise Him, we worship Him, we extol His matchless Name, we meditate upon His infinite attributes and perfections. Never, however, can we remove the mystery that adheres to the revelation which He has given of Himself as Triune.

It is the same with the doctrine of inspiration. When we have set forth all that the Scripture has to say, we can go no further. It may well be that questions arise in our minds, but they are questions which, at present at least, we cannot answer. Our duty is to believe all that God has revealed and to bow in humble acceptance of the truth which He has given. Scripture has spoken; it has permitted us to learn much concerning its inspiration. It has not, however, told us all. We may then freely acknowledge that there are difficulties in the Scriptural position, and also that there are questions which we cannot at present answer. Our portion is to be believers. God has spoken. Let us hear His voice, and beyond that let us not seek to go.

At this point, however, it is necessary to consider in some detail and with some care an objection to the above teaching which is frequently being voiced in our day. When the Word of God came through human personality, it is very often maintained, the Word was obscured to some extent. God was limited in His choice of available instruments through whom His Word might come to us, and therefore He did the best that He could with the personalities and means that were at His disposal. Consequently, the character of the revelation which we have depends not only upon God but also upon the human media through which it came.

Since the Word did come through human agents and instrumentality, it is claimed, there must adhere to it some of the error and imperfection which is found in everything human. It is just like plunging one’s arm into muddy water: in withdrawing the arm some of the mud will adhere to it; or it is like rays of sunlight which are less bright when shining through a dirty window than a clear one.

The character of the Divine revelation, therefore, according to this view, depends not only on God, but also on those media through which that revelation came. If those media were fallible, then the revelation itself partook of that fallibility. God Himself was limited by the means at hand. He could communicate Himself and His truth to men only in so far as men themselves were spiritually mature to receive His revelation. Men with spiritual failings could mar and prevent that revelation from coming to mankind.

Those, who insist that the Word of God in coming through human instruments has itself been affected and has acquired imperfections, for the most part believe that they can themselves detect these imperfections. Generally they wish to limit the errors and flaws which have supposedly crept into the Word of God to minor matters of fact or history. Sometimes a comparison is made with the incarnation of the Lord. The Word which became incarnate was subject to all the limitations and hardships of human life, it is sometimes maintained, and likewise the embodiment of the spoken Word of God in the history of a people such as the Hebrews involved all the crudities and the errors that such a people would probably make.

One need not look far today for a statement of this position. It is to be found in much that is written on the subject. Whenever someone writes on the Bible, he seems to feel the necessity of pointing out that it contains errors, and that these errors are a result of the human agents who were employed in the writing down of Scripture. It seems to be taken for granted that error must in the nature of the case be found in whatever is written by human hands.

As we hear this objection to the Scriptural teaching, there are several questions which arise. In the first place, we would ask, What kind of a God is He who cannot reveal to the world a message that is free from error? Surely, He must be limited and restricted indeed! Those of us who from time to time engage in a bit of writing are happy to have a stenographer who types our work accurately. If we discover that the stenographer is constantly making mistakes in her typing, and these mistakes are of so serious a nature that our work is actually obscured and marred thereby, we shall probably change stenographers. God, however, if the position which we are now considering is correct, cannot even do this. God is far more limited than are we mortals. We have the ability of hiring someone who will do our work for us as we desire it done; God, on the other hand, cannot even do that. When God would speak to mankind in writing, He cannot get His message across without having it cluttered up with irritating errors.

It is well to consider this question carefully. God, we are being told, had to use the means at His disposal. Those means were human beings. Therefore, when God revealed His Word, that Word, in passing through the media of human writers, acquired the characteristics of those writers, including their error, their ignorance, their crudities. Well may we exclaim at the poverty and weakness of such a God! If indeed man can thus thwart Him, it is pertinent to ask, Is He really worth knowing after all?

One thing, however, is clear. Such a God, limited as He is by the human agents through whom He gives His Word, is not the God of the Bible. He may very well serve as the god of modern theology, but he is not the Creator of heaven and earth, the one true eternal God. If it were really true — and thank God that it is not — that the Father in heaven were restricted in His power by man and were limited in His ability to reveal His Word, we could then be sure that at the best he was only a finite being like ourselves. He might be more powerful than we, yet, since we can clutter up His revelation with our error, even that assumption is questionable. Since He is limited by His creatures, such a God is no God at all.

Very different is the God of whom Scripture speaks. This God, whom the Christian worships as the Creator, is One who doeth according to His will, “and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?” (Daniel 4:35b). This God, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, is One who can take up and bear `the writers of Scripture so that what they have written is exactly what He desired to have written. He is One who in His infinite power can use as His agents and instruments fallible human beings, who can bring into His employ all the gifts, talents, and characteristics of those human beings, and yet can cause them to pen His own Word, and keep that Word utterly separate and distinct from their own sinful nature and the consequent imperfections which are the result of that nature.

There is, however, another point which must be raised in this connection. Those who believe that there are errors in the Bible, as we have seen, seek to account for the presence of these supposed errors upon the assumption that their origin is to be attributed to the human writers. Since human authors are fallible, they reason, the Scripture itself must therefore partake of fallibility. If this is actually the case, it follows that not merely part of Scripture partakes of fallibility, but all. Whatever is the Word of God has passed through human instruments. Whatever passes through human instruments, so this argument runs, must therefore partake of fallibility. All Scripture has passed through human instrumentality; consequently, all Scripture has become fallible. There is no escape from this position. It will not do to say that fallibility has attached itself only to statements of historical and geographical fact. To do that would be to be guilty of gross inconsistency. Like a leach that cannot be removed, human fallibility attaches itself to all Scripture without exception. Whatever is the Word of God is also fallible; no part is free from error and imperfection.

It may very well be that this is not what modern writers believe but, be that as it may, it is the logical conclusion of their position, and it is well to note what that conclusion is. God grant that those who are so insistent that humanity must give to the Divine Word the character of fallibility would realize what is involved in their claim. They have not solved any difficulties; rather they have created incalculably difficult questions and problems.

An example will reveal how dire are the consequences of this position. When we are called to a home where death has come, how inadequate we are. At such a time how trite and unsatisfactory are mere words of ours! How the heart grieves at the thoughtlessness and cruelty of those who have nothing more to offer than mere banality and platitude. Cold and unthinking they are indeed! Can we on the other hand, offer anything of greater comfort? We turn to the pages of the Bible and read, “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.” (John 11:25,26). “Is that true?” asks the one in sorrow. “Is Jesus really the One who has taken my loved one to be with Him?” “Well,” we reply, “we believe that it is true. Of course, this Word of God, like everything else in the Bible is tinged with fallibility. Like the remainder of Scripture it also has imperfection and error.”

To speak in that vein would be mockery. It would offer no comfort to the soul who is in sorrow. Yet, how else could one answer? To the one in need there would be nothing better to say, since all Scripture is fallible. We could never be sure as to what it said about God, nor could we, for that matter, have any assurance that its prescriptions for our conduct upon this earth were free from error. Serious and tragic in the extreme are the consequences of adopting this modern error. We can only be thankful that its adherents are themselves inconsistent in their practice. For our part, we want nothing to do with a position which logically can lead to such results. Thank God that when it came through human agents His blessed Word was not coated with fallibility. Those agents did not control or circumscribe Him; they did not affect His Word, but rather, under His sovereign Spirit, were rendered the willing instruments to carry out what He wished accomplished.

Furthermore, if fallible human writers have given to us a Bible that is fallible, how are we ourselves, who most certainly are fallible, to detect in the Bible what is error and what is not? To this the answer is given that with the increase in knowledge, we can easily detect errors which the ancient writers made. They had crude ideas of geography and history, it is said, but we today have much greater knowledge. Where they went astray, we can furnish a check and correct their errors. To speak this way, however, is not to settle the issue at all. What about those parts of the Bible upon which we cannot check? How are we to discern what in those parts is error and what is not? How are we to separate the fallible from the inerrant?

To take an example, the Bible speaks of Palestine and Jerusalem. We may today travel to Palestine and Jerusalem, and thus we have a check. When the Bible mentioned these places, it was telling us the truth; such places do exist. The Bible also mentions certain customs of antiquity. Abraham, for example, took his concubine, Hagar, and from her a son was born. Archaeology has made it perfectly clear that this custom was as a matter of fact practiced in Abraham’s day. Well and good, but what about those parts of the Bible upon which we cannot check? How shall we evaluate the God of Scripture? How do we know whether we can separate the wheat from the chaff in the Biblical teaching about God? The answer is that we simply cannot do so. If all Scripture is fallible, then all that Scripture says about God is fallible, and we have no way of detecting what is and what is not in accord with fact. We ourselves are likely to err. How then can we judge the Scripture? Judge the Scripture we cannot; we are left in a hopeless scepticism. It will not do to say that modern knowledge has made it possible to separate the wheat and the chaff in the Bible. It has done nothing of the kind. We are ourselves like the authors of Scripture and the only thing that can help us in an infallible Word from God. Since, however, God cannot give us an infallible Word, there is nothing that we can do. Here is the Bible, shot full of error, and we must make the best of it. Disastrous indeed is this conclusion. Disastrous as it is, however, it is the end at which we are bound to arrive if we adopt the view which we are now seeking to answer.

The Authorship of Isaiah (Edward J Young)

I hope you don't mind my interrupting the series on "The Human Writers of the Scriptures" by E J Young just this once. I promise to post the remaining two parts in the near future. For this post, I like to share with you another article by E J Young on "The Authorship of Isaiah". At the turn of the 20th century some scholars were arguing for a division of the Book of Isaiah into Proto-Isaiah (Chs 1-39) and Deutero-Isaiah (Chs 40-66). When Young wrote this article in Themelios 4.3 (1967): 11-16, Deutero-Isaiah has already been divided by scholars into Deutero-Isaiah (Chs 40-55) and Trito-Isaiah (Chs 56-66). Scholars who believe that Isaiah comprise these three divisions also insist that these three parts were written by different authors and at different times. They concede that the prophet, Isaiah, wrote Proto-Isaiah around 700B.C. However, Deutero-Isaiah was written by an unknown author who lived in the Babylonian captivity around 540 B.C., and Trito-Isaiah was written by someone who ministered to the returned exiles around 539 B.C. In this article E J Young argues against this view of Isaiah and for the unity of Isaiah by one author, namely, the prophet Isaiah. It is important to note the dire implications, according to Young, for Bible-believing Christians if we should deny the unity of Isaiah and its single authorship.

_________________________

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, for they feel that there is no need to devote more attention to it than has already been devoted. Among modern scholars there seems to be rather general agreement that, whoever was responsible for the book in which we now have it, it was not the eighth century prophet Isaiah. On the other hand, the prophecy itself bears a heading which ascribes authorship to Isaiah, the New Testament clearly considers the book to be Isaiah’s work, and this has also been the traditional position of the Christian Church until the rise of unbelieving rationalism in the eighteenth century.

MODERN VIEWS OF AUTHORSHIP OF THE PROPHECY
That Isaiah was the author of the entire book which bears his name is, as we have 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 of much significance. The modern view really began to make its appearance when Koppe, who edited the German edition of Bishop Lowth’s commentary, suggested in a footnote to chapter 50 of the prophecy that this chapter might have been the work of Ezekiel or of someone else who lived at the time of the Babylonian exile. Soon it was maintained that the entirety of chapters 40-66 were written at the time of the exile. Were these chapters, however, the work of one man or of many? For a time there seemed to be no settled answer, but the strong voice of Gesenius, speaking early in the nineteenth century, came out in favor of the view that these chapters were the work of one man, and this view seemed to predominate among those who would not listen to the testimony of the Bible to itself.

This unknown author of chapters 40-66 was generally referred to as “Isaiah of Babylon”, or “Isaiah of the exile”, or “Deutero” or “Second” Isaiah. Critics spoke of him in glowing terms. He was the great exponent or really the discoverer of ethical monotheism, with whom no other prophet could be compared. In 1892, however, he toppled from his throne, for in that year Bernhard Duhm’s commentary on Isaiah appeared. Duhm held that only chapters 40-55 could be ascribed to “Second” Isaiah, and furthermore that “Second” Isaiah did not live in Babylonia, but in Palestine. Within the compass of chapters 40-55 were the four passages which Duhm labelled “Servant Songs”, the most prominent of which was the famous fifty- third chapter. These songs, according to Duhm, were taken from a collection of songs which was written about one hundred years after the time of the exile, and were later incorporated into the body of chapters 40-55.

As for chapters 56-66 Duhm asserted that these were the work of another man, whom he designated “Trito” Isaiah, who also, according to Duhm, lived in Palestine. To say that these were revolutionary ideas is to put it mildly. Duhm’s work soon began to have its influence, and soon it was carried to extremes, one writer even asserting that only a few verses of chapters 40-66 had anything to do with Babylonia. The principal point of division among scholars had to do with the question whether “Trito” Isaiah was an individual or whether a number of writers had written the material that comprises chapters 55-66. Today Duhm’s influence is still paramount, although, as a result of form-critical studies, there is more of a tendency to see genuine Isaianic influence throughout the prophecy. Isaiah, so it is asserted, had disciples who wrote in his spirit, and this accounts for the influence of Isaiah throughout the entirity of the prophecy. At any rate, whatever view of authorship is maintained, it is stoutly insisted that Isaiah himself was not the author of the entire prophecy.

WHAT SHALL WE BELIEVE?
It is perfectly clear that scholarship has been unable to come to a satisfactory position with respect to the question of authorship. In fact, all too often it is simply assumed without any argument whatever that the author of chapters 40-66 must have lived in the times of the exile or later. In modern writings little serious heed is paid to the claims for Isaianic authorship of the book. What then should our position be as Christians? In order to answer this question we must note what is really involved in the question of Isaianic authorship and why it is so important that we hold to the correct position. To state it succinctly, what is involved is simply the authority of the New Testament. It is perfectly clear that the New Testament attributes the authorship of the entire prophecy to the eighth century Isaiah. It is furthermore clear that the New Testament intends (despite what is often said today) to attribute authorship to Isaiah. The New Testament speaks not so much of the prophecy of Isaiah (although it does so speak) as of the individual man himself. Hence, we have phrases such as, “Well did the Holy Spirit speak through Isaiah ... “ or, “Isaiah becomes bold and says.” If one will examine the usage which the New Testament makes of the prophecy he will soon see that the New Testament very definitely does intend to attribute authorship to Isaiah. Now if the New Testament is mistaken at this point, how do we know that it is not mistaken at other points? This is the question at stake: can we rely upon the New Testament or not?

When we turn to the infallible witness of the New Testament we note that it uses the prophecy of Isaiah more than all the other prophecies of the Old Testament combined. One passage in particular calls for our attention. In John 12 :38 we have a quotation of Isaiah 53:1 which is designated as “the saying of Isaiah the prophet ... which he spoke.” This passage, taken from what the “critics” generally designate “second” or “deutero” Isaiah and which, according to Duhm, is part of an old song about a leprous rabbi, is by the New Testament attributed to Isaiah the prophet and interpreted as referring to the unbelief of the Pharisees. In verses 39 and 40 there is a quotation from Isaiah 6 which the “critics” are willing (in as much as it relates his call in the first person) to attribute to Isaiah himself. Here reference is made to the prophet with the words, “Isaiah said again.” This passage, taken from the critics’ first Isaiah is used by the inspired writer of the Gospel to prove the truthfulness of a quotation from the ‘critics’ “second” Isaiah. Finally, as though to anticipate the modern emphasis upon the “Sitz im Leben” of the prophecies, John goes on to say, “These things (i.e., the truth of verses 38 and 40) said Isaiah, when he saw his (i.e., Christ’s) glory, and spoke of him” (verse 41). Thus, in this particular quotation both parts of the prophecy are tied together and both are attributed to the eighth century Isaiah. In as much as the New Testament is the Word of God, the question is settled. God has spoken, and we have but to follow His Word, irrespective of what the latest “critical” theories may be.

In a brief article of this nature it will not be possible to note all of the New Testament quotations, but the reader will find it profitable at least to consult the following: Matthew 3:3; 8:17; 12:17; 13: 14; 15:7; Mark 7:6; Luke 3:4; 4:17; John 1 :23; Acts 8 :28, 30, 32, 33; 28 :25; Romans 9:27, 29; 10:16, 20. (cf. my Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 199-222 for further discussion.)

SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS
That the New Testament attributes Isaianic authorship to the prophecy can scarcely be questioned by serious scholarship. For the believer in the authority of Scripture, such inspired testimony is sufficient. We may note, however, that there is an abundance of evidence, both external and internal, which, as we might very well suspect, supports the testimony of the New Testament.

Let us note then that the heading of the prophecy attributes the work to Isaiah (for a discussion of the heading cf. my The Prophecy of Isaiah, Vol. I pp. 27-33) and that no other name has ever been attached to the prophecy as the author. Those who deny the Isaianic authorship of the entire prophecy must explain how Isaiah’s name came to be attached to the prophecy, and this they have not been 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. we have the witness of the book of Ecclesiasticus who definitely believed in Isaianic authorship. Indeed, the manner in which he employed the book shows that in his day the tradition of Isaianic authorship had been long established. This is supported by the great manuscript from cave No. 1 at Qumran which comes from the second century B. C. It is most interesting to note that between chapters 39 and 40 there is no particular break. Chapter 39 concludes one line from the bottom of the column, leaving space for a few letters at the end of the line. Chapter 40 begins on the last line of the column with no indentation whatever. Nor is there any change in the copyist. It thus appears that there was no intention to make a break at this point. Here then is further evidence of the antiquity of the tradition, and from the scroll it would appear that this tradition had long been in existence. We are probably on safe ground if we assert that the tradition of Isaianic authorship goes back at least to the third century B. C.

This poses some problems for those who refuse to accept the witness of the New Testament. If the so-called “second” Isaiah was such a great prophet, how is it that all trace of him has disappeared, and that his work was attached to the writing of “first” Isaiah who in the eyes of the “critics” was by no means as great as “second” Isaiah? When one begins to contemplate this problem seriously he realizes how difficult it is of solution. Indeed, there is no solution, and it is understandable that scholars have been so quiet about it. From Isaiah 40-55 it is impossible to learn anything about the supposed “second” Isaiah whom the “critics” think was the author of these chapters. All trace of him, who he was, where he lived, what he did - all has been lost. Yet, we are told that he was the greatest of the prophets. Is it asking too much that those who refuse to believe the Word of God should give us an explanation of how chapters 40-55 came to find the place in the prophecy that they now occupy? What happened to the memory of this great prophet that his works were attached to those of the eighth century Isaiah?

THE MESSAGE OF ISAIAH
One of the strongest of the secondary arguments in defense of the Isaianic authorship is found in the progress of the message of the prophecy. Chapter one serves as an introduction in which the principal themes, later to be developed, are given in germ form. In chapters two through five the prophet brings in the two great themes with which he will 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 be labelled a Messianic cluster of prophecies, that the hope of the nation lies not in trust in any human king, but in the Messiah.

The work then groups itself about two main historical periods, that of Ahaz and that of Hezekiah. Step by step, however, it prepares itself for the threat of exile to Babylon (chapter 39) and so paves the way for the messages of comfort found in the last twenty-seven chapters. The importance of this preparation is often overlooked or ignored. If chapters 40-66 be severed from what precedes, it is practically impossible to explain them. On the other hand, chapters 1-39 are then left incomplete; it is obvious that they prepare for something, but for what? Without 40-66 we are left without an answer. The “comfort ye” of chapter 40 depends upon the threat found in chapter 39, and 39 clearly prepares for 40. Divorce the two, and the “comfort ye” of 40 raises some insoluble questions. Furthermore, in 1-39 there is stress upon the Person of the Deliverer. It was necessary that this be so, for during the days of Ahaz there was a desire to forget the promises of God and to turn to a human deliverer. Isaiah points the nation to the promises and declares that a Child will be born who will deliver His people and who will reign eternally.

Who is this Child and what is His work? Isaiah makes abundantly clear who He is, but it is in the second portion of the prophecy that he stresses the nature of His work. The One described in chapter 53, despite all that “critics” say to the contrary, is the One presented in chapters 7 and 9. Were we left only with 1-39 we would not know the identity of the Redeemer. We need both parts of the prophecy, and the “critical” partition simply destroys what is a beautiful unity and harmony.

In this connection it is well to notice the importance and the significance of chapters 36-39 in the prophecy. These chapters serve as a connecting bridge or link between 1-35 on the one hand and 40-66 on the other. In chapters 36-37 we have the account of the invasion of Sennacherib and this points back to the time of Assyria which underlay for the most part the messages of the first thirty-five chapters. Chapters 38-39 on the other hand tell of the coming of the Babylonian envoys and contain a prediction of captivity to Babylon and thus point forward to the Babylonian period which underlies much of what we have in 40-66. These four chapters occur with some variations in II Kings, but it is obvious, as I have sought to show in detailed fashion in my commentary, The Prophecy of Isaiah, Vol. II, that the original of the chapters is found not in Kings but in Isaiah. This is a strong argument in defense of the unity of the book.

Another point that is often overlooked is that there are reflections, in one way or another, in later prophecies upon the contents of Isaiah 40-66. Jeremiah in particular employed the earlier prophecies, probably far more than any other prophet. If Jeremiah used material found in Isaiah 40-66, Isaiah 40-66 must have been earlier than Jeremiah, and such indeed is the case. What do the critics say about this? Insofar as they pay any attention at all to this consideration they insist that the borrowing is on the part of 40-66. This of course, would be to make mince meat of the Old Testament prophecies, for it would place 40-66 at a very late date and make the author of these chapters dependent upon Jeremiah and the other prophecies. A careful examination of the prophecies in question, however, shows that the dependency was not upon the part of the author of Isaiah 40-66 but the other way round, upon Jeremiah, Nahum, Zephaniah, etc. Those who are interested in working this out for themselves may consult my article, “Isaiah 34 And Its Position in the Prophecy” (The Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. XXVII, May 1965, No. 2, pp. 93-114).

In this connection we may note that throughout the entire prophecy there is an almost uncanny similarity in the usage of words and combinations of words. As is well known, the phrase, The Holy One of Israel occurs in both sections of the prophecy. It reflects upon Isaiah’s call to the ministry and is a characteristic expression of his book. Rare words, such as caprice or thorn bush appear in both parts of the prophecy but apparently nowhere else in the Old Testalnent. This is true of many other words and phrase and peculiar combinations of words. Those who are interested in pursuing this matter further should read the valuable work of Rachel Margalioth: The Indivisible Isaiah. The material presented in this volume is unanswerable. It is perfectly obvious that the author of 40-66 was also the author of 1-39.

WHY NOT BELIEVE IN ISAIANIC AUTHORSHIP?
If then the arguments for Isaianic authorship are so strong, why do they not command universal assent? Why, particularly in popular works such as Sunday School manuals, are we still subjected to phrases such as “Second” Isaiah, or “Isaiah of the exile”? In part, the answer to this question may be that many have never taken the trouble to familiarize themselves with the arguments for Isaianic authorship. Bible believing scholars make it a point to try to read on both sides of the question, but there are not many “critical” scholars who are willing to do the same thing. The biblical position is often dismissed as obscurantist, or fundamentalistic or the theology of repristination or the like.

There are of course some positive arguments adduced for rejection of Isaianic authorship, and they are the following. It is asserted, and rightly, that the name of Isaiah is not found in chapters 40-66. This, of course, is true, but for that matter, neither is the name of anyone else as author appended to these chapters. Certainly they do not bear the heading “Second Isaiah”. And whereas, if these chapters are from Isaiah, there is much in the argument and in the style and in the theology which shows that they come from the same hand as the author of 1-39, if however, these chapters are from some “second” Isaiah of the exile, there is nothing in them to support that fact. This theory of a “second” Isaiah must first be imposed upon the chapters, and then they must be made to fit that theory, and anyone who has studied carefully the vast literature on the subject knows that such is the case. Hence, the fact that the name of Isaiah is missing from these chapters in itself proves nothing as to authorship.

Secondly, it is maintained that the style of the chapters 40-66 is so different from that of 1-39 that they cannot possibly both come from the same writer. We have already made some brief comments on style and vocabulary. Suffice it to say that if there is a difference of style, and to a certain extent there is, this is precisely what we should expect upon the basis of Isaianic authorship. In part the change in style is due to the subject matter. There is however, a consideration more important than that. It would seem that chapters 40-66 came from late in the reign of Hezekiah, in the latter part of the prophet’s life. It is questionable whether these chapters were ever uttered orally. Rather, the Holy Spirit superintended the aged prophet as he wrote out these chapters, dealing with the greatest of all themes, the glory of the sovereign God and His sovereignty in the salvation of His people. The fact that these chapters were written and not delivered orally would to a great extent account for any changes of style. We must also note that as a man grows and matures, his style of writing will change and improve. Are we to expect the aged Isaiah to write in just that style which he might have employed when the Lord first called him into the work of prophecy? Lastly, although there is a difference of style to a certain extent, we have noted throughout the prophecy that certain words and combinations of words, found nowhere else in the Old Testament, characterize this work. The argument from style does not disprove Isaianic authorship.

Lastly, it is claimed that these chapters (i.e. 40-66) have a Babylonian background, and in particular the mention of Cyrus shows that Isaiah cannot have been the author. It is true that in a certain sense there is reflection upon the exile, but Babylon is mentioned more in chapters 1-39 than in 40-66. As to the prophecy of Cyrus, who lived many years after the eighth century Isaiah, we would simply say that God is the God of prophecy and history. Why could He not have revealed to Isaiah the name of Cyrus just as He revealed to the man of God the name of Josiah (I Kings 13 :2), some three hundred years before Josiah’s birth?

In connection with the prophecy concerning Cyrus, we may note that it presents Cyrus as one to come in the far distant future. Cyrus is clearly not a contemporary of the prophet. If the prophecy were written by one living at the time of Cyrus, it would seem that he gave a wrong and untrue impression in making it appear that Cyrus would not appear upon the scene of history for a long time to come. On the other hand, if the prophet were Isaiah, this is just what we should expect.

In what we have written we have sought to show some of the reasons why we are compelled to believe that the New Testament is correct in ascribing authorship to Isaiah. If the prophecy is his work, we have before us a well developed argument of a most magnificent kind, the like of which the world has never seen. If it is not from Isaiah, we have a collection of fragments about which we really know very little and whose meaning is lost to us. God’s Word tells us that Isaiah saw Christ’s day and spoke of Him. Does any mere man have knowledge sufficient to deny the truthfulness of that statement?