Most biblical scholars do not affirm that the entire Book of Isaiah was written by the prophet Isaiah who lived at the end of the eighth and beginning of the seventh century B.C. I am one of those traditionalist that finds the arguments against a unified authorship unconvincing and therefore willing to assume the claims of tradition. At the end of the day it is the canonical standing of the book that really matters, but I find a unified authorship has less theological problems and no less historical problems.
Bryan E. Beyer does a good job of presenting both sides of the debate in Encountering the Book of Isaiah: A Historical and Theological Survey (153-161):
Multiple-authors:
(1) Time span: Is. 1-39 cover Judah’s troubles with Assyria while 40-66 focus upon Babylon. It would appear that whoever wrote 40-66 did not share the immediate concerns of whoever wrote 1-39. Whoever wrote the second part was around during Babylon’s empire.
(2) Subject matter: Also, in 40-48 King Cyrus of Persia is mentioned by name a couple of centuries before he came to power. This seems unlikely and the more natural explanation would be that the author was a contemporary of those events. It is rare for biblical prophecy to be that precise.
(3) Vocabulary and style: The author of 1-39 wrote a lot of narrative, many oracles, and some poetic passages, but none that were as detailed and rich as 40-66. The tune has changed as well. In 1-39 it is a bit pessimistic, while 40-66 are uplifting and hopeful.
There is no arguing against the fact that it is more logical that someone would have been in Babylon, watching the rise of Cyrus of Persia, who was a more poetic writer addressing a more hopeful time. It is not absurd to hold to multiple authors and there are even many evangelicals who do. I do not and I think Beyer’s reasons for singular authorship are convincing.
Singular author:
(1) Predictive prophecy: Of course, if God sees the future it is altogether possible that he could have told the prophet about Cyrus and the eventual fall of Babylon. In chapter thirty-nine we have Isaiah predicting Babylon’s rise at a time when Assyria was still the dominant power in the Near and Middle East.
(2) Different subject matter: There is nothing preventing the prophet Isaiah from finishing his own book on a hopeful note. There is no reason that he could not have written such amazing poetry and why couldn’t he have been the one to have these visions? It does seem odd, as Beyer notes, that if there is another author of 40-66 he disappears into history unknown while the lesser skilled prophet remains a prominent historical figure.
(3) Different vocabulary and style: Again, if the context of what Isaiah is addressing has changed, and he wants to end his own work with hopeful visions of the future, why could he not have written differently?
(4) Lack of chronological order: As I mentioned in my post a few days ago (see here) the chronological order of chapters 36-39 doesn’t match the literary order. It seems that Isaiah intentionally told a story about Babylon after telling some stories that happened later because he intended to tie it into 40-66’s address of Babylon’s future. Beyer notes at 2 Kings 18-20 does this very same thing even though it tends to go along a strict chronology when possible. He even argues that the author of 2 Kings 18-20 may have had access to Is. 36-39.
(5) Textual evidence: There has never, ever, ever been a transcript of the Book of Isaiah either lacking 40-66 or hinting that 1-39 and 40-66 were two books. Singular authorship has been assumed by Jews and Christians until the last two hundred years.
(6) NT quotations: There are several quotations in the NT that come from 40-66 that mention Isaiah as the author, e.g.:
– Is. 40.3 in Mt. 3.3
– Is. 40.3-5 in Lk. 3.4-6
– Is. 42.1-4 in Mt. 12.17-21
– Is. 53.1 in Jn 12.38
– Is. 53.4 in Mt. 8.17
– Is 65.1-2 in Rom. 10.20-21
Honestly, this often comes down to various premises related to Isaiah’s vision of Cyrus in my opinion. I am not saying this is the only motive for denying singular authorship, but likely the first and foremost. Of course, if you believe in a future seeing God then why couldn’t Cyrus be mentioned by name? Also, if you do not believe in a future seeing God that could name Cyrus what hope do we have that any of the visions of the new heaven and new earth in the age to come are of any worth?
the archives near Emmaus 
Hey Brian,
I lean towards a multiformity of authorship textual development. I don’t have the space here to articulate this completely, but the textual recensions seem to grant evidence of Isaiah’s, not an Isaiah—which of course rules out the option of an Urtext. Ulrich’s essay in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism cogently sets out a case for a layered development of the MT in light of 1QIsa.a (see also Rendtorff’s essay in Canon and Theology.
By the way, the above relates specifically to what I would like to write my MA Thesis on at Western. I would take it that Isaiah is being applied (in a Gadamerian sense of the word: understood) in the present community, so as to project meaning for a future community (i.e., as Ricoeur perspicaciously states, sign gives forth to thought).
The statement: “authorship textual development” is supposed have authorship stricken out:
authorship.@James: I wouldn’t have a problem with the idea of further editorial work and in that sense multiple “authors” or an argument that 40-66 is not from Isaiah’s hand but is faithful to the oral tradition deriving from him. Even as we agree about the canonical context though, it does appear to have implications for how we read Scripture if we see no root in the historical prophet Isaiah. If we see 40-66 as totally disconnected from the prophet Isaiah (if not at least grounded in oral tradition of some sort) then there is the concern of not merely a contemporary value of Scripture but its value over time.
By this I mean in what sense do we find prophetic insight in 40-66 as reliable as regards those things future if we find it merely sociological projections of a “prophet” in Babylon observing the rise of Cyrus? In what sense does the “new heavens” and “new earth” remain a viable eschatological option if all the claims of YHWH’s ability to be from beginning to end as seen by his foresight into Babylon’s fall is really only a contemporary? In what sense is YHWH any better in the message of this book than the idols whom he mocks?
In other words, what are the theological implications of your suggested view?
I will add that I am not writing off the idea of multiple authorship, but I do need to find good arguments for how 40-66 can be considered prophetic and trustworthy and how, unlike the common scholarly views on these chapters, this would not totally trivialize the message of these chapters speaking of YHWH’s foresight and superiority to idols.
I am sorry Brian, I detected a hint of universalism there. Sorry, I’m dobbing! 😀
@Mark: I can see your logic. You think that if I affirm one author then I think differences don’t really matter and in the end it all is one anyways. So I probably don’t see a real difference between good and evil; therefore, I am being a universalist! 😉
Hey Brian,
I understand that you want to place a high value on the theological significance of this portion of Scripture, especially as it relates to predictive prophecy and theological ontology. However, I must question the assumption operative in your response: in what way does God appear (i.e., from a text-linguistics basis) more superior on the basis of the ability to perform predictive prophecy? Moreover, why does it need to be predictive for it to have theological significance in the text of Isaiah and the canon?
I don’t follow your argument relating the necessity of predictive prophecy and covenant renewal? Are you suggesting a fortiori that because God can predict the rise of one person, namely Cyrus, then he can even more so predict the coming of a new heaven and earth?
Brian,
I sense that I should have elaborated more on what I meant by “text-linguistics.” Basically, I am curious how your exegesis leads you to the conclusion of the necessity of Predictive prophecy. How does the text shape this idea (i.e., does it emanate from the נחמו נחמו of God’s assurance of future restoration? etc.).
I appreciate the dialogue. It makes me wish I could take you out to coffee and discuss this passage even more, for I think it surfaces an interesting nexus between exegetical theology and philosophical theology—especially as it relates to a text. Oh and one more thing, I certainly believe that some of the Israelites place a great deal of significance on predictive prophecy, as 1QpHab exemplifies a very interesting exegetical strategy in relating ambivalent and/or ambiguous prophetic passages to the Qumran community.
@James: Let me know if you think I am misreading 40-66, but there are my thoughts thus far. There is a juxtaposition between YHWH and the idols based on YHWH’s knowledge of the future. Idols cannot see the future. YHWH is sovereign enough to name and choose Cyrus. This may still be considered prophetic even if the “second” Isaiah was part of the Babylonian captivity because it doesn’t seem that even Babylon saw Cyrus coming, but it is a tad more problematic if this is written in retrospect after Cyrus had defeated Babylon. It would seem that the arguement “YHWH is superior to the idols because he knows the end from the beginning” is false because YHWH didn’t actually foresee Cyrus, rather some exilic or post-exilic Jew wrote this in retrospect.