How Many Isaiahs Were There and What Does It Matter?

Prophetic Inspiration in Recent Evangelical Scholarship

Richard L. Schultz

• Publisher: IVP Academic
• Year: 2012
• eBook ISBN:
  9780830866311
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

By definition, a high view of Scripture inheres in evangelicalism. However, there does not seem to be a uniform way to articulate an evangelical doctrine of Scripture. Taking up the challenge, Vincent Bacote, Laura Miguélez and Dennis Okholm present twelve essays that explore in depth the meaning of an evangelical doctrine of Scripture that takes seriously both the human and divine dimensions of the Bible. Selected from the presentations made at the 2001 Wheaton Theology Conference, the essays approach this vital subject from three directions. Stanley J. Grenz, Thomas Buchan, Bruce L. McCormack and Donald W. Dayton consider the history of evangelical thinking on the nature of Scripture.John J. Brogan, Kent Sparks, J. Daniel Hays and Richard L. Schultz address the nature of biblical authority. Bruce Ellis Benson, John R. Franke, Daniel J. Treier and David Alan Williams explore the challenge of hermeneutics, especially as it relates to interpreting Scripture in a postmodern context.Together these essays provide a window into current evangelical scholarship on the doctrine of Scripture and also advance the dialogue about how best to construe our faith in the Word of God, living and written, that informs not only the belief but also the practice of the church.

How Many Isaiahs Were There and What Does It Matter?

Prophetic Inspiration in Recent Evangelical Scholarship

One of the primary threats today to a traditional understanding of biblical inspiration and inerrancy is the unrestricted employment of historical-critical tools by evangelical biblical scholars.[1] In this essay I will examine how some recent evangelical scholars have described the composition of the book of Isaiah because it vividly illustrates contemporary critical approaches and the implications that these can have for one's understanding of prophetic inspiration. It is not my purpose to mount a thorough defense of any particular theory regarding the origin of the canonical book of Isaiah. Rather, I will consider whether the scholars whose work will be examined below have undermined their theological foundation through their interpretation of Isaiah.

The Composition of Isaiah

The key question that emerges from the critical study of the book of Isaiah is, how many Isaiahs were there, and does the position that one takes on this issue really matter?

View 1. According to a typical contemporary historical-critical reconstruction, there were not merely two or three Isaiahs (i.e., the pre-exilic First Isaiah, the exilic Second Isaiah and the postexilic Third Isaiah). Rather, as many as a dozen or more individuals might have had a part in producing the present canonical book.[2]

View 2. According to the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Baba Batra, which states that "Hezekiah and his colleagues wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes," there might be no prophet Isaiah who functioned as author of the book of Isaiah.[3]

View 3. According to the traditional interpretation of 2 Peter 1:20-21, which states that "no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (niv) presumably only one person stood in the divine council and then proclaimed to eighth-century Judah, "Thus says the Lord."

The New Evangelical Perspective

Not too many decades ago, the authorial unity of Isaiah—that is, that there was only one Isaiah—was considered an evangelical litmus test of biblical orthodoxy, as was the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and the pre-Maccabean origin of Daniel. Today the theory that much, if not most, of the present book of Isaiah comprises contributions by a series of later authors, disciples and editors is considered by some evangelical textbook authors to be not merely a viable but even a preferable approach. According to William LaSor, David Hubbard and Frederic Bush, "the traditional view that Isaiah wrote the entire book is held today by exceedingly few scholars."[4] They label the claim that there were four or more authors an "extreme" position, although this has, in fact, been the majority view in the academy since the publication of Bernhard Duhm's influential commentary in 1892.[5] Most scholars today ascribe to Isaiah of Jerusalem between 20 and 40 percent of the canonical book, with one leading German scholar claiming that Isaiah was responsible only for fragments of Isaiah 28—31![6]

Raymond Dillard and Tremper Longman, although more reserved in their conclusions, apparently view the following prophetic scenario as acceptable:

Isaiah 40—66 presumes an author living later in the Exile foresaw through divine inspiration what God was about to do through Cyrus, just as Isaiah foresaw through divine inspiration what God would soon do with Tiglath-Pileser III (Isa. 7). This later author saw in Isaiah's prophecies of exile and a remnant events that were transpiring in his own day, and he wrote to develop and apply Isaiah's preaching to his fellow exiles.[7]

Dillard and Longman conclude that authorship questions "should not be made a theological shibboleth or test for orthodoxy."[8] That is, they should not form an evangelical boundary.

However, if one therefore abandons the view that there was only one Isaiah, is something essential being lost? In his insightful essay "Evangelicals, Biblical Scholarship and the Politics of the Modern American Academy," Darryl G. Hart asserts that "what separates evangelical scholars from their liberal Protestant colleagues in the Society of Biblical Literature . . . is the belief that the Bible, though in the words of men, is a divine and direct revelation from the triune God of the universe."[9] Accordingly, it is evangelical scholars' doctrine of Scripture that has "prevented their assimilation into the mainline academy."[10] Ironically, however, Hart points out,

at the same time evangelicals have become more comfortable in the university, the evangelical consensus on Scripture that made the movement a distinct and definable community unraveled. . . . To make their way in the academy, evangelical biblical scholars increasingly approach the text from its human side and bracket out, for the sake of academic etiquette, the divine character and canonical nature of Scripture.[11]

Affirming more than one Isaiah today may in some cases make an evangelical approach to the book indistinguishable from any other. Given, first, the clear assertion in Isaiah 1:1 that what follows is "the vision of Isaiah son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah" and, second, the absence of any additional ascriptions of authorship within the book, the one-Isaiah position may be the only one that takes the book's own claims seriously.[12]

Non-evangelical Developments in Contemporary Old Testament Studies

Contemporary evangelical approaches to the book of Isaiah illustrate vividly how historical-critical approaches to the book entail a changing doctrine of Scripture. In order to put these evangelical contributions into their proper context, we must first summarize the remarkable developments that have taken place in recent decades within non-evangelical research on the book of Isaiah. Those familiar with the legacy of Duhm in Isaianic studies...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Copyright
• How Many Isaiahs Were There and What Does It Matter?
• Notes
• About the Author