In the whole history of Old Testament scholarship there is hardly a phase that is more interesting than the history of opinion with respect to the authorship of the prophecy of Isaiah. As we sought to point out in the last issue of Torch and Trumpet, one who is willing to accept the witness of the New Testament will also accept the Isaiahic authorship of the prophecy. Without a doubt the New Testament does teach such authorship. There are many references in the New Testament to the book of Isaiah and to the man Isaiah, and these references occur in such a way that they clearly reveal the fact that the writers of the New Testament, and also our Lord himself, believed that the eighth century prophet, Isaiah, was indeed the author of the entire book which bears his name.

There are those however who are not willing to admit the New Testament as evidence in this matter. It is dishonest scholarship, they tell us, to appeal to the New Testament to settle questions of authorship. The present writer has always had difficulty in understanding such a viewpoint. If the New Testament is really the Word of God it would seem to follow that it must be true and trustworthy in all that it says. Consequently, if the New Testament casts any light at all upon questions of authorship, we should be willing and eager to listen to what it has to say. If the New Testament is in en-or in these matters, how do we not know that it is also in error when it speaks to us of the saving work of Jesus Christ our Lord? Let no man who calls himself a Christian be ashamed to appeal to the New Testament for evidence. Rather let him be ashamed who rejects this Word of God and depends merely upon human wisdom.

         

           

The Beginnings of Criticism

In the Church of Jesus Christ therefore, hardly a doubt has been cast through the long centuries upon the witness of the New Testament. Indeed, only in comparatively recent times did doubts begin to make their appearance. Among the Jews the witness to the Isaianic authorship was almost universal. There are two notable exceptions. During the Middle Ages Ibn Ezra seemed to doubt the Isaianic au thorship of chapters forty to sixty six, and so also did a man named Moses Ibn Gekatilla of Spain. Their doubts however, were not expressed very clearly and seemed to carry little influence.

It was not until twenty seven years after Astruc published his book (1753) on Genesis that the first doubts concerning Isaiah made their appearance. In a footnote to the German translation of Lowth’s commentary the editor suggested that chapter fifty was not from Isaiah but from a writer (possibly Ezekiel) who lived near the time of the exile. This work made its appearance in 1780. Nine years later a German scholar by the name of Doerderlein denied to Isaiah everything after chapter thirty nine.

From that time on “criticism” more and more centered its attention upon the book. The basic assumption of unbelieving criticism was that since chapters forty through sixty six reflected the period of the Babylonian exile they could not have come from Isaiah. It was soon pointed out, however, that if these chapters must be denied to Isaiah for such a reason, so also must chapters thirteen and fourteen which claim to be a burden concerning Babylon. Thus, the book came to be regarded as the work of more than one author.

A problem was thus created. If Isaiah did not write the last twenty seven chapters of the book which bears his name, who did write these chapters? “Critical” scholars were divided into two basic groups. One asserted that some unknown writer composed these last twenty seven chapters; the other group maintained that they were the work of a number of writers. But no satisfactory solution seemed forthcoming.

The Second Isaiah

Early during the course of the last century a great German scholar, Wilhelm Gesenius, produced a remarkable commentary on Isaiah, in which he very stoutly defended the position that the last twenty seven chapters of Isaiah were the work of just one man. That man was not Isaiah, but he was a great unknown prophet. This view, backed by the brilliance and learning of Gesenius, gained ground, and found many adherents.

The “unknown” author of these chapters was truly unknown. Scholars called him “Deutero-Isaiah” or the “Second Isaiah.” They began to praise him as the greatest of all the prophets. He was a man without a peer among the religious leaders of Israel. He lived in Babylon and sought to comfort the exiles with the promises of salvation through the Servant of the Lord. In fact, according to many scholars, he was really the first monotheist in all history. More clearly than any other, he saw that Jehovah was the only true God, and that the gods of Babylon were but idols. He ridiculed these gods, and called Israel to turn her eyes to the one true God. Scholars could not heap enough praise upon “Second Isaiah.”

Not all scholars accepted the view that the last twenty seven chapters of the book were written by an unknown prophet. There were evangelical scholars, men of vast erudition and wide scholarship, who stoutly defended the view that the entire prophecy was the work of one man and that that man was Isaiah, the prophet of the eighth century. These men were willing to accept the witness of the New Testament. They are men whose names should be held in honor by all who love and believe the Bible, for they have produced some of the greatest writings on Isaiah that have ever appeared.

Among these evangelical scholars we may mention Drechsler, Hahn, Stier, Carl Paul Caspari, Franz Delitzsch and Joseph Addisen Alexander. This last named was an American scholar from Princeton—those were the days when Princeton still was true to the Reformed Faith and he has produced one of the finest commentaries ever to have been written upon Isaiah. Indeed, it may well be said that Alexander’s commentary can take its place among the ranks of the best biblical commentaries.

Thus, the scholarly world was divided in its attitude toward the question of the authorship of Isaiah. Evangelical scholars stoutly defended the view that Isaiah himself wrote the entire book. Others defended the position that the last twenty seven chapters were written by an unknown, the “Great Unknown” of the Exile. In stature this “Unknown” was growing, and it seemed as though more and more scholars were coming to regard him as a real figure.

The Work of Bernhard Duhm

In 1892, however, something took place which threw down the great “Second Isaiah” from his throne. A German scholar by the name of Bernhard Duhm produced a commentary which was nothing short of radical in its conclusions. According to Duhm scholars had been all wrong in maintaining that “Second Isaiah” wrote the entire second position of the book. He did not write all this section, maintained Duhm, but merely chapters forty through fifty-five. Thus, at one stroke, Duhm cut down the stature of “Second Isaiah.” From now on, if one were to follow Duhm, he could only attribute chapters forty through fifty-five to “Second Isaiah.” More than that, however, within the compass of these chapters occur the four Servant passages, which evangelical Christians have right along applied to Jesus Christ. These four passages, said Duhm, should rightly be called “Songs.” They were not written by the author of chapters forty through fifty-five, but were inserted into this collection of chapters at a later time. They have, therefore, no organic relationship with the context in which they are found, and consequently we cannot really be sure what they are talking about. Thus, Isaiah fifty-three, for example, is shorn at one stroke of its true Messianic meaning.

This, however, was not enough for Duhm. It is time to stop talking about the great prophet of the exile, for “Second Isaiah,” maintained Duhm, did not live in Babylonia at all. Rather, he lived in the west, probably in Phoenicia, near the Lebanon. Thus, the “Second Isaiah” was dethroned from his position of comforter to the exiles in Babylon.

What, however, are we to do with the remaining chapters of the book, namely, fifty-six through sixty-six? Who wrote these? These chapters, according to Duhm, came from an entirely different source. They are the work of one whom Duhm called “Third Isaiah.” Thus, from now on, we have three basic sources in the book of Isaiah; Isaiah, Second Isaiah and Third Isaiah. As a matter of actual fact, according to Duhm, very little of the present book is from Isaiah himself. Rather, the book comes from a number of authors. One scholar wrote that Isaiah consists really of a little library of prophetical literature. Duhm’s basic position of three Isaiahs has more or less maintained the field among “critical” scholars.

Some scholars have sought to detach each prophetic utterance and trace it back, in as much as that is possible, to the original life situation which called it forth. There are several variations of this procedure which, we believe, is basically skeptical in its nature. The course of historical criticism of Isaiah has been indeed a long one, and we have merely brought forth some of the highlights in the present article. Suffice it to say, however, that, once having rejected the New Testament view of the authorship of the prophecy, scholarship has been unable to discover a satisfactory substitute. Once men deny that Isaiah is the author of chapters forty through sixty six, they find themselves unable to produce a substitute explanation which will really satisfy. Such is the situation at the present day. We may in a following article turn our attention to a consideration of the arguments which lead one to a belief in the New Testament view that Isaiah himself is the author of the entire book that bears his name.

In the whole history of Old Testament scholarship there is hardly a phase that is more interesting than the history of opinion with respect to the authorship of the prophecy of Isaiah. As we sought to point out in the last issue of Torch and Trumpet, one who is willing to accept the witness of the New Testament will also accept the Isaiahic authorship of the prophecy. Without a doubt the New Testament does teach such authorship. There are many references in the New Testament to the book of Isaiah and to the man Isaiah, and these references occur in such a way that they clearly reveal the fact that the writers of the New Testament, and also our Lord himself, believed that the eighth century prophet, Isaiah, was indeed the author of the entire book which bears his name.

There are those however who are not willing to admit the New Testament as evidence in this matter. It is dishonest scholarship, they tell us, to appeal to the New Testament to settle questions of authorship. The present writer has always had difficulty in understanding such a viewpoint. If the New Testament is really the Word of God it would seem to follow that it must be true and trustworthy in all that it says. Consequently, if the New Testament casts any light at all upon questions of authorship, we should be willing and eager to listen to what it has to say. If the New Testament is in en-or in these matters, how do we not know that it is also in error when it speaks to us of the saving work of Jesus Christ our Lord? Let no man who calls himself a Christian be ashamed to appeal to the New Testament for evidence. Rather let him be ashamed who rejects this Word of God and depends merely upon human wisdom.

         

           

The Beginnings of Criticism

In the Church of Jesus Christ therefore, hardly a doubt has been cast through the long centuries upon the witness of the New Testament. Indeed, only in comparatively recent times did doubts begin to make their appearance. Among the Jews the witness to the Isaianic authorship was almost universal. There are two notable exceptions. During the Middle Ages Ibn Ezra seemed to doubt the Isaianic au thorship of chapters forty to sixty six, and so also did a man named Moses Ibn Gekatilla of Spain. Their doubts however, were not expressed very clearly and seemed to carry little influence.

It was not until twenty seven years after Astruc published his book (1753) on Genesis that the first doubts concerning Isaiah made their appearance. In a footnote to the German translation of Lowth’s commentary the editor suggested that chapter fifty was not from Isaiah but from a writer (possibly Ezekiel) who lived near the time of the exile. This work made its appearance in 1780. Nine years later a German scholar by the name of Doerderlein denied to Isaiah everything after chapter thirty nine.

From that time on “criticism” more and more centered its attention upon the book. The basic assumption of unbelieving criticism was that since chapters forty through sixty six reflected the period of the Babylonian exile they could not have come from Isaiah. It was soon pointed out, however, that if these chapters must be denied to Isaiah for such a reason, so also must chapters thirteen and fourteen which claim to be a burden concerning Babylon. Thus, the book came to be regarded as the work of more than one author.

A problem was thus created. If Isaiah did not write the last twenty seven chapters of the book which bears his name, who did write these chapters? “Critical” scholars were divided into two basic groups. One asserted that some unknown writer composed these last twenty seven chapters; the other group maintained that they were the work of a number of writers. But no satisfactory solution seemed forthcoming.

The Second Isaiah

Early during the course of the last century a great German scholar, Wilhelm Gesenius, produced a remarkable commentary on Isaiah, in which he very stoutly defended the position that the last twenty seven chapters of Isaiah were the work of just one man. That man was not Isaiah, but he was a great unknown prophet. This view, backed by the brilliance and learning of Gesenius, gained ground, and found many adherents.

The “unknown” author of these chapters was truly unknown. Scholars called him “Deutero-Isaiah” or the “Second Isaiah.” They began to praise him as the greatest of all the prophets. He was a man without a peer among the religious leaders of Israel. He lived in Babylon and sought to comfort the exiles with the promises of salvation through the Servant of the Lord. In fact, according to many scholars, he was really the first monotheist in all history. More clearly than any other, he saw that Jehovah was the only true God, and that the gods of Babylon were but idols. He ridiculed these gods, and called Israel to turn her eyes to the one true God. Scholars could not heap enough praise upon “Second Isaiah.”

Not all scholars accepted the view that the last twenty seven chapters of the book were written by an unknown prophet. There were evangelical scholars, men of vast erudition and wide scholarship, who stoutly defended the view that the entire prophecy was the work of one man and that that man was Isaiah, the prophet of the eighth century. These men were willing to accept the witness of the New Testament. They are men whose names should be held in honor by all who love and believe the Bible, for they have produced some of the greatest writings on Isaiah that have ever appeared.

Among these evangelical scholars we may mention Drechsler, Hahn, Stier, Carl Paul Caspari, Franz Delitzsch and Joseph Addisen Alexander. This last named was an American scholar from Princeton—those were the days when Princeton still was true to the Reformed Faith and he has produced one of the finest commentaries ever to have been written upon Isaiah. Indeed, it may well be said that Alexander’s commentary can take its place among the ranks of the best biblical commentaries.

Thus, the scholarly world was divided in its attitude toward the question of the authorship of Isaiah. Evangelical scholars stoutly defended the view that Isaiah himself wrote the entire book. Others defended the position that the last twenty seven chapters were written by an unknown, the “Great Unknown” of the Exile. In stature this “Unknown” was growing, and it seemed as though more and more scholars were coming to regard him as a real figure.

The Work of Bernhard Duhm

In 1892, however, something took place which threw down the great “Second Isaiah” from his throne. A German scholar by the name of Bernhard Duhm produced a commentary which was nothing short of radical in its conclusions. According to Duhm scholars had been all wrong in maintaining that “Second Isaiah” wrote the entire second position of the book. He did not write all this section, maintained Duhm, but merely chapters forty through fifty-five. Thus, at one stroke, Duhm cut down the stature of “Second Isaiah.” From now on, if one were to follow Duhm, he could only attribute chapters forty through fifty-five to “Second Isaiah.” More than that, however, within the compass of these chapters occur the four Servant passages, which evangelical Christians have right along applied to Jesus Christ. These four passages, said Duhm, should rightly be called “Songs.” They were not written by the author of chapters forty through fifty-five, but were inserted into this collection of chapters at a later time. They have, therefore, no organic relationship with the context in which they are found, and consequently we cannot really be sure what they are talking about. Thus, Isaiah fifty-three, for example, is shorn at one stroke of its true Messianic meaning.

This, however, was not enough for Duhm. It is time to stop talking about the great prophet of the exile, for “Second Isaiah,” maintained Duhm, did not live in Babylonia at all. Rather, he lived in the west, probably in Phoenicia, near the Lebanon. Thus, the “Second Isaiah” was dethroned from his position of comforter to the exiles in Babylon.

What, however, are we to do with the remaining chapters of the book, namely, fifty-six through sixty-six? Who wrote these? These chapters, according to Duhm, came from an entirely different source. They are the work of one whom Duhm called “Third Isaiah.” Thus, from now on, we have three basic sources in the book of Isaiah; Isaiah, Second Isaiah and Third Isaiah. As a matter of actual fact, according to Duhm, very little of the present book is from Isaiah himself. Rather, the book comes from a number of authors. One scholar wrote that Isaiah consists really of a little library of prophetical literature. Duhm’s basic position of three Isaiahs has more or less maintained the field among “critical” scholars.

Some scholars have sought to detach each prophetic utterance and trace it back, in as much as that is possible, to the original life situation which called it forth. There are several variations of this procedure which, we believe, is basically skeptical in its nature. The course of historical criticism of Isaiah has been indeed a long one, and we have merely brought forth some of the highlights in the present article. Suffice it to say, however, that, once having rejected the New Testament view of the authorship of the prophecy, scholarship has been unable to discover a satisfactory substitute. Once men deny that Isaiah is the author of chapters forty through sixty six, they find themselves unable to produce a substitute explanation which will really satisfy. Such is the situation at the present day. We may in a following article turn our attention to a consideration of the arguments which lead one to a belief in the New Testament view that Isaiah himself is the author of the entire book that bears his name.