In his own retelling of history from creation to his own day, the first century Jew, Josephus, claims that Cyrus sent the Jews back to Judea to build the Temple after being inspired from reading the prophecy of Isaiah found in 44.24-28 (A.J. 11.1-7). While nothing before Josephus that would agree with him has survived to today, most Yahwehists would not claim that King Cyrus of Persia somehow got his hands on the scroll of Isaiah anyway. In fact, early on in Jewish tradition, a few careful readers of Isaiah had noticed the curious fact that Isaiah mentions Cyrus hundreds of years before anyone would even know who he was! This detail opened the door to re-exploring the authorship of the scroll of Isaiah and some scholars eventually claiming that some of Isaiah was not exactly written by Isaiah himself. As those that hold to the traditional view of the authorship of Isaiah (that is, they believe that Isaiah son of Amoz composed the entire text) like to point out, those that view Isaiah as a composite text (a text made up of multiple other texts stitched together by a later editor) do not even agree among themselves sometimes. There are many different views on how the Isaiah Scroll, as it has been preserved for the past millennia, came to its final canonical form:

There is the already-stated traditional view: 1) Isaiah son of Amoz wrote the entire book of Isaiah (Bennett). Michael Heiser argues that 2) “The book of Isaiah was substantially - not completely - but substantially written in the late eighth or early seventh century BC by the prophet we know as Isaiah. And then Isaiah’s material was later edited or adapted to present circumstances by scribes as a means of showing the prophet’s predictions were coming to fruition in the present time or would be in the future” (Heiser, 1:16:58-1:17:23). 3) Finally there is the composite view: Isaiah is a compilation of some sort of multiple different texts. This view actually has within it many different views (in other words, the view that Isaiah is composite literature, is a view composed of many conflicting opinions). A summary of some of the most popular views of composite Isaiah are the following: 3.a) Isaiah 1-39 was written by First Isaiah or “Proto-Isaiah” (written by Isaiah son of Amoz) and 40-66 was written by some later Second Isaiah, “Deutero-Isaiah”; 3.b) Isaiah 1-39 is Proto-Isaiah and 40-66 is still dated later but split: 40-55 is written by Deutero-Isaiah but 56-66 is Trito-Isaiah (Third Isaiah - Goldingay, Theology 15); 3.c) Isaiah 1-33 was written by Proto-Isaiah but 34-35 was written as a transition into Deutero-Isaiah by Deutero-Isaiah and 36-39 was added by Trito-Isaiah (this is the view of Marvin A. Sweeney [among others] - some would also argue that “The Little Apocalypse” [Isa. 24-27] was also added by Trito-Isaiah - Bennett).

As for who authored what, that is an issue that is even more contested, yet this essay will focus less on this detail. View 1 and 2 already mention that Isaiah son of Amoz wrote all (view 1) or most of the text and some school of scribes later repurposed some of his works (view 2). Views in the second category vary, once again: Stephen Bennett says that “Robert Pfeiffer suggested that the book consisting of chapters 1-39 did not fill up a scroll, so a scribe added the work of another prophet to the remaining space” (Bennett). G. H. Box claimed that Isaiah 1-39 and 40-66 were completely independent texts written by people that did not know one another. Others have seen Proto-Isaiah or Deutero-Isaiah as their own entire large sections that were stitched together or would even break it up into even smaller texts such as “the Oracle of Babylon” in Isa. 13.1 (Bennett). Some have said there was a person or school of disciples of Isaiah who preserved his teachings - either in writing or orally - who wrote works dependent on Proto-Isaiah. Some have argued that Isaiah is an anthology that is altogether too complex to take apart (Bennett).

Before examining the traditional view of Isaiah, I believe that all Christians should ultimately test their orthodoxy with the Apostles’ Creed and the Christology of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The Creed ultimately sums up the dogma of the Hebrew Scriptures in one single line: “I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth” (The Apostles’ Creed). It even lacks a statement on how long it took God to create the cosmos and how He made man (which was debated just as much among the Church Fathers as it is today). The authorship of Isaiah does not make or break a Christian and, ultimately, while not unimportant, does not have super high stakes. Further, the claim that Christians who hold that Isaiah is a composite text make Isaiah a liar is a bold statement at the least. Protestants and those who hold to Sola Scriptura ought to allow Scripture to inform their doctrine and correct tradition when wrong and not impose tradition on Scripture. This is the entire point of the doctrine, so it is hypocritical for one to confess that Sola Scriptura with their lips but do scholarship far from it (Isa. 29.13). Scripture ought to inform our view of itself - its story and its style and structure.

That being said, I like to lean on the more traditional view of doctrine and attribution when in doubt. The traditional view does have some strong arguments: 1) it was little disputed for millenia. 2) Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah would be arguing against idols in an age when that simply was not an issue (Isa. 44.9-20). Only the pre-exilic period against which Isaiah son of Amoz would have preached, would have had this problem (Heiser). 3) Michael Heiser refers to a diachronic analysis of the earlier and later chapters of the Isaiah Scroll. He explains how in Hebrew there are two common words used for “kingdom”: mamlakah - an earlier term used in the pre-exilic period - and malkut - a later word picked up and used after exile and even into the Second-Temple period. This diachronic analysis of Isaiah found that the earlier, pre-exilic, mamlakah was used both in the proposed “Proto-Isaiah” (ch. 1-39) and the so-called “Deutero-Isaiah” and “Trito-Isaiah” passages (40-66 - Hesier). These seem to be the three sturdiest arguments in favor of a traditional view.

As for the third set of views (that Isaiah is a composite text), a couple more disclaimers must be made before I actually argue for the view: this view is often argued against by theologically conservative Christians that those who hold to composite authorship are simply Enlightened rationalists coping with prophecy through vaticinium post eventum (“prophecy after the event” - Oswalt, 41). This simply is not the case, however. There are many examples of orthodox, conservative, Christians (Goldingay, Heiser, Mackie, and more!) who hold to some view of composite authorship today while validating that Isaiah really did foretell the future. As the confessing scholar, Tim Mackie says, “[Isaiah] chapters 39-40 were designed to show us that Isaiah’s predictions of judgment were fulfilled in the exile - He’s a true prophet!” (Mackie, 2:10-2:18). Not all scholars are not calling Isaiah a liar or being rationalistic or coping with prophecy.

In fact, in attributing the first chapters of Isaiah to Isaiah son of Amoz, they are affirming that he did prophecy about the exile correctly. As those that confess that the “Lord Jesus Christ…suffered…in accordance with the Scriptures” (Nicene Creed 325; cf. Lk. 24.44-48), they believe that Isaiah 53 was a true prophecy that [typologically] was about Jesus of Nazareth suffering for the sins of the world (Heiser). That is the most important thing for any Christian to believe about Isaiah: that Jesus fulfilled it. The Christian scholars who take the view that Isaiah is composite (and there are many) believe in many miracles much more significant and anti-scientific than telling the future (like God taking on human flesh, resurrecting from the dead, ascending into heaven, etc.) - it is not a disbelief in Isaiah foretelling the future that has caused these Christians to conclude that the text is composite.

It is certainly possible that prophets of God could speak to people to come (rather than just speaking about them), but one must ask whether it accords with the nature of God (Oswalt 38)? Is it of any use to the people that the prophets would be preaching their prophecies to in their own days? While Isaiah foretelling Cyrus returning Israel does prove his prophecy to the generations to follow, who actually witnessed what he had foretold, it is no indication to the earlier generations (that he actually preached to) that he is a true prophet. This prophecy that traditionalists claim is under attack by rationalists who do not believe in prophecy, was not even all that affirming to the original audience who would not even experience the return to the land under Cyrus.

However, some have maintained that the traditional date of Isaiah must hold up. Moyter makes sense of this irrelevant passage (and attempts to explain the stylistic difference) in arguing as follows:

The messages of the prophets as they stand could not have been preached: they are too brief, too quickly come and gone; they do not have the repetitions and elaborations essential to allow hearers to fix their minds on what is being said. Like all the prophets, Isaiah filed for the future carefully crafted encapsulations of his preaching. But the days of Hezekiah were followed by the ‘police state’ days of Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:1–18), and maybe in such a time the now elderly prophet would turn exclusively to writing: this is the real contrast between the two styles, the one primarily a record of sermons, the other a solely literary product. (Moyter, 35)

This is the best way to make sense of Isaiah preaching irrelevant messages to the pre-exilic community (it hardly accounts for the irreconcilable differences between the former and latter chapters of Isaiah - who does not write like they talk?). Nonetheless, does the brevity of the latter portions of the prophetic material really mean that it must have been written prophecies that were never preached? Surely it does not indicate it could not have possibly been preached. This is not any less of a way for those that hold the traditional view to cope with the irrelevance of the prophecy of Cyrus than scholars positing a later date for the latter portions of Isaiah is coping with prophecy. Also, the only passages that talk about Isaiah sealing anything he wrote up are all before his prophecy about Cyrus and, if anything, could add to the argument that Isaiah is a composite text (Isa. 8.16; cf. 29.10-12; 30.8-9).

Another confessing scholar, who nonetheless takes the view that Isaiah is composite, writes, “Prophets [like Isaiah]...were not essentially, necessarily or primarily writers. They were more like preachers But they didn’t deliver fifteen-minute sermons. To judge from the books that collect their prophecies, they delivered short messages that took two or three minutes to proclaim….Isaiah is a kind of collage constructed from messages delivered in this way on different occasions.” (Goldingay, Theology 12). There is, in fact, no reason to take the latter sermons as simply written down and never delivered unless one has already presupposed that they could not possibly have been written by a later prophet.

Once more, the passages that refer to Cyrus, are not necessarily foretelling him. Neither of the two passages (Isa. 44.24-28; 45.1-4) use the future tense to talk about Cyrus (Heiser). The first of these says, “I am Yahweh…who says to [Cyrus], ‘My shepherd, he’ll fulfill my every want’” (Goldingay, Isa. 44.24, 27). While Yahweh says he will (future tense) fulfill His will, it says that He does (present tense!) speak to Cyrus. Again, this time God uses the past tense to talk about His speaking to Cyrus, “Yahweh has said this to his anointed, to [Cyrus]...” (Goldingay, Isa. 45.1). Literally, Yahweh claims that Cyrus already is His shepherd (44.27) and that He had already spoken to Cyrus (45.1). If the book of Isaiah is a lie for having more than one author, is it lying by saying God has already done something in the past when it is speaking of the future? Scholars that take the traditional will say that such a reading is unfair and that God often speaks in the past or present tense about things that He is about to do and they would be right. However, they are also adamant about this being about God foretelling the future when nothing in the prophecy disallows it from being something God is foretelling in the very near future. If anything, it seems He is already in the process of beginning it.

Further, this portion of Deutero-Isaiah and other portions of Trito-Isaiah assume that Jerusalem is already uninhabited and destroyed (Heiser). Deutero-Isaiah says, “Who says of [Jerusalem], ‘It will be inhabited’ (Isa. 44.26). If Jerusalem is already full and everyone in it is in fact arrogant and imagine that they cannot be taken off into exile, what is Isaiah doing preaching about an already uninhabited Jerusalem? In Trito-Isaiah, it says, “People of yours will build up the ruins of old; you’ll raise the foundations from past generations” (58.12; see 61.4; 63.18; 64.10 for other examples as well). Who is Isaiah speaking to here? Is this Isaiah Son of Amoz speaking to people generations in the future (just to say that they will build the foundations of the audience that he is actually speaking to)? Why would they need to hear this and have hope that they will rebuild what they actually need to learn will be torn down?

Next, scholars do not claim composite authorship for Jeremiah or the majority of the Smaller Prophets (from the Nevi’im and not in the Septuagintal categorization - Brueggemann 89). In fact, for many of these prophets, scholars little dispute their claims to authorship. Isaiah, on the other hand, has hints within his own writing that he at least passed on his own writings (Isa. 8.16; cf. 29.10-12; 30.8-9). So some of these scholars are basing their conclusions on actual internal evidence within the Isaiah scroll itself instead of passed-on tradition (which, again, is what Sola Scriptura is all about). Further, even when it comes to tradition, while it was by no means the majority view, there are hints that ancients and exegetes of the Middle Ages suspected some other author for the latter portions of the scroll (see the paragraph below). Oswalt, for example claims that the church unanimously agreed on Isaiah having one author until the eighteenth century and says that such a shift came from Enlightenment thinking (33).

However, Marvin A. Sweeney says Middle Age interpreters observed that the audience following chapter 40 was around the time of King Cyrus and the conclusion was for Israel towards the end of the Babylonian Exile (Sweeney 977). Again, Stephen Bennet says Spinoza anticipated composite authorship (Bennet) and John Goldingay mentions that Abraham Ibn Ezra “inferred that Isaiah himself could hardly be the speaker [for Isai. ch. 40ff]” (Goldingay, Theology 14). Even in the Talmud itself, the prophecies of Isaiah, while not attributed to later prophets of the Isaianic school, are attributed to Hezekiah instead of Isaiah son of Amoz (Bava Batra 15a.1). Oswalt so carefully points out that specifically the church did not hold to the composite view of the authorship of Isaiah to blame such a conclusion on the Enlightenment (Oswalt 33) while passing by one of the great Medieval exegetes! Sure, he was Jewish, but such a claim is misleading to Christians that want to take a more traditional view of authorship. There is something to holding onto tradition (especially when it is essential to orthodoxy), but we have a lot we can learn from great Jews who own the Hebrew Scriptures not only as sacred texts but as their own history!

Again, Oswalt (and many others) argues from The Great Isaiah Scroll found from Qumran: if the scribe made a break after chapter 33 when he had two lines left below it to continue writing (seemingly recognizing some sort of shift in Isaiah - Goldingay, Theology 52), why would they not push chapter 40 off to the next column instead of starting on the last line of the column (Oswalt 35)? First, it ought to be reiterated that the Qumran Cult should not be so decisive on the issue of authorship. It seems that most Christian scholars who hold to Isaiah as being composite literature would have no problem conceding that the Qumran Community and all of Second-Temple Judaism that has been recovered, has had little doubt that Isaiah authored the whole text (see the earlier reference to Bava Batra for a minority view that it was not written by Isaiah). Second, if this is such a compelling point to be made by conservative Christian scholars (despite their silence about Jews after Jesus who doubt Isaiah wrote the latter chapters of the text), then why do they not hold to the view that chapters 34-35 were written by Deutero-Isaiah? It is disingenuous for them to argue that no split between chapters 39 and 40 means Isaiah must not have had later disciples add to his text but then not acknowledge that there is a split at 33 and 34! At least some scholars have taken such a split seriously (Bennett)!

So what about when the Apostles refer to Isaiah as having written the latter chapters of the scroll? Were the Apostles lying? One easy example shows the intentions behind the apostolic authors when they refer to other texts: in Jude 1.14-15, Jude quotes The Book of the Watchers (that is the first of many texts that make up 1 Enoch) as Enoch saying it (some would say that he is not quoting the book itself because oral tradition was popular at the time: instead, he was supposedly quoting from the oral tradition. Such an idea is hard to believe when the text was so widespread. There are significantly more copies of 1 Enoch in Qumran than many biblical texts and it was among the most popular pseudepigraphal and apocryphal texts of the time. It is hard to believe Jude would have quoted word-for-word something he had only heard but oblivious to the text that was contemporary classic). We need not argue that Jude actually believed these words to be of Enoch. There is much more that could be said from the other side, being pedantic and picky to try to salvage Jude as if he were not quoting the text 1 Enoch or in arguing that the author of 1 Enoch might have been inspired only in writing that one paragraph but not the rest of the work but that is not the point of this essay. Christians ought not be scandalized by this as it is quite similar to other examples in the Apostolic Scriptures where we see something somewhat similar.

Mark 1.2-3 refers to the prophecy of Isaiah mixed with that of Malachi as being the prophecy of Isaiah (yes, there are some manuscripts that say that it was just some prophet but scribal editions tend to make the text easier to read and not harder. Once again, this is a rabbit hole that could be chased but is not the point of this essay nor should this scandalize Christians). Is Mark lying in saying Isaiah prophesied something while quoting Malachi with him? Why then is it considered scandalous for scholars to claim that the book of Isaiah is mixed with later disciples who are even closer to Isaiah than Malachi? Again, Paul, in Romans 11.26 quotes Isaiah (59.20) but his quote is a) closer to the Septuagintal rewording of Isaiah and b) is even an edit of the Septuagint itself (one could say Paul does not say it was Isaiah who said the quote but Paul uses the formula for citing Scripture “it is written” and Isaiah does not claim that Isaiah wrote Isaiah!)! Is Paul lying in saying that something was written and slightly rewording the actual quote? No! Then why is there a problem with attributing a text to Isaiah that has some later additions by disciples of Isaiah who wrote in his spirit? Countless other examples of this type could be given but the point ought to be made: a) the Apostles refer to the authors of texts as their audiences knew it (as was the case with Jude) and b) feel free to rework some of the texts themselves to prove a point already inline with the wisdom of the Hebrew Scriptures (Mk. 1.2-3; Rom. 11.26).

This is not only true of the Apostolic Scriptures, but of the Hebrew Scriptures as well. Again, we ought to rethink authorship in accordance with the Scriptures. The Hebrew Scriptures were given their final form by some last redactor who stitched everything together and added their own edits into the text (Gen. 36.31; Num 12.3; Deut. 3.11; 34.5-6, 9, 10-12 among many others are obvious examples of passages that could not have been written by their traditionally attributed author). However when it comes to Isaiah, all of the sudden, those that add on writings in the spirit of Isaiah are considered liars (Oswalt 41)? As Robert Alter notes, “In an era millennia before printing and the concept of authorial claims to texts, all the books of the Bible are open-ended affairs, scrolls in which could be inserted, whether for ideological purposes or simply through editorial predilection, writings that came from other sources” (Alter 617). While biblical authorship is not quite as open and up in the air as Alter makes it out to be, it is apparently not as closed as some Christian scholars dogmatically decree that it always has been.

It also ought to be added that Isaiah never claims to have written the latter prophecies! Unlike the Gospels, authors need not assign authorship to the one whose name the text is attributed to. As Michael Heiser points out, the Isaiah scroll was later referenced and named based on the main character and not necessarily its author. This is found in other books of the Bible like 1 and 2 Samuel (Heiser). While one could take the view that Josephus takes in saying that Samuel (which was not separated into the two books of today in the Jewish organization) wrote the whole book before his death and sealed it up (A.J. 6.66), just about all Jews and Christians today would point out that it is named Samuel because of the important role Samuel plays in the beginning of the book. The latter chapters of the scroll now known as Samuel were nonetheless written by someone else entirely.

Some scholars that take the traditional view will still say that because there is no mention of the scholarly supposal of an “Isaianic school”, we cannot believe in it and it would be adding onto the Scripture to suppose such a thing. Where in the Scriptures does it say that there were redactors that tied the whole thing together and wrapped it all up? Why then would we need an insertion before the listing of the kings of Edom “before a king reigned among the [Israelites]” (Goldingay, Gen. 36.31): “Just to let the reader know, I am a redactor and Moses did not write this!”? Before mentioning that the bed of Bashan was around in Rabban among Ammon in their own day (Deut. 3.11), did the redactor need to say, “Hey, just so you readers are not scandalized and I do not offend your tradition, I am a redactor writing this and not Moses”? It is extravagant to assume that the readers of the Scriptures would need the redactors to so insult their intelligence as to explain to them that Moses did not write about his own death (Deut. 34.5-6)! It is equally unfair for these scholars who know this to challenge scholars who want to take the stylistic differences in Isaiah seriously and say that they are adding on to Scripture.

There are two claims in Isaiah, at the very beginning of the book (that is, within what would be called Proto-Isaiah by those that view Isaiah as a composite text), about Isaiah receiving a vision (not about him writing it down! - Isa. 1.1; 2.1). It is not as many who hold the traditional view claim: that the scroll claims that Isaiah wrote the scroll in its entirety. There are some passages where Isaiah does write (Isa. 8.1), but it is in those very passages where one is also given a hint that he might not be the only contributor (vv. 16-17). Authorship of Isaiah and the Torah was assigned by later interpreters and passed down through the time of the Apostles but it is not unreasonable to assume that Jews were as aware of the incredulity in positing Moses was the sole author of the Pentateuch when multiple passages make quite the opposite opinion more reasonable. Similarly, Isaiah ought to be attributed to the beginning portion of his own scroll but there is no need to negate the view that his scroll was composite.

Overall it seems that traditional arguments tend to either oversimplify the issue of biblical authorship, take their tradition for granted, and use arguments that can create the same problems for their own views on Isaiah. While I have exposed many of this issues thus far, I have not argued for the view that Isaiah is composite as much as I have simply defended it from a caricature and I have not dealt with the apparent problems with the view that I principally presented as arguments in favor of the traditional view of Isaiac authorship. However, my view, which is an amalgamation of view 2 and 3.c takes all of this into account and for the rest of the essay, I will demonstrate how the text of Isaiah actually supports such a view. First, allow me to fully explain my view: It seems to me that Isaiah as we now know it is a composite text that had its finishing touches done by the final school of Isaianic disciples (which I will continue to refer to as Trito-Isaiah). Proto-Isaiah wrote 1-33; Deutero-Isaiah wrote 34-35 as well as 40-55; Trito Isaiah used 2 Kings 18.13-20.19 for the majority of 36-39 and an extra-biblical source entitled “Something written for [Hezekiah] king of [Judah], when he was ill and came back to life from his sickness” (Goldingay, Isa. 38.9) was used for the only original part of the passage: 38.9-20. As later generations of this Isaianic school, Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah both based their works on one another and even re-worked some of the texts of Proto-Isaiah that they had preserved for themselves. Deutero-Isaiah wrote in the middle of the sixth century and Trito-Isaiah wrote not too long after, around the turn of that same century.

First, Isaiah is only mentioned as receiving visions in the first two chapters (1.1 and 2.1). He is only said to write anything down in Isaiah 8.1 and in verse 16 of that same chapter, God commands him: “Bind up the testimony, seal the instruction among my disciples” (Goldingay, Isa. 8.16). Here, in a verse within the unit of one of the only passages in which Isaiah is instructed by Yahweh to actually write anything down, Isaiah mentions binding up his writing and giving it to his disciples. This verse does not necessitate that his disciples had any part in continuing to form the writings that would have been handed to them by Isaiah, but it at least makes the possibility higher. Within a world where redactors felt free to insert their own notes in texts or tamper with them to make the final form how it is, it is even more conceivable. 

Second, the style of Isaiah after chapter 40 is significantly different from that of the preceding sections. Oswalt admits that the style of Isaiah 40-55 “is different, there is no question of that. The Hebrew is both simpler and more lyrical. Some words that were common before chapter 40 may appear rarely or not at all after chapter 40. The differences are significant enough that Yehuda Radday concluded on the basis of a computer-based study that the same person could not have written chapters 7–39 and 40–55” (Oswalt 38). Brueggemann says of these later chapters: “The poetry of Second Isaiah thus is not lightly offered by someone who stands outside the grief wrought by First Isaiah, but by someone who has lived into that trouble and there (and only there) finds a word of hope to speak” (Brueggemann 96). This second section is not just written ahead of time as Moyter claimed. No, these prophecies were first preached and then written down by someone who knew the need for comfort (Isa. 40.1).

However, Oswalt rebuts, Deutero and Trito-Isaiah do not situate any of their prophecies in any historical context - apparently, this must mean that Isaiah wrote at an early date (40). However, his own statement that Isaiah only places his prophecies in the first 39 chapters in historical situations points to exactly the opposite point! The argument for a late-dating of Isaiah chapter 40 and following assumes that the later prophets saw themselves continuing the very work of Isaiah as later extensions of him - Why would they give any hints or historical context for prophecies that would make it clear that they are not Isaiah son of Amoz who prophesied “during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah” (1.1)? While some prophets set up the historical backdrops, like Ezekiel or Jeremiah, some gave very little background, like Joel! Further, if Isaiah son of Amoz had written all the prophecies, why did he only situate the prophecies found in the first 39 chapters and none of the other chapters? It seems the more probable explanation for such a discrepancy is that Isaiah son of Amoz desired to put his prophecies with their historical setting in his scroll, while his school went on to preach messages relevant to their audiences but did not record their settings, like the prophet Joel. Further, there is no more mention of Isaiah after chapter 39. It is as if the latter chapters of Isaiah are not even claiming to be written by Isaiah (somewhat similar to how 2 Samuel assumes the reader can figure that Samuel did not write that portion of the book either).

Truly, style is the biggest problem for traditionalists to explain. That Isaiah is assumed to have received some apocalypse not mentioned either in the Scriptures themselves or any extra-biblical tradition to make up for the stylistic ravine between chapters 1-39 and 40-55 is amusing (Oswalt 39). While Oswalt precedes his hypothesis with the disclaimer that it is just that, it seems he should have a more scriptural (or at least conventional) argument to support his traditional view of the Scripture. The best way to make sense of coincidence that Isaiah does not mention the prophet by name, has a different style, and is directed at another audience after chapter 40, is, without a doubt, to say that there was a later prophet who took up the mantle of the son of Amoz.

With the fact that 40-55 was written by a later disciple of Isaiah in his spirit in mind, it is completely within reason to see 56-66 as written by even a third Isaiah. “It is plain to see that the envisaged background to the three sections of Isaiah is different: the earlier chapters are at home in eighth-century Jerusalem; chapters 40–55 envisage a Babylonian exile; and chapters 56–66 are once more in Palestine” (Moyter, 35-36). Notwithstanding, Oswalt mentions how unlike the other post-exilic prophets, Trito-Isaiah misses the emphasis on correct cultic practice and the Temple that other post-exilic prophets presumably would have had (32-33). However, this should not be seen as an argument against Third Isaiah. Rather, we ought to ask: if the idea is that Isaiah son of Amoz wrote such a prophecy to inspire the post-exilic people of Israel, why would he not speak to something more relevant, like building the Temple, or honoring God with right sacrifices and religious reform? Why would God not inspire the prophet to focus on these issues that are apparently more pressing on the post-exilic people no matter when God inspired him to write his prophecy? This argument, intended to deconstruct a Trito-Isaiah, is actually just as much an argument against its own hypothesis.

On the other hand, if the original Isaiah was really a royal prophet, as Oswalt mentions (17), and Trito-Isaiah were following in his footsteps, inspired by his message and focused on the royal line and righteous living, then it should follow that Trito-Isaiah too would be more concerned with righteous living and the coming royal king (an issue that had to have been just as pressing to the returning Judahites). Unlike Ezekiel or Ezra, Isaiah was not a priest, and so it makes perfect sense that the school of preachers and poets that followed him even after the exile, had concerns that were not priestly. It must also be added that Zechariah (another post-exilic prophet) hardly mentions the Temple himself but, like Isaiah, focuses mostly on the restoration of the royal Davidic Kingdom. Trito-Isaiah is not alone in his lack of a focus on the Temple and ritual purity then.

That Proto-Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, and Trito-Isaiah were all collected and sewn together with final touches by a redactor who intentionally connected what had not yet been connected seems to be assumed with a view of more than one Isaianic author. There have been some scholars (namely G. H. Box) that have hypothesized that Deutero-Isaiah and Isaiah son of Amoz did not know each other (Bennett). However, there is no warrant for such an outlandish claim. The themes emphasized throughout the writings of Isaiah son of Amoz also run throughout the writings of his disciples. The aforementioned facts that idols are attacked by Deutero-Isaiah in a time when idolatry simply was not a problem and that the pre-exilic term, mamlakah, is used in Isaiah 47.5 (Deutero-Isaiah) and 60.12 (Trito-Isaiah) must mean that the Isaianic school was re-working some of the material Isaiah had preached and written and adding it to their own collections. With that, it is no real argument against composite authorship to say that a word is found evenly distributed throughout the Isaiah scroll (Oswalt 39). Even if Trito-Isaiah did not add his own final touches to the document and the later authors were simply adding onto the text as Robert Pfeiffer suggested, Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah, who were already inspired by Proto-Isaiah and were intentionally adding to his text in his spirit, would make sure to connect their themes and ideas to his. These later chapters have to be dependent on the works of Isaiah son of Amoz. Not only does the integrity of the Scriptures rest on this point, but logic demands it.

So what about Isaiah 34-39? Isaiah 34-39 contains two larger sections within it: 34-35 and 36-39. Isaiah 36-39 is not difficult to deal with. As Alter notes on Isaiah 36, “The prose narrative that begins here [Isa. 36.1] and runs to the end of chapter 39 replicates 2 Kings 18:13 through 2 Kings 20:19 with, for the most part, only minor textual differences and one added unit, 38:9-20” (Alter 736). He goes on to argue that Isaiah had taken from 2 Kings rather than the other way around: “One indication that the Isaiah text is secondary is that at quite a few points it slightly abbreviates the text in Kings, dropping out a word, phrase, or even a clause that was not deemed strictly necessary” (736). This should not be problematic for traditionalists. It is completely within reason and inspiration to say that Isaiah incorporated previously written material. That being said, it is no less likely that a later editor could have added this in. While Isaiah son of Amoz, writing mostly poetry and not as much prose narrative, could have written this section, it is just as fair to assume someone else could have. Further, if this Isaianic editor was taking from Kings and not some source that they shared, then they must have written around the time of the completion of Kings, making this the latest addition to the text.

As for 38.9-20 being different (as Alter had noted, 736), the whole section is a poem “for [Hezekiah]…when he was ill and came back” (Goldingay, Isa. 38.9). As the heading in the text indicates, it was written for Hezekiah and not by him. In fact, Alter says of the poem: “What follows is actually a psalm of supplication. Inserting poems from different sources was a common practice in biblical narrative or in the hands of editors… [T]his psalm exhibits many of the formulaic features of supplications” (Alter 744). There is, in fact, nothing in the poem that keeps the poem from being written by someone else and employed by an editor to speak to the specific situation (again, it is written “for Hezekiah” and not by him). 

So how about chapters 34-35? How did those get added in? As Goldingay notes that Isaiah very well could have ended with chapter 33 (Goldingay, Theology 53). In fact, this is where the one and only break in the entire Great Isaiah Scroll found in Qumran (Goldingay, Theology 52). This is in no way an argument that the Qumran Community believed that some later Isaianic author added the later material, but that they noted a crucial shift within Isaiah at this section. Either way, Goldingay goes on to explain how Isaiah 34-35 encapsulates many of the themes and ideas that Deutero-Isaiah will go on to use in his own section of the text and would make for a good transition into the writings of Deutero-Isaiah. Nonetheless, Isaiah 34-35 is the center of chiasm upon which chapters 28-33 and 36-39 are reflected (Goldingay, Theology 52-53). So then, at the very least it seems plausible that Deutero-Isaiah added in this section (chapters 34-35) as a way to transition the reader into the bulk of his text (40-55). Later, Trito-Isaiah added his text onto Deutero-Isaiah (56-66) and, using 2 Kings and some supplicatory psalm, put 36-39 between 34-35 and the rest of Deutero-Isaiah.

Even after such an explanation, the two problems of the diachronic analysis and an entire polemical passage against idolatry being irrelevant in the days of Deutero-Isaiah (Heiser). While these would certainly pose a problem for the scholars that take Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah to be independent works written by someone who did not know Isaiah son of Amoz, it poses nearly no problem at all the view that Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah were working with some earlier Isaianic “draft” prophecies. In other words, Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah were using works of Isaiah and incorporating his themes and ideas into their own works. As is shown by early, pre-exilic terms popping up in a text that post-dates the exile and passages that would otherwise be irrelevant, both of these Isaiahs were incorporating earlier works of Isaiah son of Amoz into their own. To what extent were they re-working the material of the son of Amoz? It cannot be known for sure.

In conclusion, the scroll of the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz seems to be a composite text that includes major passages incorporated by later prophets who continued to speak in his spirit. As with the opposing conclusion, the composite view does not have as many implications as it is based on implications found elsewhere in the Scriptures. The traditional view values the more historic opinion on the authorship of Isaiah. Further, it emphasizes the power of God to foretell the future. However, no critical scholar takes such a view. While this does not discount it entirely, Christian scholars and laymen who hold to Isaiah having written the entire text need to think through a) whether or not it is a possibility that the text was redacted and b) if they found it is, what else will that change? Because many who hold to the traditionalist view dogmatically have not thought through either of these, they deconstruct or abandon the faith altogether. This is not as much the case for the authorship of Isaiah but it is often so for other similar issues where Christians will not budge in the face of even a large amount of confessing scholars siding with critical scholars. Again, it is safer to side with tradition but it will also cost a lot if Christians hang everything upon like Oswalt.

Clearly I write this from the perspective of someone who takes the composite view of the text. A traditionalist ought to be able to voice the implications for their view in their own words as they will probably find my assessment unfair. Nonetheless, I would say that this is a rather minor issue but that the assumptions with which one approaches the issue are more important. While I want to emphasize the omnipotence of God by all means, it is unnecessary to do so at the cost of the relevance of His message. The view that God continued to speak through prophets who were living among the actual audiences which they were preaching and prophesying to accords with a God who really has revealed Himself to humanity so that He might be known on their terms and in a meaningful way. In a sense, it seems more incarnational. Second, while the former view is insistent on sticking with the traditionally attributed authorship, I would argue that the composite view takes the text more seriously when it comes to style. As a Protestant who affirms that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule for faith and how we understand God, I hold that the Scriptures speak not just in stories but in the style that the stories are told and that means taking Isaiah to be a composite text.

Bibliography

Alter, Robert. The Hebrew Bible. WW Norton, 2018.

Bava Batra. Talmud. Translated by Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz. William Davidson Talmud. Sefaria, https://www.sefaria.org/william-davidson-talmud.

Bennett, Stephen J. “Isaiah, Book Of, Critical Issues.” The Lexham Bible Dictionary, edited by John D. Barry et al., Lexham Press, 2016.

Brueggemann, Walter. “Unity and dynamic in the Isaiah tradition.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 9.29 (1984): 89-107.

Edited and formatted by Wilson, Luke. “The Apostle's Creed.” Patristics.info, 16 Feb 2024, https://patristics.info/the-apostles-creed.html.

Goldingay, John. The First Testament: A New Translation. IVP Academic, 2018.

Goldingay, John. The Theology of the Book of Isaiah. IVP Academic, 2014.

Heiser, Michael and Trey Stricklin, host. “Naked Bible 217: Authorship and Date of the Book of Isaiah.” The Naked Bible Podcast, episode 217, 26 May 2018, https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/podcast/naked-bible-217-authorship-and-date-of-the-book-of-isaiah/.

Josephus. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Translated by William Whiston, Hendrickson, 1980.

Mackie, Tim. “Book of Isaiah Summary: A Complete Animated Overview (Part 2).” YouTube, uploaded by BibleProject, 26 April 2016, https://youtu.be/_TzdEPuqgQg?si=jbgbkTZIuRW9u0u6.

Motyer, J. Alec. Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary. “The Tyndale Commentary Series.” InterVarsity Press, 1999.

Nicene Creed 325.

Oswalt, John N. Isaiah. “The NIV Application Commentary Series.” Zondervan Publishing House, 2003.

Sweeney, Marvin A. “Isaiah.” The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version, by Michael David Coogan et al., Fifth ed., Oxford University Press, 2018, pp. 977-979.