Defending Second Isaiah

Reflections on Objections to the Composite Theory

Not long ago, a friend proposed a number of objections to a composite view of Isaiah citing articles from an early edition of the New Bible Commentary and GotQuestions.org. Some thoughts on them are summarised below.

The Defended Version of the Composite Theory #

Since my position isn’t exactly the same as the one criticised in the articles, it would be helpful to clarify the defended position. The classical hypothesis (formed by German scholars in the late 18th century, but whose seeds go back as far as Ibn Ezra) is that Isaiah 1-39, 40-55 and 56-66 should be separated as individual sources mainly because of the differing historical contexts. I agree with this broad division, but think the picture is far more nuanced. I see the material Isaiah 1-39 as quite intentionally a compilation itself; there are frequent switches from the first to third persons where some prophetic material is introduced using something to the effect of “The oracle/vision … that Isaiah son of Amoz saw”. There are also times when the material shifts into narrative where Isaiah (in the third person) features as a historic character (e.g. 7, 36-39). As I discuss below, 36-39 seems quite likely to be an insertion from 2 Kings whose composition doesn’t seem to be contemporaneous to Isaiah. It does seem that the material from 40-55 (and possibly to 66) is a single whole, but to what extent it too was edited is unclear. Probably a sharp source-critical division to respective “schools” (whatever that means) is far too speculative and a complete waste of time; we should just see this as holistic God-inspired compositional tradition that was taken by Second Temple Jewish communities as their sacred scripture.

Problems with the Articles #

A division between “conservative” and “liberal” scholars is an unhelpful one and is hardly ever constructive.

After all, the “conservative/fundamentalist” is anyone to the right of you and the “liberal” is anyone you see as to the left of you. I think it’s important to see people as people and not as labels lest we lose Genesis’ picture of people as “image-bearers”. It also feels like there are some conspiratorial undertones to the label, as though there’s a program of “liberal theology” that’s trying to undermine the “conservative” theology of “evangelical Christians”. That may or may not be true, but it should be examined before being believed. Others’ serious reflections shouldn’t be dismissed so easily simply because they come from “liberal” Christian scholars (again, who are they specifically and what are their arguments?), secular non-Christians (who don’t share our same view of Scripture as authority), or Jewish interpreters. I don’t think any of this should be seen as a threat or as something undermining the authority of the text. The fact of the matter is that “orthodoxy”(1) (1)I mean this in the sense of listening to the authority of Scripture within a tradition/community of orthodox interpretation that tests and validates truth. I don’t think it necessarily needs to be a prescription to a creed or a systematic formulation of doctrine (e.g. doctrinal statement) which seems far too simple in my mind for a relational experience of God as person. in the Church has frequently come out of (sometimes heated) dialogue and debate, leaning into discomfort and a sincere quest to listen and know. I think this form of dialectic (while maybe not everyone’s vocation) is an act of worship that requires effort, discipline and a good dose of intellectual humility.

“Most reputable Bible scholars reject the “Deutero-Isaiah” theory”.

Again, I think this is unhelpful. It projects a multiplicity of varying and nuanced views that have existed throughout history onto a single plane. It invalidates others’ serious contemplations on this passage to co-opt it into a single ideologically motivated position which does injustice to the multi-dimensionality of the text itself. It makes the article’s author the single arbiter of “reputation” which is at odds with the meaning of the word itself.

The article makes the category error of asserting that editorial composition is in contradiction with the “supernatural inspiration of the Bible”.

First, the distinction between the “supernatural” and the “natural” is a modern post-Enlightenment one, which the pre-modern Biblical authors do not seem to share. The mistake of making this philosophical presupposition as a modern person is so common, I find myself making it sometimes. But as N. T. Wright points out in his article Loving to Know(2) (2)https://firstthings.com/loving-to-know/, it’s a form of Deism or (more anciently) neo-Epicureanism that views God as being distant and passive in the affairs and dynamics of the so-called “Natural World” and sometimes intervening when “He”—or It(?)—sees fit. From my reading of Scripture, this view isn’t shared by the biblical authors. , it’s a form of Deism or (more anciently) neo-Epicureanism that views God as being distant and passive in the affairs and dynamics of the so-called “Natural World” and sometimes intervening when “He”—or It(??)—sees fit. From my reading of the Bible, this view isn’t shared by the biblical authors. In the Bible, God is Person, Creator and Sustainer of all the Creation and is an active participant in every aspect of it. In the same way, the article’s demand for the belief in the supernatural inspiration of the Bible presents an unhelpful and mistaken dichotomy; that is, its underlying narrative seems to ignore the ubiquitous “human element” of the Bible—as though somehow the Bible simply dropped down from “heaven above”—and suggests that God can’t be present in the hand of the composer (or a collective of composers), the editor or copyist or indeed the process of human traditions of translation or interpretation.(3) (3)NB: In saying this I’m not arguing that extraordinary things can’t happen. I surmise that the world is a weird place where things outside our normal experience could have happened (perhaps frequently in some parts of the world)—e.g. Marian apparitions, rainbow body resurrections, Muslim conversions via visions. I’m simply saying that the category of “the supernatural” is a loaded one, which carries certain presuppositions that often excludes God from the “ordinary”.

Secondly, the article presumes a modern understanding of textual authorship—which, incidentally, seems like a by-product of the printing press—and presupposes that “God-breathed inspiration” and authority must be the purview of an individual author who singularly produces the intellectual content of the text. Most Old Testament books are likely a product of a long history of composition possibly over hundreds of years. They draw from (and often are in contradistinction to) traditions from the Near-Eastern world around them that could be far older (e.g. Genesis creation narratives, Noahite flood narratives, Leviticus and Proverbs(4) (4)See “Instruction of Amenemope” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction_of_Amenemope. ). In fact, so too are the Synoptic Gospels (where it’s clear that they’re appropriating, even flat-out copying, chunks of text and making additions or amendments to each other). In fact, the Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox Biblical Canons (e.g. the New Testament was an addition to the Old) are an example of an editorial tradition(5) (5)I mean this in a extremely loose sense. Some of the people putting together the New Testament weren’t even compiling. They were merely pronouncing against the reading of certain books which later became common place in Christian liturgical settings. which compiles a collection of “grass-roots” texts into a single volume. Not to mention the slaves and scribes who were employed to write down dictations, write, edit and arrange the manuscripts and copy them throughout the centuries.(6) (6)Incidentally, would the slave(s) writing down Paul’s letters have seen their practice as “God-breathed”?

The article seems to define Biblical prophecy in a very narrow sense which seems inconsistent with the Bible’s own view.

That is, it seems to suggest that prophecy can only be understood as “crystal-ball” clairvoyance of the future in order for it to be true. I take a more holistic view, seeing “prophecy” rather as the truthful authoritative declarations and revelations of God through a human agent and their means (e.g. genres, literature, art, languages) which can indeed, in part, be extraordinary visions of the future but, in the majority of cases, does not necessarily need to do so. All Scripture is “prophecy” in this sense, and I think it sits much more sensibly with Jesus’ and the NT authors’ vision and understanding of prophetic fulfilment (Matt 5.17-20, Luke 4.17-21, Luke 24.25-27, 1 Cor 15.3-5). For example, in the Luke 4 passage (where Jesus reads from Isaiah 61), what exactly does Jesus mean by fulfilment? Jesus takes the oblique reading, not the intended meaning in Isaiah. E.g. is Isaiah 61.4-7 fulfilled in a literal sense (in the original intended meaning of the text), or is Jesus completing a vista of expectation that the prophet painted so many years before?

The article flattens the evidence within the complete corpus of Isaiah to refute any possibility that it is a composite text.

For example, there is sufficient evidence within the text itself that a compiler (or series of compilers) is at work. The Hezekiah annal (chs. 36-39) is a virtual copy-and-paste from 2 Kings chs 18-20 which recounts the events of Hezekiah’s life with Isaiah present as a character in the third person. In my estimation, the 2 Kings annals come first (see argument in Sec. 1.1) and they were written down at least after the events described in 2 Kings 25 (i.e. the fall and captivity of Judah). After all, why write annals before the fact? But Isaiah’s lifetime simply would not have spanned the events recounted up to 2 Kings 25 if he was a prophet during the reign of Uzziah (Isa 1.1). By this argument, as a minimum, the historical Isaiah could not have written the material in chapters 36-39.

Now, one might contest the argument above by saying that Isaiah only composed chapters 18-20 of 2 Kings and that portions following those chapters documenting the history after his death were written later. This may well be the case (it seems unlikely in my opinion), in which case 2 Kings would then have to be a composite text as well which seems to undermine the assumptions of the article.

In my view, there’s an artistry to the way that the compiler is purposely inserting the Hezekiah annal from 2 Kings 18-20 into the canonical corpus (i.e. the format it was finally arranged for liturgical reading in Jewish communities) to act as a hinge that divides the prophetic material before and after it. I would go so far as to say that without seeing this editorial hand, the fullest interpretation of this passage as Christian prophecy is lost. The material in 1-35 is about destruction and judgement; everything after 40 is about comfort and restoration. Chapters 36-39 recount the annal of Hezekiah a Davidic king who famously goes through a quasi death and resurrection. The narrative in Isaiah is a bit jumbled up; there seem to be quite obvious transcription errors that leave out discussion of a “three day” sickness that appears in 2 Kings 20. Who does this remind you of?

Chapter 40 of Isaiah itself is retrospective speaking as though Israel has already served its term of punishment. Other instances abound throughout 40-55 where God talks about restoration and redemption following a period of exile.