Back to Topics

What evidence is there for and against the view that Isaiah 40 - 55 is a distinct unit or a collection of prophetic messages from someone living in the sixth century BC? Compare and contrast the theological themes of the early section of Isaiah, often called "Proto-Isaiah" (Is. 1-39), with the latter part of Isaiah, often called "Deutero-Isaiah".(40-55).

For many years there has been presented by the book of Isaiah, critical problems surrounding the authorship of chapters 40-66. For about one and a half centuries now, the Isaiaic authorship of these chapters has been defended, questioned, and denied. He has been called the Babylonian Isaiah, the Deutero-Isaiah, and even the Great Unknown. Professor A. B. Davidson said it is a question "of fact and criticism exclusively, and not a matter of faith and practise." (Davidson, F.  Prof.., The New Century Bible Commentary, 1954:558.).

Some of the reasons for regarding this book as two parts, the latter separately written from chapters 1-39, are; from the 40th to the 55th chapter, there is no mention of the name of Isaiah. This differs from the first part in that he gave stories of himself with various dealings with people.

Another part is that from Is.40-55, the style of language is very different from that of 1-39. These chapters use the most complex Hebrew in the entire Old Testament. (Drane, 1987).

Further, these messages don't have the same structure as typical of most Old Testament prophets. They differ in that they have unique poetic structure, celebrating God's sovereignty in creation and history.

It is believed by some scholars that the message is given to the exiles in Babylon personally by this other prophet around 539 BC. It is believed that this man had the same ideals and points of view that Isaiah had in the first part of the book. They say that Isaiah prophesied around 800 BC and this man 150 years later.

Theologically, there are some differences. The Deutero-Isaiah uses a far more matured view of God as infinite and sovereign in relation to Gentile nations than does Is. 1-39. The Deutero-Isaiah does, however, fail to mention the Messianic King or the remnant faithful. He seems to dominate with the suffering servant. According to Archer, (1947:347), he states that there is no doctrine put forth in 40-66 which is not already contained in 1-39, in germ form at least.

Evidence for the authorship of the entire work by one author is also persuasive. The fact that the author of the Deutero-Isaiah is not preserved is a stumbling block to the multi-author presenters. It is quite astonishing to think that the name of a man who wrote this work would in effect be forgotten if he were one other than Isaiah himself.

It would be unreasonable the Hebrews of old to lose the name of such a powerful prophet of God. How could the name of the author of Is. 40-66 be lost? They keep very accurate records, and say nothing of another author.

Further proof is found in the quotes from New Testament saints and Jesus Himself. Jesus quoted Isaiah 61:1-2. John quoted in John 12:38-41 two verses, one from Is.53:1 and the other Is. 6:9-10 saying it was the same man that wrote both pieces of scripture.

The debate goes on. In the words of Lasor, (1982:378?) " Like Israel, all have sinned repeatedly, in thought, word and deed. The book of Isaiah proclaims that salvation is provided by the God who is in full control of that world and who can reveal to His prophets what is to take place in the future.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1)         Whybray, R.N., The New Century Bible Commentary., (WM B. Eerdmans Publ. Co.., 1979)

2)         Whybray, R.N., The Second Isaiah.,( JSOT Press, 1983.)

3)         Westermann, C., A commentary ,.(SCM Press, 1969.)

4)         Archer, G.L.,JR..,A Survey of Old Testament Introduction.,(Moody Press, 1974.)

5)         Drane, J., Introducing the Old Testament., (Lion Publishers, 1987.)

6)         Davidson, F (M.A., D.D.)., The New Bible Commentary. (The Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1954.)