What is the Deutero-Isaiah theory? Was the Book of Isaiah written by multiple Isaiahs?

It was during the Middle Ages that the presumption was first made which said that not all 66 chapters of the book originated from Isaiah himself. Towards the end of the 18th century, during the time of the Enlightenment, theologicians and sceptics tried harder to prove that Isaiah could impossibly have written the whole book himself. It all started with ascribing chapters 40 to 66 to a writer of the 6th century BC (Deutero-Isaiah). During the 19th and 20th century the dismemberment of the book continued even further; the first 39 chapters were also ascribed to different authors and chapters 55 to 66 even to a so-called Trito-Isaiah who shall have been living around the turning from the 5th to the 6th century. The main reasons for this criticism are the divers subjects and the pretended unequal style of the divers paragraphs and mainly because of the apparition of King Cyrus' name around 200 years before his time (Is. 44:28; 45:1).

It would be interesting to follow the history of this criticism. We fear, however, it would not be very edifying to us who are believers in the inspiration of this book. What the critics have especially attacked is the authorship. They tell us that the book of Isaiah is of a composite origin. Isaiah did not write the entire book which bears his name. For about 2500 years no one ever thought of even suggesting that Isaiah did not write the book. Then they invented an unknown person who is called the Deutero-Isaiah, i.e., a second Isaiah, who is said to have written the sublime chapters 40-66. With this they did not stop. They found out that this Deutero- Isaiah only wrote chapters 40-55 and a Trito-Isaiah wrote the greater part of chapters 55-66. With their supposed learning they discovered that some of these chapters were written in Babylon and others in Palestine. Some of the most radical critics have even gone beyond this.

We have stated before that according to Jewish tradition Isaiah perished by the hands of wicked men by being sawn asunder. Equally wicked men have "sawn him asunder" in a different way. We mean the so-called "higher or destructive critics." Did Isaiah really write this book? Could it be the work of one man? Are there not evidences of a composite authorship? These and other questions have been raised, and their answers given by men whose boast is of superior scholarship, of greater knowledge than the knowledge of the past generations; men who blasphemously assert that their finite brains have absorbed more knowledge in these matters than the infinite Lord of Glory, the Lord Jesus Christ, possessed in the days of His dwelling on earth.

For some 2,500 years no one ever thought of even suggesting that Isaiah did not write the book which bears his name. The criticism of this book and the denial of this great prophet being the sole author of it is a very modern thing. It started with a man by the name of Koppe, who attacked, in 1780, the genuineness of chapter 1. He was followed by another theologian who expressed doubt as the Isaiah being the author of chapters 40-66, generally called the second part of Isaiah. Rosenmureller, the notorious Eichorn, the Hebraist Gesenius, Ewald and others took a hand in it in sawing Isaiah asunder, each questioning certain portions of the book. The great Leipzig professor, Franz Delitzsch, also joined the band of "scientific butchers," and declared that the second part of Isaiah is of post-exilic authorship. This was done by him in 1889, and after this with the year 1890 a veritable flood of criticism set in, led, by Canon Driver, George Adam Smith, Duhm, Stade, Hackman, Comill, Cheyne and many others. Their infidel discoveries have been readily accepted in this country and are now being taught in Methodist colleges, in the Union Theological Seminary of New York, the Chicago University, in Baptist, Presbyterian and other denominational institutions. But let it be said that there are also scholars just as mature as these critics who stand up for the Isaiahan authorship of the whole book. We mention Stier, Weber, Strachey, Naegelsbach, Barnes, Bodenkamp, Cobb, Benjamin Douglass, Green, Thirtle, and many others.

The critics have invented a Deutero-Isaiah, that is a second Isaiah, who should have written the second part. Then another set of "scholars" with their scientific microscope discovered that this Deutero-Isaiah could not have written everything of this second part; that there was a third, or Trito-isaiah, who wrote chapters 55-66. They also found out with their scholarship that parts were written in Babylon, and other parts in Palestine. They are still at it, "sawing Isaiah asunder." To mention their methods, their hair-splittings, their philological objections and their claims would fill pages, and we would, if we were to follow it, oblige our readers to examine the inventions of the natural, darkened heart of man, which does not believe in God. There are 1,292 verses in the book of Isaiah. Out of these the ultra critics allow 262 verses to be genuine and the rest, 1,030 verses, are rejected by them.

But what does all this mean? It is a denial of what is written in the first verse of this book, "The vision of Isaiah, the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah." And if several men wrote this book, if part was written during the Babylonian captivity and other parts added after the captivity, then this statement with which the book begins is untrue. This first verse assures us that the book is a whole, that all we find in it is the vision of one man. To deny this breaks down the truthfulness of the book and reduces it to the level of common literature. This is what the critics have done. But the book of Isaiah is quoted in the New Testament. The Jews always believed this book to have been written by Isaiah. They held this belief when our Lord was on the earth. He Himself read in the synagogue of Nazareth from chapter 61 which critics deny to be the writing of Isaiah. Quotations from Isaiah are frequently found in different parts of the New Testament. Twenty-one times we read of Isaiah and his words in the New Testament. The phrases used are the following: "Spoken by the prophet Esaias;" "Fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias;" "Well did Esaias prophesy;" "In the book of the words of Esaias;" "As said the prophet;" "These things said Esaias;" "Well spake the Holy Spirit by Esaias," "Esaias also saith;" "Esaias saith." This is evidence enough that the Lord and the Holy Spirit through the evangelists and the Apostle Paul set their seal to this uncontradicted and unanimous belief that Isaiah wrote this book. The critics by their methods impeach the testimony of the Lord Himself or charge the infallible Lord of Glory to have been limited in His knowledge and that He acquiesced in the current traditional belief of the Jewish people, knowing better Himself.

All the arguments of the critics are disproven by the book itself. One only needs to study this book and the careful study will bring out the unanswerable fact of the unity of the book of Isaiah. Only one person could have written such a book and that person did not write it by himself, but was the mouthpiece of Jehovah. This is the conclusion of an intelligent and spiritual study of the book itself. The silly and arbitrary restrictions the critics make, that Isaiah could not have written certain passages, because it was beyond his horizon, or that he could not have mentioned Cyrus, the Persian king, by name, over 150 years before he was born, springs from the subtle infidelity which is at the bottom of the destructive criticism, which denies the supernatural altogether.

But what does all this mean? It is a denial of what is written in the first verse of this book. "The vision of Isaiah, the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah." And if several men wrote this book, if part was written during the Babylonian captivity and other parts added after the captivity, then this statement with which the book begins is untrue. This first verse assures us that the book is a whole, that all we find in it is the vision of one man. To deny this breaks down the truthfulness of the book and reduces it to the level of common literature. This is what the critics have done. But the book of Isaiah is quoted in the New Testament. The Jews always believed this book to have been written by Isaiah. They held this belief when our Lord was on the earth. He Himself read in the synagogue of Nazareth from chapter 61, which the critics deny to be the writing of Isaiah. Quotations from Isaiah are frequently found in different parts of the New Testament. Twenty-one times we read of Isaiah and his words in the New Testament. The phrases used are the following: "Spoken by the prophet Esaias"; "Fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias"; "Well did Esaias prophesy"; "In the book of the words of Esaias"; "As said the prophet Esaias"; "The saying of Esaias the prophet"; "These things said Esaias"; "Well spake the Holy Spirit by Esaias"; "Esaias also saith"; "Esaias saith." This is evidence enough that the Lord and the Holy Spirit through the evangelists and the Apostle Paul set their seal to this uncontradicted and unanimous belief that Isaiah wrote this book. The critics by their methods impeach the testimony of the Lord Himself or charge the infallible Lord of Glory to have been limited in His knowledge and that He acquiesced in the current traditional belief of the Jewish people, knowing better Himself.

All the arguments of the critics are disproved by the book itself. One only needs to study this book and the careful study will bring out the unanswerable fact of the unity of the book of Isaiah. Only one person could have written such a book and that person did not write it by himself, but was the mouthpiece of Jehovah. This is the conclusion of an intelligent and spiritual study of the book itself. The silly and arbitrary restrictions the critics make, that Isaiah could not have written certain passages, because it was beyond his horizon, or that he could not have mentioned Cyrus, the Persian king, by name, over 150 years before he was born, springs from the subtle infidelity which is at the bottom of the destructive criticism, which denies the supernatural altogether.

The same order of revelation prevails in the second part of Isaiah as in the first. We have seen how every division in the first part closed with predictions of blessing for Israel, their restoration and the glory of Jerusalem as well as the blessings which the whole earth will receive when that has come to pass. The same revelation is contained on a larger scale in the second part. The same order of events is maintained. And how solemn it is that each division of the later prophecies of Isaiah in the second part of his book closes with the declaration of the punishment, yea, the eternal punishment of the wicked. There is no peace for the wicked. Their worm dies not; their fire is not quenched. Evil teachers claim there is a restitution of all things including the wicked dead. Isaiah in his vision makes known what that promised restitution of all things is. The restoration of Israel; the restoration of Israel's land; the restoration of Jerusalem; peace for this earth; deliverance for groaning creation--all these he reveals. But solemnly God has said, "There is no peace for the wicked."

The great unity of the book of Isaiah proves that he wrote the entire book. The arrangement and contents tell us that it is not the work of man, but of the Spirit of God.

The break that appears, as we reach Isaiah 40, is very evident, as also the change in the main themes. So much so that critical and unbelieving theologians have asserted that there must have been several writers or compilers of the book. They speak of two or more Isaiahs. When we turn to New Testament quotations from the book, we find no trace of any such idea. Here is one fact which strongly negatives it.

In the Old Testament God is spoken of as, "The Holy One of Israel" only about 37 times. Just 30 of these occur in Isaiah, so it is the characteristic title of God in his book. These 30 are almost equally divided between chapters 1-39, and 40-66, occurring 14 times in the first part, and 16 times in the second. This strongly supports unity rather than plurality of authorship.

The book is an organic whole which proves that it can never be the piecemeal work of a number of men who assumed the name of Isaiah. That the language of the second part differs so much from the style of the first is no argument against the unity of the book at all. The style changes according to the character of the prophecy. "His style is suited to the subject and changeth with it. In his denunciations and threatenings, he is earnest and vehement; in his consolations, he is mild and insinuating. He so lives in the events he describes that the future becomes to him as the past and present" (Hengstenberg). If we believe that Isaiah was but the mouthpiece of Jehovah, that he wrote under the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit, as He moved him and put the words into his pen, all difficulties disappear. But as we have already stated the scope of the book is conclusive evidence of both, the inspiration of the book and its Isaiahic authorship.

There are two great sections first of all. The one, chapters 1-35, contains the earlier prophecies. Chapters 40-66 the later prophecies. Between these two portions is a historical parenthesis contained in chapters 36-39.

These famous rationalists, because the prophet places himself as if in Babylon, or at least speaks of it as a present thing, have "agreed" that the author must have lived there (as if it were not the style of the prophets in unnumbered other instances), and thus one of the most complete, perfect, and connected prophecies in existence (developing the present relationship of Israel with God, God's intentions as to their restoration; the witness against idolatry to which they were called; rejection of Messiah; return in the latter days to idolatry; the Lord's judgment; and their final glory unfolded in incomparable language, which does not for a moment, in point of style, admit the supposition of the Babylonish captivity as a date) has been foisted by some unknown author on the Jews, as that of Isaiah! The prophecy is the noblest incomparably of all scripture. It is very little matter, to us who believe it to come from God, whether Isaiah or any other prophet be its author, save collaterally, as shaking the general credibility of all testimony; but to suppose that nobody ever heard of the real writer, though his prophecy entitled him to the very first place, and hence that it was ascribed to a more obscure one, is perfectly incredible. Supposing I were to say Isaiah was the author of chapters 40-66, and that men have ascribed the former part to him, that it might get the credit of the great name of the author of the latter part, the only answer would be, "You may say anything."

305 The reader may judge of the candour of rationalist arguments from the following: "The one continuous prophecy of Isaiah 40-66 has given a colour to the style, which is unique. Some expressions, such as 'burden of the Lord' are not found in it." This could not be otherwise if the subject be considered. It is a long moral reasoning with Israel on idolatry (they being witnesses of Jehovah), in contrast with Babylon — Messiah's rejection — their state in the end of time — the admission of the Gentiles — and their future glory. The burdens on particular places had no application here whatever. They would have been wholly out of place. This is a proof it is not Isaiah's! But there are peculiarities of Isaiah's language which are found to be such as are connected with essential and permanent subjects. How are these to be got rid of? "But these peculiarities, which it has in common with the genuine portion, and others adduced by Jahn and Muller, prove nothing." Will the reader guess why? "Their agreement in this respect cannot have been accidental, and must be explained as an imitation of the genuine, or in some other way." Our logic! Here are the reasons given by the chief of the learned rationalist school: "There is a difference in style." Of that in a moment. "There is a difference in the political relationship of the people." This is because restoration is predicted as if Jerusalem were already desolate. Were it even so, it would not be less prophecy; but the fact is, it proves nothing. The prophet, as is so constantly the case, transports himself into the times he speaks of. He does so as to John Baptist; he does so as to the times of Christ (Isa. 53) — as to the times of the Jews owning Christ, in the same chapter. They say, "He was wounded," etc. So Isaiah 65 the admission of the Gentiles, "I am sought," etc. So in what is confessed to be Isaiah, "To us a son is born, to us a king is given." This, therefore, proves just nothing. "The internal condition of the nation is different." The proof of this is Isaiah 56:10-12: "It has only overseers or watchmen to govern it." But in Babylon it had not even these, nor is there a word about government. Besides, we have already seen the prophet himself in the scene he describes, only that this proof contradicts the theory, because in Babylon they had nobody to govern them but Nebuchadnezzar and his successors. Moreover, the reader may see that the prophet refers to quite a new dispensation, in which those excluded by the law, and the Gentiles, would be admitted into God's house. (Isa. 56:3-7.) His house is to be called a house of prayer for all people.

The record of the return under Zerubbabel and the rebuilding of the temple ends with the previous chapter. Many years passed after the temple had been built before the godly Ezra and his companions returned to Jerusalem. No record whatever is in existence covering the years which intervened between Zerubabbel's expedition and work, and Ezra's expedition. The critics claim that "it was in these apparently barren years that the priestly code was elaborated by the priests who had not left Babylon, and that part at least of the second half of Isaiah (chapter 40, etc.) was composed and put together in Babylon." But what historical foundation for their theory can they offer? There is nothing in existence which in any way warrants such claims. The evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch and that Isaiah is the author of the entire book which bears his name is overwhelming. The theory of a priestly code, that the priestly laws of Leviticus were collected in Babylon and brought back by Ezra, is an invention.