Who wrote the book of Isaiah? Who was the author of Isaiah?

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 opening verse of this great book gives us information concerning the prophet Isaiah and the period covered by his official ministry. "The Vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah." Of his personal history we know but little. Jewish tradition claims that he was related to King Uzziah. That he must have come from a prominent family may be gathered from the fact that he had ready access into the presence of the kings of Judah, Ahaz and Hezekiah, and probably also the others. That he was married we learn from the book. He had two sons which bore prophetic names. The one was Shear-Jashub (a remnant shall return), prophetically indicating that God would leave a remnant of His people. The second son was Maher-shalal-hash-baz, which means "hasting to the spoil, hurrying to the prey," prophetic of the coming and threatening invasion of Assyria.

According to chapter 1:1 the Prophet Isaiah (Meaning, Jehovah is Salvation) was the son of Amoz, who according to an old Jewish tradition was the brother of King Amaziah. In any case Isaiah had a fairly free entry to the King's court in Jerusalem (Is. 7:3; 38:1; 39:3). Isaiah was married and had two sons by the names of Shear-jashub (Hebr. "A remnant shall return", Is. 7:3) and Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Hebr. "Swift for spoil, hasty for prey", Is. 8:3).

Isaiah's prophetic service covered the reigns of the kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah. Uzziah's autocracy started around the year 767 BC and Hezekiah died around 697 BC. The prophet's service fell into this time. According to Jewish tradition Isaiah shall have been persecuted by the impious king Manasseh (son of king Hezekiah) and sawn asunder in a hollow trunk (compare with Heb. 11:37).

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 too much for the given scope to go into details of the attacks of Bible-criticism. We would only like to state that thematic and stylistic differences are to be found in the works of nearly every secular author without anyone doubting their authorship. The argument that the style of the various paragraphs is too different is therefore little sound. For the similarities stand out at least as much, for example the frequent mentioning of God as "the Holy One of Israel" (compare Peculiarities).

Nothing more is known of the ancestors of Isaiah than that he was the son of Amoz. He prophesied in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, all kings of Judah. From the closing years of Uzziah to the death of Hezekiah would be from about B.C. 765 to 700, embracing a period of 65 years. The first verse says that the vision was concerning Judah and Jerusalem. Had due attention been paid to this, it would have prevented many things being ascribed in the headings of the chapters to the church, and the prophecy would have been the better understood. In few words the prophecy may be said to treat of the failures of the nation of Judah and the judgements upon it. Assyria is used as God's rod to punish them, and is then destroyed. Judgements are pronounced against the nations around the promised land that had been enemies to God's people. The Messiah is prophesied of and His rejection, and universal blessing is spoken of.

Isaiah, too, was a writer. We read that "Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amos, wrote the acts of Uzziah first and last." (2 Chron. 26:22.)

"Now the rest of the acts of Uzziah, first and last, did Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, write. So Uzziah slept with his fathers, and they buried him with his fathers in the field of the burial which belonged to the kings; for they said, He is a leper: and Jotham his son reigned in his stead." They would not lay his leprous body in their "Westminster Abbey," but buried him in a field (in earth, perhaps) adjoining the sepulchres of their kings. He died about the time of the founding of Rome. It was "in the year that king Uzziah died" that Isaiah entered upon his full prophetic ministry. The moral condition of the nation during the close of Uzziah's reign is revealed in the first five chapters of his prophecy. He was also the historiographer of his reign. It is not known in just what year of Uzziah's reign he was smitten with leprosy. Nor is it certain just when the great earthquake occurred (Amos 1:1; Zech. 14:5). From Amos 1:1, compared with other scripture chronological references, it is quite certain that it was not later than seventeen years after Uzziah's accession to the throne, and not when he was smitten with leprosy, as Josephus mistakenly affirms.

Of his personal history we know but little. His father's name we learn was Amoz, but of what tribe he formed a member we are ignorant. That Isaiah was married and had two children he has informed us; and the great lesson which he learnt as to the uncleanness of his nature he has recorded for our instruction; but the date of his birth and the year of his death are facts shrouded in the darkness of the past. For three years, in obedience to God's word, he walked naked and barefoot (Isa. 20), and at times during his ministry in Judah he saw visions and burdens. Outside of Judah we never meet with him. This need not surprise us, for during a part of his prophetic labours Hosea was witnessing for God in Israel. Against individuals he rarely speaks. Ahaz the king, and Shebna the scribe, and Hezekiah, after his failure, are of this the only examples that we have. Long as is his book, (being exceeded in quantity only by Genesis, Jeremiah, perhaps Ezekiel, and of course the Psalms) we have not all that he wrote, as 2 Chronicles 26:22, bears witness; but doubtless we have all that it pleased God should survive to our day. Of dates we have but few, so different from the habit of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the death of Uzziah (Isa. 6) and of Ahaz (Isa. 14:28), the invasion of Judah by Pekah and Rezin (Isa. 7), and subsequently by Sennacherib (Isa. 36), and the capture of Ashdod by Tartan, sent thither by Sargon king of Assyria (Isa. 20), are all that the prophet has noticed.

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.