The book of Isaiah—Theses and Hypotheses - Critical Essay

Biblical Theology Bulletin, Fall, 2003 by J. Clinton McCann, Jr.

Abstract

The book of Isaiah is a complex unity that developed from a long redactional process, and this complex unity is the key to a biblical-theological appropriation of the book. Following Isaiah's "directions of meaning" will lead contemporary readers to discern a God who wills world-encompassing justice, righteousness, and peace, and who invites people to be agents of God's purposes in shaping the kind of future that God wills.

**********

Roland E. Murphy was not only a master of exegetical detail, but he also had the marvelous ability to survey a field of inquiry and to summarize succinctly its crucial affirmations, issues, and possibilities. Inspired by his example, I intend in this essay to consider recent scholarly study of the book of Isaiah. For the format of this essay, I have borrowed a genre that Murphy featured in his essay, Wisdom--Theses and Hypotheses. In so doing, I hope to honor in some small way the memory of my teacher, mentor, and friend. Under the heading of "Theses," I shall offer and elaborate upon three statements that seem to constitute an emerging consensus among scholars of the book of Isaiah. Under the rubric of "Hypotheses," I shall suggest and explore three ways in which recent study of the book of Isaiah may contribute to the realm of biblical theology.

Theses

1. The book of Isaiah should be read and interpreted as a unity.

Perhaps as much as or more than any other Old Testament book, the book of Isaiah and its recent history of interpretation demonstrate the profound shift that has occurred in academic biblical studies. Thirty years ago, it was highly unusual (although not impossible) to find a scholarly voice that was ready to defend the unity of the book of Isaiah. Rather, it was an "assured result" of biblical criticism that there were three "Isaiahs," each of which derived from a different prophetic figure, as well as from a different historical, geographical, and socio-political situation--eighth-century First Isaiah of Jerusalem (chapters 1-39), sixth-century Isaiah of Babylon (chapters 40-55), and sixth- or fifth-century Isaiah of the Restoration (chapters 56-66). Furthermore, it was frequently concluded that each of these sections of the book of Isaiah constituted, in essence, its own separate "book," which could and even should be interpreted without reference to the others.

But, things have changed dramatically. Now it is highly unusual to find a scholarly voice that is not ready to defend the unity of the book of Isaiah, at least on some grounds. There are some, such as Richard Coggins, who recently confessed, "There is a real sense in which I continue to find the book unreadable" (91); however, this view is clearly part of a shrinking minority. Definitive evidence in this regard is the appearance in 2001 of Brevard Childs's critical commentary on the entire book of Isaiah, reversing the long-standing practice of commenting separately on the alleged three "Isaiahs" (see also Watts1985 and 1987). Other recent commentaries continue to reflect past practice, but their authors recognize and comment upon the problematic nature of their task (see Tucker; Seitz 1993 and 2001).

To be sure, various scholars perceive the unity of the book of Isaiah quite differently. A few conclude that the unity of the book derives from its having a single author, either eighth-century Isaiah of Jerusalem, who foresaw the events reflected especially in chapters 40-66 (see Motyer; Oswalt), or a fifth- or fourth-century figure who looked back to offer a theological construal of several hundred years of Israelite and Judean history (see Quinn-Miscall; Watts 1985 and 1987). Many more scholars conclude that the book of Isaiah is unified by theme(s) and purpose(s) that result from a long process of growth and redaction that began in the eighth century and continued into the third or even the second century BCE (see Carr; Childs; Clements 1980 and 1982; Rendtorff; Seitz 1993 and 2001; Steck 2000). Still others bracket out the questions of authorship, dating, and redaction in favor of simply reading the book as a final literary product (see Conrad). As divergent as these interests and approaches may be, they share the conviction that the book of Isaiah is, in some sense, to be interpreted as a unity.

To be sure, one might suspect that the general movement in biblical studies beyond historical approaches to more literary and "canonical" approaches may be leading contemporary scholars to find more unity in the book of Isaiah than any author and/or editor(s) ever intended (and hence more than is actually there!). David Carr has articulated this suspicion, suggesting that scholarly assumptions of unity may mean that "we will be impelled to find such [unitary literary] shape in texts whether or not it is there" (79). Even so, while Carr doubts that an "an overall macrostructural integration" (79) exists for the book of Isaiah, he is willing to speak of "the complexity of the unity" (78; see also Rendtorff) that exists as a result of the editorial process that has produced the book of Isaiah in its final form. This notion of a complex unity of the book leads us to a second thesis.