ARTICLE REVIEW:

“The Unity of the Book of Isaiah”

by
R. E. CLEMENTS

By

Braden Campbell
MDiv Program
SID 400048747

The Message of Isaiah: The Holy One of

Israel, the Suffering Servant & Coming King
OT 3XI3
Dr. Paul S. Evans
September 29, 2018
 1

The paper should clearly summarize the contents of the article(s) in your own words and
include your own critical interaction, evaluation, and reflections on the chapter.

R. E. Clements argues that the book of Isaiah is rightfully described as being a unified

literary work, despite the fact of its being written over the course of centuries and by at

least three discernible hands. In an earlier age, he writes, it was taken for granted that the

entirety of the book’s sixty-six chapters was written by “Isaiah the son of Amoz” if for no

other reason than because his name appears in the very first verse. This in turn meant that

all of the prophesies contained therein originated in the eighth century BCE; that Isaiah

committed the entirety of his words to parchment over the course of his Jerusalem

ministry. However, the rise of the historical-critical method of analysis eventually

showed this to be both unrealistic and untrue. B. Duhm's 1892 commentary demonstrated

that while the first thirty-nine chapters did indeed originate in the traditionally-supposed

time period, chapters 40-55 were more properly ascribed to the period of the Babylonian

Exile (mid-500s BCE), and that chapters 56-66 were of an even later date. While the

connection between the final eleven chapters and the preceding material remains a

subject of debate, Clements writes that “for the most part the Book of Isaiah has been

interpreted as comprised of two separate parts which bear little real relationship to each

other.”1

What Clements contends is that the book of Isaiah is unified, not in terms of

authorship, but in terms of theme.

1
Clements, “Unity,” 118.
 2

The first thirty-nine chapters of Isaiah boast a distinctive structure in that the

sayings of prophet have been put together not in chronological or even narrative order

(indeed, the beginning of Isaiah’s story, his calling, is found six chapters into the book),

but rather to punctuate a broad, theologically-based plead for repentance. As to just who

it was that made these editorial decisions, Clements mentions the argument put forth by

Sigmund Mowinckel, a Norwegian scholar. Mowinckel suggested that the text of Isaiah

was compiled by "Isaiah's disciples" (cf. Isa. 8:16); that it was they who arranged

chapters 1-39 to act as an introduction to the remaining chapters, which they themselves

composed. While it would certainly explain how the book’s composition could

realistically span two centuries, Clements writes: “We have no information to confirm

that such a circle actually existed, and to postulate their existence for such a long period

of time after the original prophet's death renders the concept of a ‘disciple’ virtually

meaningless.”2 Thus, any argument of unity based on the idea of authorship can be

largely dismissed. The book was certainly not written in it’s entirety by the son of Amoz,

and there is no evidence to support the idea that it was authored by successive

generations of ghost writers laboring in their master’s name.

Clements then begins to cite specific examples from within the text in order to

support his argument for a unity in theme. He begins by highlighting the "Babylon"

prophecies of 13:1 - 14:23. Even though, historically, Israel’s encounters with the

Babylonian Empire took place over the span of two hundred years (from eighth to the

sixth centuries BCE), here they are gathered together in a little less than two chapters.

2
Clements, “Unity,” 119.
 3

Moreover, they begin a larger section (chapters 13-23) that deals with foreign nations and

cities.

Secondly, Clements examines chapters 36-39. “They have been inserted before

chapter 40 at a relatively late stage in the compilation of the book and thereby assist the

reader in making the transition from the ‘Assyrian’ part of the book (1-35) to the

‘Babylonian’ part (40-66).”3 Why was such a section required? Perhaps because an

unnamed prophet, living during the Exile, produced the contents of chapters 40-55, and in

doing so alluded to the earlier established prophesies of 1-35. This conclusion, it should

be noted, is not entirely Clements’, but is credited to J. F. A. Sawyer.4 For his part,

Clements sees a deliberate repetition of “blindness and deafness” as evidence that the

writer of Deutero-Isaiah had great familiarity with, and perhaps even a textual copy of,

his predecessor’s work. He concludes:

Overall we can see that a striking instance of unity in the Book of Isaiah is
provided by the idea that the prophetic message from God falls upon deaf
ears and is set forth to people who are unable to comprehend what their
own eyes see. It marks a theme which was introduced by Isaiah himself in
his account of his call. It was thereafter taken up by the later prophet of the
Babylonian exile and by at least two groups of editors who used it to shape
and interpret the material which they helped to compile.5

Somewhere along the line, Deutero-Isaiah’s contents “were felt to be an

appropriate, and even necessary, complement to the message given earlier in chapters 1-

35,”6 and the two parts were fused into a singular whole. However, an editorial decision

was made to create a section to preface the newer material (chapters 36-39) with an

3
Clements, “Unity,” 120-121.
4
J. F. A. Sawyer, From Moses to Patmos New Perspectives in Old Testament Study (London,
1977), 113. Original footnote found in Clements, “Unity,” 124.
5
Clements, “Unity,” 126.
6
Clements, “Unity,” 123.
 4

encapsulation of certain historic and geopolitical happenings. Thus, the how and the why

of the book’s compilation is accounted for; an Exilic prophetic piece was written that

dovetailed, as it were, off of the much earlier themes found in Isaiah, and a brief section

was later made to bridge the two.

With the issue of thematic unity resolved to his satisfaction, Clements is then

confronted with the question of finding what it is that connects the threatening message

of the first half of the book with the hopeful tone found in the second? To this he writes

that it must be understood how ancient scribes and editors conceived of prophesy as

being a “living” word from God; that the effects of prophesy could be seen and felt in

different ways and at different times. It was only in the aftermath of Judah’s destruction

and the forced relocation of its people that those in exile looked back to what Isaiah had

written during the eighth century BCE and realized that they were currently living out the

dire consequences of their progenitor’s failings. To borrow from Ezekiel 18, their fathers

had eaten the sour grapes which now set their teeth on edge. Isaiah’s original thirty-five

chapters gave the Exiles insight as to the reasons why God had removed them from the

land which he had promised to them, and had apparently broken a line of kings that had

been promised to endure forever. By wedding Deutero-Isaiah to Isaiah, and applying an

appropriate bridge, the divine threats presented in the first half of the book become

counterbalanced by a series of divine promises. This equilibrium, Clements writes, was

“a fundamental aspect of the motives and interests”7 of the scribes and editors who

compiled the Isaiah that we are familiar with today.

“[It] had nothing to do with matters of literary convenience or assumed

identity of authorship but was designed to clarify and fill out the divine
message given to Israel, and especially to Jerusalem. In this regard we find
7
Clements, “Unity,” 127.
 5

that this thematic connection between the two major parts of the Book of
Isaiah was especially concerned with the fate of Jerusalem and with the
Davidic dynasty.”8

The final eleven chapters are clearly post-Exilic as far as their date of

composition, and with all their talk about the glories of the restored Jerusalem they do

harken back thematically to the earlier portions of the book. Their exact development and

inclusion into the whole of Isaiah evidently remains an active topic of scholarly

investigation.

In conclusion, Clements’ argument presents a fascinating look at the process by

which this particular section of the Scriptures came to be. To those who see the Bible and

its component books as simply being the product of man’s imagination, his detailing of

Isaiah’s redactional history will only confirm their suspicions. However, Christian

believers should suffer no disparaging thoughts upon reading this article, nor should they

see the proven ancient use of edits and revisions as a threat to the doctrine of inerrancy.

No matter how its text came into its current form, Isaiah remains a divine message from

the Almighty, and its distillation was a thing inspired by the Holy Spirit to ultimately

testify about the Lord Jesus Christ (John 5:39).

8
Clements, “Unity,” 128.