THE FALLACY OF HIGHER CRITICISM
(ISAIAH -- WHO WROTE IT?)
Editorial
January/ February, 1984
Volume 19, Number 1
The Sunday School lessons in the International Lesson
Series for December, 1983 and January-February, 1984 are based
on passages from the book of Isaiah in the Old Testament. Many people don't
care who wrote the book of Isaiah (and think the matter is insignificant,
as expressed by T.T. Myers in a Gospel Messenger article
way back in 1910), but those who have studied theological issues know that
the question ["Who wrote the book of Isaiah?"] is an important one.
For centuries, the church believed that the various books
of the Bible were for the most part written by the authors whose names
they bear, usually persons who were contemporary with the events they narrate.
But in the 19th Century, a discipline called "higher criticism" grew by
such large proportions that scholars in Europe were captured by it, and
today the findings of the higher critics are taught as assured fact in
most mainline seminaries across the United States. This includes the instruction
given at Bethany Seminary, the views of most curriculum writers for church
school materials, and the assumptions behind most books recommended for
reading in the Three Year Reading Course prescribed for licensed ministers.
The critics believe that the Pentateuch is a patchwork of information supplied
by at least four writers, that Isaiah must be partitioned into two or three
parts (written by several men who used the name "Isaiah"), and they believe
in a late date for the writing of the book of Daniel (after many of the
events described in the book had already occurred).
It is our belief that multitudes of Brethren do not know
what the historical-critical method of Bible study is. When the issue of
"Biblical Inspiration and Authority" was being studied by an Annual Conference
Committee in the late 1970s, a survey of Brethren views about the Bible
was made. One of the questions on the survey was:
The use of the historical or critical method in studying
the Bible:
a) Tends to exclude the supernatural from scripture;
b) Helps us understand the Bible more clearly;
c) Is the one and only legitimate way to study the Bible;
d) Is valuable for scholars, but not for lay persons.
The responses indicated a concern about the use of a critical
method that seeks to exclude the supernatural from Scripture, but a sizeable
majority of the Brethren who completed the survey, believe the historical-critical
method of Bible study improves understanding (see page 561, Minutes
of the 1979 Annual Conference). However, it is likely that many
who responded thought that the critical method was the older and more historic
way of studying the Bible. But indeed the historical-critical method of
Bible study is only a recent invention. And furthermore, it is doubtful
that the 1978 survey reached an accurate cross-section of Brethren people
in our congregations. Thus it seems wise to take a closer look at the historical-critical
method.
Wilbur Stover (pioneer Church of the Brethren missionary
to India), in his book, The Great First Work of the Church: Missions,
says: "We have a good church; we have a good body of doctrine; we are not
much worried with the evil influence ... of higher criticism." That statement
printed in 1922 is of course no longer true. Brethren today have embraced
"the evil influence of higher criticism." And thus we believe it is appropriate
during these months when many are studying the book of Isaiah in Sunday
School classes, to look more carefully at the concept of higher criticism,
and more specifically at the question, "The Book of Isaiah - Who Wrote
It?" The real issue in our churches today centers around the matter of
whether or not the message of the Bible is an accurately recorded supernatural
revelation from God.
--H. S. M.
The Fallacy of Higher Criticism
by Harold S. Martin
The theological disarray in the church today has not come upon us suddenly.
It is the result of forces which have been at work for several generations.
The fruit of these forces is only becoming more and more evident in our
present generation.
The chief culprit behind the departures from the faith that are being
witnessed in most mainline denominations today is a discipline known as
the historical-critical method of Bible study. The historical-critical
approach is supposed to improve one's understanding of Scripture, but it
has actually been employed to bring the Bible into disrepute. Those who
advocate the historical-critical method say:
1) The Pentateuch is composed of four basic documents (labeled J,E,D,P)
the last of which was compiled only after the Exile in Jeremiah's day.
2) The accounts in Genesis 1-11 are "myths" (that is, stories that communicate
universal truths, but are not themselves historical and geographical realities).
3) The book of Isaiah was written by two or three different writers,
each widely separated in time.
4) The recorded experience of Jonah is intended to be an allegory, not
a reality. The important thing is to get the religious truth behind the
story.
5) The Gospels are the recollections of early church leaders, and the
words attributed to Jesus may never have been uttered the way they are
recorded.
The word "criticism" and related words (like "critic" and "criticize")
are usually understood as referring to something negative or unpleasant.
Thus to the average person, to "criticize" is to "find fault," and "criticism"
is to "pass unfavorable judgment on the qualities of some person or thing."
However, the root word from which the words "critic" and "criticism" and
"criticize" are derived is the Greek word "krites" which speaks of a "judge."
And a true judge is one who is fair and impartial and who will sway neither
to the right nor to the left. His decision will as much as possible be
guided purely by the facts of the case.
In theology, "criticism" may be defined as a serious and scholarly study
of the books of the Bible especially with regard to the date when the text
was written, who the writer was, under what circumstances each book was
written, and what the writings meant to the persons who first read them.
When we speak of the historical-critical method of Bible study, we are
speaking theoretically of a careful and objective study of the books that
comprise the Bible. Those who use the historical-critical method are called
"higher critics." They use various methods known as "form criticism," "redaction
criticism," and "literary criticism." We do not have space in this brief
essay to describe the characteristics of each method.
The discipline of higher criticism could be a valuable tool in Bible
study, but the higher critics for the most part start with the assumption
that the Bible is a record of human encounter with God through long centuries,
and not with the belief that the Bible is an infallible book written under
the careful supervision of the Holy Spirit. Thus the Bible (to the critics)
bears the scars of human error. Nevertheless, they believe it is a record
which testifies to the message of God's love for all people.
Higher criticism over the years has tended to explain the Scriptures
and their origin in terms that can be "reasoned" out. The exclusion of
the supernatural seems to be one of the main postulates of the higher critics.
The modern biblical critic works on the basis of one or more of the following
assumptions:
a) Miracles and genuine prophecies do not occur. Thus, for example,
portions of Isaiah are attributed to a "second" or "third" Isaiah who wrote
the words of certain specific (supposedly) prophetic passages after the
events had occurred.
b) Biblical material involves internal contradictions. Thus,
the discovery of occasional (seeming) contradictions in the text become
the prime reason why the critics assign a multiple authorship to the Pentateuch.
The text is sometimes confusing and hard to decipher because some of the
Pentateuch was written by a "priestly" writer and some by a "deuteronomist"
writer, etc.
c) Bible editors often came long after the events described.
The writers of Scripture were mere editors ("redactors") of the materials
which they picked up from various sources. Oral tradition, as it passed
from generation to generation, took various forms (proverbs, miracle stories,
exhortations, etc.) The writers compiled their books from these various
oral traditions.
To use the methods of the higher critics is to subject the Bible to
human reason and to common sense. The absolute accuracy of the Bible was
generally held by all Christians for the first 1800 years of church history.
Only during the past two centuries, with the rise of higher criticism,
has the infallibility of the Bible been seriously called into question
by leading spokesmen within the church. Pastors and Bible teachers are
taught the methods of higher critics in seminary, and this is the major
reason for the great gulf between institutional church leaders and the
average church member in the pew.
There are some very serious consequences that result from embracing
the views of the higher critics. Such "scholars" say that the Bible is
not historically accurate, but it is filled with beautiful religious lessons.
For example, a writer in a Sunday School quarterly dealing with Moses and
the burning bush, says:
"It really doesn't make any difference what the 'flame' on the mountainside
was. Moses saw something bright that day. Whether it was a ray of sunlight
or a volcanic flame, or a bush in blossom is not Important. What matters
is that Moses heard a voice."
The modern scholars hold the Bible to be historically false, but religiously
true. The jewels of the Christian faith, they say, are found in a book
that is marred and imperfect. They say that it doesn't matter if the Bible
is accurate or not, as long as we get the intended religious lesson. But
our response is this: If the Bible is not entirely accurate about Jonah
(and his being swallowed by a big fish), then it may not be entirely accurate
about Jesus (and His vicarious shedding of blood on the Cross). How can
anyone trained on a steady diet of historical-critical theories - walk
into the pulpits of our churches with a clear "Thus saith the Lord"?
The historical-critical method of Bible study indirectly implies that
until 200 years ago no one really understood the Bible, but now in these
modern times, with the skills of the historical scholars, we are getting
behind the inaccurate shells of the Bible "stories" and finding the truth
which has been concealed from past generations. We will illustrate the
dangerous results of embracing the views of the higher critics by looking
at the issue of who wrote the book of Isaiah.
The Book of Isaiah -- Who Wrote It?
by Harold S. Martin
Isaiah was perhaps the greatest of the writing prophets. He carried
on his ministry in Judah during the reigns of several kings. The Israelites,
we remember, were ruled as a united kingdom under Saul, David, and Solomon.
But at the time of Solomon's death, the kingdom was divided and usually
designated "Israel" (northern tribes), and "Judah" (southern tribes). Some
of the kings in Judah were loyal servants of God, and thus the southern
kingdom survived for more than a 'century after the northern kingdom had
been overrun by the Assyrians
Isaiah received his prophetic call about 740 B.C., the year King Uzziah
died. Isaiah was born during days of prosperity in the southern kingdom.
Judah was regaining economic strength under the competent leadership of
Uzziah. The previous foolish policies of Amaziah had made Judah subject
to invasion and oppression by Israel from the North. And the moral looseness
of the people (Isaiah 1:4-6) was going to lead to punishment for Judah
later on. The Assyrians were already making threats against Judah. Even
during Isaiah's ministry, the Assyrians had taken the northern kingdom
of Israel (722 B.C.). Isaiah the prophet spoke of Judah's future captivity
also. We know from subsequent historical events that Judah was later taken
captive by the Babylonian armies.
1. THE BACKGROUND AND MESSAGE OF ISAIAH
The book of Isaiah can easily be divided into two parts. In chapters
1-39, Isaiah writes about his own time. This was the period when Assyria
was a threat to Judah. In chapters 4066, the Prophet sees beyond his own
time to the period of the Babylonian Captivity. Isaiah seeks through his
messages to bring comfort and hope to a crushed nation. (We should note
also that Isaiah not only saw 100 to 150 years beyond his own time [to
the Babylonian Captivity]. He also looked forward 700 years, prophesying
the virgin birth of Christ [Isaiah 7:14], and describing the suffering
and death of the Messiah [Isaiah 53:1-12; Acts 8:32-35]).
The basic theme of Isaiah's message is that salvation is bestowed only
by grace (by the power of God the Redeemer), rather than by human strength
or by the good works of the flesh. Isaiah sets forth the doctrine of Christ
the Redeemer in such full detail that he is sometimes called "the evangelical
prophet." The holy God will not permit continuing uncleanness in His covenant
people, and therefore will chasten them to make them fit to participate
in His program of redemption. The great lesson emphasized in Isaiah is
the basic principle that any nation or any individual exalting himself
above God will sooner or later be dethroned by the Lord of hosts.
The last 27 chapters of Isaiah predict the fall of Jerusalem and the
70 Years of Captivity. Isaiah foresaw the coming invasion by the Babylonian
armies, and so the final 27 chapters of Isaiah contain words of comfort
for the exiled people of Judah. And furthermore, Isaiah foresaw the rise
of Cyrus the Great (who captured Babylon in 539 B.C.) and then gave permission
to the Jewish exiles to return to their homeland. But not only was the
work of Cyrus foreseen. Cyrus is actually referred to by name in Isaiah
44:28 and in Isaiah 45:1.
If the Bible is primarily of human origin, then the only way to explain
these apparently successful predictions of Isaiah - is to say that they
were written after the fulfillment had taken place, or at least when it
was about to occur. Scholars who have anti-supernatural convictions do
not believe that the Isaiah of B.C. 700 exhibited a foreknowledge of events
that were to happen more than a hundred years after his death and so they
flatly declare that another Isaiah (who lived much later than Isaiah the
son of Amoz) must have written the last part of the book of Isaiah.
2. THE CRITICS AND ISAIAH'S AUTHORSHIP
For nearly twenty-five centuries, no one dreamed of doubting that Isaiah
the son of Amoz (who lived in the 8th Century B.C.) was the author of the
whole book that goes under his name. The literary unity of Isaiah was not
doubted until comparatively recent times. There is no evidence that the
ancients who lived a few hundred years after Isaiah's time knew of any
problems In connection with Isaiah's writings. Even the translators or
the Septuagint translation (approx. B. C. 200) showed no signs of believing
that the 66 chapters of Isaiah are not Isaiah's work. Nor do the copyists
of the text of Isaiah seem to know any other author except Isaiah the son
of Amoz.
Among the first to doubt the unity of Isaiah was Ibn Ezra, who lived
in the 12th Century A. D. Not much was said about it again until the 18th
Century, when the ,higher critics began delving into their work. One scholar
says this chapter could not have been Isaiah's writing, and another says
this verse could not have come from Isaiah's pen, and so forth. And so
they say there must have been two (or perhaps three) Isaiahs (a Deutero-Isaiah).
Since the late 1800s the negative critics have become more vocal than ever.
The primary reason why the critics declare that the work of Isaiah is
the work of at least two writers is because they believe a prophet could
not see beyond the horizon of his own time. It would be impossible for
Isaiah (living about B. C. 700) to speak of Cyrus who lived about B. C.
540. Consequently, Isaiah 44:28 and Isaiah 45:1 are dated much later than
B. C. 700, and are said to have been written after the time of Cyrus by
a writer who used the name "Isaiah" as a pen-name. The "scholarly" critics
proceed from the assumption that prediction of the distant future is impossible.
They do not believe it was possible for Isaiah to speak of a distant Babylonian
Captivity and of Cyrus as the deliverer from the Captivity. Therefore the
higher critics say these sections of the book of Isaiah must have been
written after the events actually occurred, and then they were made to
appear as if they were predictive prophecies.
The International Journal of Religious Education, February,
1963, published by the NCC, says: "Isaiah of Jerusalem, who lived in the
eighth century B. C., did not write all of the book that bears his name.
Many chapters (chapters 40-66) were written by an unknown Jewish exile
in Babylon during the sixth century B. C. The references to King Uzziah
(6:1) and Ahaz (7:1) help to date Isaiah of Jerusalem, and the name of
King Cyrus of Persia (45:1) helps to date the writer of the Exile."
The Church of the Brethren A Guide for Biblical Studies,
December, 1983, January, February, 1984, says: "The book of Isaiah is very
complex, a whole library of prophetic work spanning centuries of time.
Chapters 1-39 are attributed to Isaiah, son of Amoz who lived in Jerusalem
during the second half of the eighth century BCE. Chapters 40-55 are set
in the Babylonian exile after the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE. Chapters
56-66 reflect a later time when attempts were being made to re-establish
the life of a Jewish community in Jerusalem. We know next to nothing about
the different writers of the book of Isaiah. We do know that they could
deliver God's message to the people as each successive crisis demanded"
(page 65).
The paragraphs cited above are only a few of the multitudes of similar
statements which are made time and time again in our literature. They indicate
that the theories of the higher critics have become very deeply entrenched
in the minds of most pastors and writers trained in the more liberal schools
of theology.
3. THE RETORT AND EVANGELICAL RESPONSE
The advocates of the Second Isaiah theory stoutly affirm that at least
two different persons wrote the book of Isaiah. Yet the New Testament writers
clearly regard the author of the entire book of Isaiah to be one and the
same person. It is true that some of the New Testament quotations can be
interpreted as referring to the book merely according to its traditional
title (that is, simply from Isaiah, regardless of who the author was) -
but there are other New Testament references which clearly imply the personality
of the historic Isaiah himself. Notice Matthew 12:17-18, Matthew 3:3, and
Luke 3:4.
But the most conclusive New Testament citation is John 12:38-41. Verse
40 quotes Isaiah 6:9-10 (from the first section of the book of Isaiah).
Verse 38 quotes Isaiah 53:1 (from the last section of the book of Isaiah).
And then the inspired Apostle John comments in verse 41: "These things
said Isaiah, when he saw his glory, and spoke of him." Obviously it was
the same Isaiah who personally beheld the glory of Christ in the temple-vision
of Isaiah 6, as the Isaiah who also spoke of Christ in Isaiah 53:1. If
it was not the same writer who composed both chapter 6 and chapter 53 (of
the book of Isaiah), then the New Testament writer must have been in error!
It therefore follows that those who advocate "the two Isaiah theory" must
by implication concede the existence of errors in the New Testament, and
this is a very serious matter. The historical-critical view undermines
belief in the full-orbed truth of the Bible.
As we have just seen, Jesus quoted from both parts of the book and attributed
His quotations to Isaiah. Other New Testament writers quoted from both
parts of Wish without any kind of distinction. The phrase "the Holy One
of Israel" is found an almost equal number of times in both sections (12
times in chapters 1-39 and 13 times in chapters 40-66). The oldest known
manuscript of Isaiah (one of the Dead Sea Scrolls which springs from the
2nd Century B. C.) links the two sections as one unit.
And so the answer to the question, "What difference does it make who
wrote the book of Isaiah?" --is of tremendous importance. Either Jesus
told a deliberate lie, or He was ignorant of the fact that Isaiah did not
write what He quoted, or He accommodated himself to those who accept the
Isaianic tradition even though He knew better. We believe that the affirmation
of Jesus concerning the authorship of Isaiah is to be accepted, and that
the theories of the scholars who deny it are to be rejected. The issues
at stake are considerable. They will not vanish away. The historical-critical
method of viewing the Bible is the great enemy of the evangelical faith.
How one looks at the Scriptures will make a difference in his lifestyle
now and will affect his eternal destiny.