The Integrity of the Torah and Isaiah

The Torah, Isaiah, and Modern Biblical Scholarship

Traditionally, Christians have believed that the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) was in its entirety written by Moses. However, in the modern period, critical biblical scholars began to call this belief into question. A number of passages in the Torah contain historical details from after the death of Moses. For example, post-Mosaic kings of Edom are mentioned (Gen 36); Laish is called “Dan” even though its name was not changed to Dan until after Moses’s death (Deut 34:1, Judg 18:27-31), and Moses’s death and the events immediately following are described (Deut 34:5-12). Furthermore, there are a number of apparent contradictions within the Torah, as well as some “doublet” stories: two similar stories told with different details (Gen 12:1-10 and Gen 20:1-18; Gen 32:25-33 and Gen 35:9-15; Ex 17:2-7 and Num 20:2-13). Many scholars see these as evidence that multiple sources were used to compose the Torah.

Based on this, modern critical scholars eventually proposed the documentary hypothesis, according to which there were originally four separate documents: the Yahwist, the Elohimist, the Priestly, and the Deuteronomist. These four documents, written in different times and places, were later edited together to produce the Torah, centuries after the time of Moses. 

Traditionally, Christians have believed that the entirety of the book of Isaiah was written by the prophet Isaiah in the 8th century BC. However, in the modern period, critical biblical scholars began to call this belief into question. Beginning in chapter 40, the writing style becomes significantly different, and Isaiah’s name stops being mentioned. Furthermore, chapters 40-55 seem to speak to the situation of Israel during the Babylonian exile, and the Persian emperor Cyrus, who was born over a century after Isaiah’s death, is even mentioned by name (Isa 45:1-13). And chapters 56-66 seem to speak to the situation of Israel after the Babylonian exile. For these reasons, most modern critical scholars believe the book of Isaiah to be a composition of three different authors: Isaiah (chapters 1-39), a nameless exilic prophet (chapters 40-55), and a nameless post-exilic prophet (chapters 56-66). 

Now, there are certainly critiques that can be made of these scholarly theories. For example, the assumption that a single ancient law code would not have contained apparently contradictory stipulations or that a single ancient author would not have retold the same story twice side by side with differences between them has been called into question by further archaeological study in the ancient Near East. However, for argument’s sake, let us assume that these scholarly theories about the complex composition of the Torah and Isaiah are true. Skeptics often argue that these modern scholarly theories prove that these books are merely human writings that cannot possibly be Divinely inspired. But does this really follow? 

Divine Inspiration and Human Authorship

The problem with this argument is that it assumes that Divine inspiration is incompatible with a complex process of authorship, editing, and composition by multiple human contributors. This assumption is false. To demonstrate this, let us examine the book of Proverbs. The book of Proverbs is composed of, at the very least, the writings of five different authors: Solomon (Prov 1:1-22:16), “the wise” (22:17-24:34), King Hezekiah (25:1-29:27), King Augur (chapter 30), and King Lemuel (chapter 31). Given that King Hezekiah lived over two centuries after Solomon, this means that, at minimum, the book of Proverbs had a complex process of composition involving about half a dozen authors over a period of over two centuries. All of this is very clear to anyone from a simple, plain reading of the text. No Christian has ever thought that this somehow calls into question the Divine inspiration of the book of Proverbs. So why should anyone think that, if the Torah and Isaiah had complex processes of composition involving numerous authors over a period of centuries, this somehow calls into question their Divine inspiration?

Although Deuteronomy mentions Moses writing down some of the instruction which he gave Israel (Deut 34:1, 22-24), there is never a claim made anywhere in the Torah that Moses wrote the entirety of the Torah. New Testament authors sometimes refer to the Torah as “Moses,” but this is not necessarily a claim that Moses actually wrote the entire Torah; it is just a reference to the foundational authority figure whose teachings produced the Torah. Since ancient cultures were more oral than written, it is likely that much of Moses’s teachings would have been passed down orally. These oral traditions going back to Moses could have been later written down in numerous documents in various times and places, and then later edited together to produce the Torah in its final form. God could have superintended this whole process, making the final form of the Torah Divinely inspired. 

Similarly, since the book of Isaiah does not mention Isaiah’s name after chapter 39, there is actually no claim in the book of Isaiah that Isaiah was the author of chapters 40-66. These chapters could have been written by later, nameless prophets, and then become placed into the same book as the prophecies of Isaiah. We cannot know for sure why this happened, but perhaps later editors did this because these later prophets were seen as having similar themes as Isaiah and showing the later fulfillment of his prophecies. 

Regarding the apparently complex process leading up to the final form of the Torah and Isaiah, anti-Christian atheist John Loftus acknowledges, “Sure, God could have inspired the Bible’s writers, compilers, and editors to make it look like this,” but then goes on to ask, “but how probable is that?”^[1]John W. Loftus, Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity, Revised and Expanded Edition (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2012), page 296. Well, since this is clearly how God did in fact inspire certain books of Scripture, such as Proverbs, we have no good reason to think that it is improbable. It is just as great a miracle for God to Divinely inspire a text through the agency of a single author as it is for God to Divinely inspire a text through the agency of numerous writers, compilers, and editors. So, if one can accept the idea that God could Divinely inspire books of Scripture through single authors, there is absolutely no reason to doubt that God Divinely inspired the Torah and Isaiah, even if they are the products of a complex process of composition. 

Christians have always believed that the Scriptures are both writings written by human authors and that they are the word of God. Many skeptics seem to think that if they can show that books of the Bible show evidence of the humanity of their authors, then they have somehow called into question the Divine inspiration of these books. But this is false. God has Divinely inspired the Scriptures through human agents who are fully involved in the composition of these texts. They are thus both historical documents whose composition can be analyzed by historical critical scholarship, and channels of Divine communication from God to His covenant people. Thus, historical critical analysis of Old Testament books that seems to uncover a complex process of their composition does nothing to undermine Christians’ confidence in the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ that the Old Testament Scriptures are the inspired word of God.