It’s more so the approach in general of mainstream contemporary critical biblical scholarship, and many ideas adopted by spheres in critical biblical scholarship … The common view of such ‘liberal’ styled scholarship is to also assert that that in the prophetic literature which has been historically fulfilled, was added/edited into the original text after the event; whilst that which wasn’t fulfilled was the original source of the prophet. They leave no room for anything divine or supernatural.
OK, fair enough. There are certainly some misled scholars out there. Yet, what you’ve outlined is not what the multiple-author theory proposes, right? I mean, I’m sure there’s a juxtaposition of those who support ‘multiple-authors’ and those who think ‘prophecy isn’t real’, but that doesn’t mean that the multiple-author theory makes these claims! One can advocate for the multiple-author theory without trashing the notion of prophecy, don’t you think?
I don’t think the critical method is invalid, but that as a tool it has its limited uses - but some treat it like a hammer, smashing the Scriptures to bits.
All tools have limited uses. The trick to using them is two-fold: don’t utilize them beyond their intended use (“honey, would you mind handing me my philips-head screwdriver? I need to finish pounding in this nail”) and don’t unnecessarily limit them short of their intended use (“no, honey, not
this one here – that’s my
bathroom philips-head screwdriver! Give me
that one over there – it’s my
living room philips-head screwdriver!”)…
I’m aware there are other arguments, but this is among them.
OK, but refuting one argument doesn’t disprove the claim; it merely disproves the particular argument. You’re not planning on arguing that, since one particular argument (out of many) for the multiple-author theory can be assailed, then the theory itself is wrong… are you?
It seems the theories that assert multiple authorship of the Book of Isaiah mainly argue on the premise that it’s unlikely said prophecies about Babylon and Cyrus would have been made before the emergence of these powers
That’s one way of framing the argument – which, to be honest, doesn’t have as much to do with world figures as it does span of time between the sections of the Book. You allude to precisely this notion later in your post.
Such a stance in my opinion thus amounts to a rejection of the supernatural quality of the prophecies and therefore undermines the possibility and role of God’s Divine Inspiration in the composition of the Sacred texts.
Again, if you recognize that other arguments for multiple-author exist, then why do you make this claim? If we posit an Isaiah and a Deutero-Isaiah, both of whom prophesy to the people of God (one prior to the upheavals in Judah, and the other prior to the return from Babylon), then we have
both the ‘supernatural quality of the prophecies’
and a reasonable explanation of the timing of the prophecies…
A simplistic summary: The above position and the position of a single-author (or a cooperating scribe under Isaiah) both begin on a presupposition: the above, on the basis that the said prophecies can’t have been made before they historically occurred; and the single-author stance, that the prophecies had to have been made prior to the events by Isaiah.
And as such, you’re merely tearing down
one argument for the multiple-author theory, and not the theory itself. If I were grading a paper that made that claim, I’d grade you down – not on your adherence to ‘single-author’, but on a poor approach that draws conclusions before examining all alternatives.
(If one holds the stance of multiple authorship and that the prophecies were made prior the events, that’s another thing altogether. The timeline provides a bit of room for this possibility).
There we go. See? If you claim “single-author must be correct because retroactive prophecy is wrong”, then this is precisely the rebuttal you’ll face.
(Edited to add: I tried to avoid getting on my soap-box, but have failed.
Here we go:
The project of writing a term paper isn’t merely to provide a vehicle for you to present your arguments. It’s meant to build solid research skills. You’ve started in the right direction – you’ve asked “are there scholars out there who advocate for the single-author theory in Isaiah?” Your next step, of course, is to
go out there and find them. Asking on an internet forum isn’t exactly ‘doing research’ (and, to tell the truth, is rarely productive). You don’t mention where you’ve been looking for references, but now it’s time to go out there and find them! I’d be surprised if your university doesn’t provide access to various services that aggregate articles and reviews (e.g., JSTOR, etc). Search on “Isaiah authorship” and start reading! Not every article will be helpful, but some might cite scholars who say the sort of thing you’re trying to argue. Don’t be afraid to read those who hold to the multiple-author theory: if they’re good scholars, they’ll also ID the arguments for single-authorship and provide citations from the scholars who make those claims! There are scholarly debates over the number of authors – 2? 3? – and you can use these against the multiple-author claim in general, if you’re crafty enough! Engage in the process of doing research – rather than the process of railing against your teachers – and you just might find what you’re looking for!
Good luck!
)
