This improbability is increased in view of recent scholarship's tendency to reduce the original
Isaianic statements to a smaller and smaller corpus. It is now argued that what is truly Isaianic
is not of much more extent than the material of Amos or Hosea. Yet we are asked to believe
that of all the prophets, only Isaiah sparked a movement which would continue for some five
centuries and eventually produce a book in the "founder's" name that would be some five to six
times the volume of the original input. That such a superstructure of thought must be created
to reconcile the conclusion of compositional disunity with the present form of the book
suggests that the conclusion is at least questionable. 9 Furthermore, it must be pointed out that
there is an amazing lack of unity among scholars as to the extent and origins of the supposed
compositional units in the book. The supposition gained from popular writings that there is
broad scholarly agreement upon the nature and extent of I, II, and III Isaiah vanishes almost at
once when research is undertaken into the scholarly writings. IIi fact, it is not far off the mark to
observe that the only genuine agreement is the negative one which began the process: the
book of Isaiah is not a unity. to
Given the complexity of the theory which must be contrived to explain the book's present form
if it is not a compositional unit, and given the inability of that theory to produce agreement as
to the compositional structure of the book, one is driven to reconsider the historic position of
the Church, namely, that the book is a compositional (if not stylistic) unit. 11 Upon examination
several reasons emerge in support of this ar-
9. For what is perhaps the most comprehensive attempt to explain the present form of the book while
assuming it is not a compositional unit, cf. W. L. Holladay, Isaiah: Scroll of a Prophetic Heritage (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978). Holladay reflects the contemporary understanding that the "school theory"
does not go far enough to explain how the supposedly many diverse materials and points of view could
have been so well brought together in the present text. Rather, as he illustrates, it is necessary to assume
a more or less continuous process of editing previous writings, adding new ones, and re-editing from 700
B.C. down to the time of the Maccabees (165 B.C.). Holladay presents this theory about as well as could
be expected, given its highly complex and theoretical nature; however, it is so massive and intricate as to
strain the credulity of all but the most arcane readers.
10. For a handy review of the various compositional theories see S. Erlandsson, The Burden qf Bal7ylon.
11. For some of the argumentation in favor of compositional unity see the following: O. T. Allis, The Unity of
Isaiah (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1950); J. J. Lias, "The Unity of Isaiah," BSac 72 (1915)
560-591; 75 (1918) 267-274; R. Margalioth (Margulies), The Indivisible Isaiah (New York: Yeshiva University,
1964); E. 1. Young, Who Wrote Isaiah? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958).
