I’m grading exams from last semester for a course on the major prophets. Students had to do an exegesis on either Isaiah 6 or Ezekiel 37. Almost every one of the answers on Isaiah start with some variation of, “The book of Isaiah is believed to be written by Isaiah son of Amoz.” The passive tells a lot here because at no time did I or any of the scholars that I put in front of the students believe that Isaiah was written by Isaiah son of Amoz. I’m not sure where it is but there is some collective out there claiming Isaiah son of Amoz wrote all of Isaiah. I recognize that there can be a scholarly debate about the composition of Isaiah. I know that some scholars do claim singular authorship. I don’t buy their arguments and have pretty strongly supported at least three authors for Isaiah.
My honest question is, “Why bother teaching about authorship?” After all, students will just assume that scholars all agree that Isaiah was written by Isaiah, Jeremiah by Jeremiah etc. All that I said and wrote and graded made absolutely zero difference to their understanding of authorship. They have no interest in anything but the final presentation of the text as a coherent whole authored by one individual identified in the text. I could look at this as an abject failure but then I ask myself, what kind of moral or spiritual imperative do I have to disabuse them of this tendency? Why not dwell on the canonical form and what it might mean?
After all, I only care about the authors of Isaiah to the extent that there are at least three distinct sections, and that each section contributes to the overall meaning of the text. Do I need to teach three authors or can I teach that there are three sections of Isaiah without needing to ascribe different authors to them. Isn’t the end result the same in their interpretation?
I’m shaping the syllabus for the Minor Prophets right now and wonder why I would bother with assuming anything but single authorship for all of them. Even if Amos 9:11-15 poses an issue for the book, can’t I frame it as an interpretive challenge (How to reconcile this message of hope with the rest of the message of the book) rather than as an authorship challenge (who wrote and when such a different passage)? I would be very, very, very surprised if any of my students did further academic work but the majority of them will be preaching and teaching in their churches. Shouldn’t I spend what little time I have with them and these texts focusing on how to interpret them and not on academic questions?
And to be clear, this question is not anti-intellectual. Sure, it might be against the Biblical studies guild and its particular interests but that does not mean that the students won’t be engaged in rigorous study of the text. What do I have invested in the guild if my students will never read the Bible in that context? Nor does it mean that I have to resort to some kind of fundamentalism which flattens all interpretation and focuses on defending the Bible from its cultured despisers. These students, here in Malawi, are not engaged in a culture war. They defend their interpretation against modern day “prophets”, often of the prosperity gospel type, but not some kind of MSM/liberal/postmodern enemy concocted in the fevered imaginations of Trump’s supporters. They have learned how to have a much deeper interpretation despite the fact that they continue to disregard all redaction scholarship. Is this really a problem?
Missional-aries 
Just followed a link to your site, and found this question interesting. I would ask the pastoral question of what are you doing to their faith by challenging them that there may be three different authors of ‘Isaiah’? I think back to my seminary days… the concepts I felt unable to engage with well were those that the lecturer had not engaged with me as his student pastorally to see the effect of his academic teaching on my (and other students’) faith. It may be that this question of authorship needs a pastoral approach and discernment/insight as to the implications for the students’ faith in your context.
LikeLike
Thanks for the comment.
First, the way that the curriculum is structured here in Malawi means that one of the goals is to “present the historical sources and literary forms of the books of the Major Prophets.” I think it is hard to discuss the historical sources of Isaiah without talking about the fact that it seems to have been written in three distinct time periods that are hundreds of years apart. We might question whether the curriculum should be as academically oriented as it is but I would do a disservice to my students if I didn’t at least touch on it since it could be on their final exam.
Second, I think the post was trying to struggle with the question that you are pointing to. Does it make a difference, pastorally, if there were three authors of Isaiah? Or, is this an academic distraction that takes away from students being able to really dig deep into understanding the message that Isaiah has for the world today? I actually don’t think it is worth challenging students on authorship questions. There just isn’t enough pedagogical or pastoral benefit to it. I would hope that in the way that I approach my students is pastoral, that I care about them and their own faiths and what God calls them to do. Teaching is always a mixture of challenging and affirming, challenging into the new and affirming the good of the old. Walking that line is tricky but I hope that I do so with wisdom and care.
Third, the issue though, and this doesn’t come out in the post as much, is why do students need to and want to claim single authorship? Initially it is because they have a naive reading of the text. Isaiah says that he wrote it so Isaiah wrote it. This naivety is easy enough to deal with. Jeremiah for instance has Baruch and it is clear that he didn’t write everything although the book is claimed as his. But when a student persists, even out of context and against the evidence, on insisting on single authorship, I wonder why?
My conclusion has to do with the sources of authority of Scripture. For my students it is very important that God spoke to one heroic individual who recorded his thoughts and words. The authority of the text as the Word of God rests on that relationship. The words that they read only have authority for them because of that relationship and so they resist anything that might question it. I personally think that is a bad place to put the authority for the Bible. I put the authority on the text itself so regardless of who wrote it (or who heard it first) it is still authoritative for me, the church, and the world. For instance, I’m not sure that Paul wrote all the books attributed to him but I count them all as Scripture and authoritative. The authority of Scripture should not rest on a particular author who we may or may not be able to determine if they actually wrote something. The authority of Scripture should rest on the revealed words as we have received and affirmed them by the power of the Holy Spirit.
This placing of authority does seem to me to be important for future pastors to sort out and I’m willing to engage in a bit of a challenge on this. In Malawi it makes a difference. For instance, does a modern day “prophet” who claims the same experience as Isaiah have the same authority? On what grounds do we say yes to Isaiah and no to the modern day “prophet”? As I said before, I’d like to think that as I challenge students I do so pastorally but my obligation is to educate and equip them so that will involve some discomfort on their parts as they learn. I don’t challenge them simply to challenge them; I challenge them so that they might grow into a deeper understanding of who God is and how they might engage with the written Word of God.
LikeLike