ISAIAH.

I. The Prophet and his Times.

Reports concerning Isaiah (§ 1).

Chronology of the Period (§ 2).

External Events (§ 3).

Relation of Events to Faith (§ 4).

Ideals Underlying Prophecies (§ 5).

Isaiah’s Life and Character (§ 6).

II. The Book of Isaiah.

1. Its Place in the Canon.

2. The Text.

Its Condition (§ 1).

Causes and Kinds of Errors (§ 2).

3. Authorship.

Prophetic Authorship in General (§ 1).

Interrelations of i.-xxxv. and xl.-lxvi (§ 2).

Authorship substantially Isaianic (§ 3).

Isaianic Authorship of xxviii. xxxv (§ 4).

Chapters ii.-xii (§ 5).

Chapters xiii.-xxvii (§ 6).

Results of the Investigation (§ 7).

III. The Critical View.

The Problem (§ 1).

Structure of the Book (§ 2).

Results of Criticism (§ 3).

Analysis of Isa. i.-xxxix (§ 4).

Analysis of Isa. xl.-lxvi (§ 5).

Conclusion (§ 6).

I. The Prophet and His Times: The name rendered "Isaiah" in English has in the Hebrew two forms, Yesha‘yah, and Yesha‘yahu, the latter in his book, II Kings xviii.-xxi., and I Chron. xxv. 3, 15, xxvi. 25, II Chron. xxvi. 22, xxxii. 32, the former in I Chron. iii. 21; Neh. xi. 7. In the Septuagint it varies greatly, taking the forms Iesias, Iessias, Ioseas, Hesaias, Isaias, Osaias. The derivations and meanings given are quite varied.

(§ 1). Reports Concerning Isaiah. Outside the book called by his name and II Kings xviii.-xxi., Isaiah the prophet is mentioned only twice in the Bible. II Chron. xxvi. 22 states that the acts of Uzziah of Judah were written down by Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz. The method of citation here deviates from the usual formula, so that either incompleteness or defacement of the text is suspected, while the Septuagint lacks the phrase "son of Amoz" and has further variations. The passage adds nothing to knowledge of the prophet gained elsewhere. It has been taken, in connection with Isa. i. 1, as ground for the conjecture that the prophet lived through the entire reigns of the four kings mentioned, and that Isa. vi. tells of a renewed call of the prophet after a period of quietness. This is favored by the position of chap. vi., and modern students are inclined to attribute chaps. i.-v. wholly or in part to the early years of Uzziah. II Chron. xxxii. 32 speaks of a record in the "Vision of Isaiah" of the deeds of Hezekiah which is in the Book of Kings. The Septuagint, Vulgate, and Targum place an "and" before "in the book," thus mentioning two sources. It is to be noticed that "Vision of Isaiah" was the title of the canonical Book of Isaiah (Isa. i. 1). The passage was early taken as indicating an independent "Vision of Isaiah," and an apocryphal book of that character was cited by Origen, and is perhaps the "Martyrdom (or Ascension) of Isaiah" known in the Ethiopic (see PSEUDEPIGRAPHA, OLD TESTAMENT, II. 34), dealing with the martyrdom of Isaiah under Manasseh. This tradition of a martyrdom appears also in the Gemara (Yebamot 49b) as drawn from "an early genealogical record" and due to a condemnation of certain utterances of the prophet. Another tradition connects the death of Isaiah with his condemnation of the act of Manasseh recorded in II Kings xxi. 7, and brings into relation with this event the passage Isa. lxvi. 1 sqq., and a prediction of the coming of Nebuchadrezzar to destroy the temple. This aroused the wrath of Manasseh, who ordered the prophet to be brought and slain. Isaiah fled and took refuge in the heart of a tree, which closed about him and hid him. But his pursuers sawed through the tree until the blood of the prophet flowed forth as water. The passages II Kings xxi. 16, xxiv. 3-4 are brought into relation with this tradition and the event is said to have occurred on Tammuz 17, corresponding to July 6, given in the Roman Catholic calendar (cf. A.SB, July, ii. 250 sqq.; A. Klostermann, Das Datum des Martyrium Jesaias im römischen Kalendar, in TSK, 1880, pp. 536 sqq.). The one tradition of value seems to be that which places his death in the reign of Manasseh.

(§ 2). Chronology of the Period. This tradition may be brought into connection with the title of the book by way of defining the period of activity of the prophet. To the period of the four kings mentioned in the title may be added an undefined but short period under Manasseh, and Isa. vi. 1 is often taken as indicating the entry of Isaiah upon prophetic work in the last year of Uzziah. Supposing that he was then twenty years old, his age at the accession of Manasseh would be eighty-one; thus: the destruction of Jerusalem was in 586 B.C., the eleventh year of Zedekiah; then, according to the reckoning of the Book of Kings, Manasseh began to reign in 696 B.C., Hezekiah in 725 B.C., Ahaz in 741 B.C., Jotham in 757 B.C., and the death of Uzziah would fall in 758 B.C. [or 757]; the siege of Samaria under Shalmaneser began in the fourth year of Hezekiah, 722 B.C., and its capture by Sargon in Hezekiah’s sixth year, 720 B.C. If it is assumed, as is most probable, that the sign on the dial of Ahaz is to be connected with the eclipse of Mar. 14, 711 B.C. (F. K. Ginzel, Spezieller Kanon der Sonnen- und Mondfinsternisse, Berlin, 1899), visible in Jerusalem, then the foregoing statements in general and the assignment of the year 711 B.C. for the healing of Hezekiah tally with astronomical data. Therefore the embassy from Merodach-baladan (Isa. xxxix. 1) would fall at the earliest in 711 B.C., and Hezekiah’s determination to throw off Assyrian overlordship would fall in 710 B.C. The Ptolemaic Canon allows to a Mardokempados twelve years as king of Babylon, and to his conqueror, Sargon, five years; then the last year of Mardokempados is the thirty-eighth of the era of Nabonassar, and the first year of Sargon is 709 B.C. Then that the "king of Babylon," Merodach-baladan (Isa. xxxix. 1), is not an indefinite usurper of that name, but that the Mardokempados of the Ptolemaic Canon is the Merodach-baladan of the Assyrian inscriptions does not imply error either in that he is called "son of Yakin" in the Canon or that he is called "son of Baladan" in Isa. xxxix. The former is accounted for by his capital being at Bit Yakin or Dur Yakin, evidently taken as named for an eponymous ancestor, and the latter may have arisen from a like connection with a supposed ancestor mentioned in the second element of his own name. Thus the Assyrian data harmonize with the foregoing calculations. According to contract tablets adduced by G. Smith (Assyrian Eponym Canon, London, 1875, pp. 86-87), Sargon’s fourteenth year fell in the eponymate of Samashupahir, and his fifteenth year as king of Assyria is stated to have been his third as king of Babylon; his thirteenth year over Assyria was therefore his first over Babylon, i.e., 709 B.C., and his reign over Assyria began 722-721 B.C.; Sargon's seventeenth and last regnal year was 705 B.C., and the first of his successor, Sennacherib, was 704 B.C. The Eponym Canon and the Ptolemaic Canon give assistance from this point on. From Assyrian records it is clear that the regnal year of Sargon began in the middle of an eponymate. The discrepancy between the Biblical date of 720 B.C. and the apparent Assyrian of 722 B.C. is explained partly by confusion between the beginning of the eponymous year and the regnal year of the king, and partly by a transposition occurring in the Canon lists. Concerning the relation of Shalmaneser to his predecessor, Tiglath-Pileser, nothing can be said, as the Canons fail here. But if the first regnal year of Sennacherib fell in the last part of the eponymate of Nabudinipus and the first part of the latter’s successor’s, Sennacherib can not have made an expedition to the West in Hezekiah’s fourteenth year (Isa. xxxvi. 1), which expedition he states that he made in his own third year, when he shut Hezekiah up "like a bird in a cage" (Schrader, KAT, p. 293). If it be assumed that Sennacherib’s full regnal year is meant, it might fall in 702-701 B.C., and with this would agree the supposition that the surely erroneous dating in Hezekiah’s fourteenth year of Isa. xxxvi. 1 is due to a previous mention of his twenty-fourth year. So that in 702 B.C., according to the Assyrian basis, began the Assyrian subjection of Judah and Hezekiah.

(§ 3). External Events. Then Isaiah’s activity as a prophet would fall between 758 and 690 B.C. at the latest, a period of singular moment. The Assyrians, in their conquest of Syria and Palestine, laid a basis for further conquests in the northwest and southwest, hindered, however, by the danger from the Medes and other peoples in their rear. By the movements which went on about them, the Jews were brought into contact with world politics, and in the Book of Isaiah the fortunes of distant and neighboring peoples receive larger notice than had been customary. The northern kingdom fell from the high estate it achieved under Jeroboam II. after a career in which the most contradictory state policies had been pursued. It had become identified with an attempt to unite Syria, Israel, and Judah against Assyria, in which the refusal of Judah had led to an attempt to set aside the Davidic dynasty in Judah. Uzziah had thought to strengthen his own kingdom by securing his boundaries with fortresses and by heaping up the means and materials of war to furnish material guaranties for the faith of the Jews in the security of the city of Yahweh and of the dynasty. Ahaz preferred to depend upon the clemency of the Assyrian king. Hezekiah rejected this means of quiet, and put his trust in Yahweh without using human means.

(§ 4). Relation of Events to Faith. The lessons of the period for the pious of Israel and of all times are that Yahweh reaches the ends corresponding to his being through the history of his people and of the world. It does not follow that he repudiates his people or his promises to their fathers, nor yet that he makes the foundation of his kingdom dependent upon the hegemony of any earthly state where his worship should be conducted. While he permitted the Davidic kingdom to fall apart and Jerusalem to become the capital of the smaller division, allowed Israel’s land to receive a new population, and the Davidic king to become a vassal of Assyria, while he brought to nought Sennacherib’s plans against Jerusalem, the purpose seemed to be to purify the faith of the people that his might and will should ordain healing or destruction. The Israelites had supposed God’s interests bound up with those of his people in his land and its institutions. But they had to learn through discipline that the people to whom his promises came and to whom they applied was a people which corresponded in its essence to his own sanctity and were not dependent upon mere fleshly hopes. It contravened past experience that he who had promised to be the savior of his people should permit them to be beaten and subdued, while to tyrants whose purpose he hated he had given the victory. The kingdom of Jeroboam, founded on cunning and force, was no better than other kingdoms; nor was the kingdom of Judah, with its externals of sacrifice, that to which he had made his promises. Of course, the conquerors, who thanked themselves and their gods for the victory, were even less fitted to be his servants. The destruction of the foe at the pinnacle of his greatness and the restoration of his people were to reveal the fulfilment of his promises, no more to be endangered by the rule of sin.

(§ 5). Ideals Underlying Prophecies. Yet Yahweh had not given over his land, destroyed his people, laid in ruins the house of David and Jerusalem, burned up the world and destroyed mankind in order to create a new earth. Rather the idea was that symbolized by the plant world, where the dying vegetation promises new life by its seeds and its shoots. So in the dying Israel there was an imperishable remainder, which was to survive destruction and to live again in unassailable dominion, to be menaced neither by sin nor the anger of God. The people which had been destroyed was to be awakened to new life, and the house of David was to rise to renewed kingly power in the son of a young woman. But this was to take form neither in nation, state, nor race. The germ can be considered only as an invisible church known only to Yahweh. And since in Israel the prophet of Yahweh is he who learns the will of Yahweh in the conditions of things and translates the dark sayings of God as uttered in the events of history, so the people gathered by the prophet’s word and unified by it is the indestructible Zion, the enduring remainder of Israel which makes the prophet’s teachings the ground of its inner life. The prophet is the medium of this new life. His conduct in life, his hope in sorrow, are the prefigurement and pledge of that which is destined for the community.

(§ 6). Isaiah’s Life and Character. Such a person does Isaiah appear in the testimony, direct and indirect, which his book carries. Outside of the reports of his life already considered, it may be gathered that he was a citizen of Jerusalem; that he had several children, one of whom, a son, must have been born in Jotham’s reign (vii. 3), and another during the Syrian-Ephraimitic war (viii. 1 sqq.); that he regarded wife, children, and the events of family life as living pictures and true signs of the prophecies he uttered; that he looked back upon the hour of consecration pictured in chap. vi. as pivotal, and as conditioning his inner life (viii. 11 sqq.). Since his care and hopes were so different from those which public life offered, he deemed it his duty to implant in continuing security in the heart of a receptive circle, for use in the future, the divine knowledge which had come to him.

In chap. vii., in the midst of the Syrian-Ephraimitic crisis, Isaiah sought in vain to direct the policy of the Davidic house away from dependence upon Assyria to trust in Yahweh, and in chap. viii. testified that the waters of Shiloah were sufficient to withstand the turbulence of Rezin and Pekah, and they did not need the addition of the flood of Assyrian might, which would overflow the land it was designed to protect. Later Isaiah again sought to stem the course of public events among his people by glowing predictions of positive success. Such a case is presented in the reign of Hezekiah when the foe was drawn away from Jerusalem and the danger to the city was averted by the catastrophe which befell the enemy.

II. The Book of Isaiah.--1. Its Place in the Canon: In the Hebrew Bible Isaiah stands first in the division of the so-called later prophets and precedes Jeremiah and Ezekiel evidently upon the ground of priority in history, but in the Septuagint it is preceded by the book of the Minor Prophets (cf. Jerome, Ad Paulinum, Prologus galeatus). The Hebrew order is confirmed by the treatment in Ecclus. xlviii. 22-xlix. 10. The Talmudic tract Baba bathra (col. xiv., col. 2) makes Jeremiah follow Kings and puts Isaiah between Ezekiel and the Twelve according to the principle which arranges books approximately in order of length. Reasons for this difference in order are variously given: Vitringa thought that the placing of Jeremiah first was due to the tradition that Jeremiah had composed the Books of Kings; Lightfoot alleged apologetic interests which used the order in which Jeremiah stood first to show that Matt. xxvii. 9 was not in error, since the whole of the prophetic canon might then be called after the name of the first book; still others thought it might be due to the fact that after Jeremiah and Ezekiel had taken form, Isaiah had been changed or that it had taken form only in the time of Cyrus. But these methods of reasoning are not conclusive.

2. The Text: (§ 1). Its Condition. The variety of contents and style, the idealistic character of the oracles and the originality of thought have from earliest times made this book difficult to understand. Much read and often edited, it could not maintain its original form, and it became the object of an exegesis which sought to come to an understanding with the traditional text as an inviolable and sacred thing. The condition of the text in chaps. xl.-lxvi. may be seen in Klostermann’s commentary (Munich, 1893) of chaps. xxxvi.-xxxix. in the same author’s commentary on the parallel section in Kings (Munich, 1887) and in TSK, 1884. And revision of the whole text of chaps. i.-xxxv. is required before exegesis can be securely founded, an especially difficult task, for which the test of meter and artistic form, so often suggested, is of very little value. Indeed, changes of form by the prophet or his disciples are not excluded from consideration; for example, in the great picture of the judgment under the figure of an earthquake in xxiv., at verse 7 there is the beginning of an alphabetical elegy in six-lined strophes, the first two strophes of which are present and complete, while of the third only the first half is given. Similarly in xxiii. 16 only the beginning of a known song is cited, and this may explain the break at the end of xxiv. 12.

(§ 2). Causes and Kinds of Errors. Not to be disregarded are the paraphrases of Jonathan, the fragments of Aquilas, Theodotion, and Symmachus as they have come down with the marginal notes of the Hexapla and from the notes of Jerome. These will at times serve to indicate the introduction of errors in later times. Thus, Jonathan indicates in viii. 14 the loss of "for you" after "he shall be," a conclusion supported not only by the Vulgate, but by the second person in the Septuagint. Doubled readings or translations in these texts are often a guide to the original text, since they point to a misreading or a misunderstanding of a reading to which such misunderstanding is a direct guide, as in xxxiii. 7, where "their valiant ones" was read by the translators in a double sense as the object of fear and as the subject, which led to further changes in the text of the verse. The Septuagint shows a similar doubled reading in ii. 16b through a mistake of the eye involving further changes in the text. Sometimes a doubled reading is merely a mistake in copying produced by itacism, as in viii. 23 codex 304. But a critical text of the Septuagint will show that sometimes the translator in deciphering his Hebrew exemplar has in a surprising manner gone wrong through too great confidence in apprehension of the context. Such a case is presented in viii. 7-8. Examinations of the Septuagint make it perfectly clear that its present text is the result of a long period of correction of a text which sought to give the sense of the prophetical deliverances without having a sure insight into the meaning and the form of the original. But the early text together with the corrections themselves and the differences between them often put the student upon the track of a better Hebrew text than the one which has been transmitted. There is in mind here not only the **** of xxix. 3 in the Septuagint, which alone explains why Yahweh, who is beleaguering Ariel in verse 1, has made mention of the siege of Ariel by David in early times, but also the *** ******** sou of xxvi. 17. In this latter case the ****, which apparently lay before the translator, goes back to an original **** which belonged to verse 18 and marks **** as superfluous, suggested indeed by the doubled *** of Jonathan.

Such cases as this, which are frequent, are sufficient to enable the student to correct the errors and sometimes the gaps which occur in the synagogue text of the Hebrew. Again, the original of x. 11 was doubtless originally "shall I not also do so to Samaria and her idols and to Jerusalem and her images." The present text sets the lot of Samaria as a type and prophecy of the lot of Jerusalem, and pictures the fall of Samaria as a past event, which is the result of a redaction which changed the text of the prophet to square with a later historical situation. Mistakes of pointing are also to be noted, as when **** in i. 7 is thus pointed as a noun instead of **** as a verb, or in x. 13 the waw in **** and ***** is given the simple shewa instead of kamets. Still worse is the pointing *** for *** in ix. 8, for which the Septuagint has thanatos "death," which corresponds closely to the "pestilence" for which the proposed reading stands. Accentuation and vocalization are both astray in ix. 1, "in the former time," where for **** should be read **** and the words should be joined with the clause which goes before.

Part of the errors of text are due to the difficulties which underlay the consonantal form. This especially occurs in transferring an initial ** to the end of the preceding word, but appears also in the loss of the letter in the middle or end of a word, as when ***** for *** **** was given the form *****. A similar case occurs in viii. 6, where the double reading *** ***** came to be written *******, and then was changed into ** ****.

Other changes are caused by the inclusion in the text of notes originally made in the margin, for a case of which cf. vii. 8-9 with verse 4. With such enlargements of the text correspond also gaps, which are the result of carelessness or chance, or which rest upon intended shortening of the reading or upon customary abbreviations. A case of the last is found in viii. 21, where "curse by their king and their God" should read "curse the house of their king and their God," where the letter beth, represented in the English by "by," is an abbreviation or a mistake for beth, "house." Between "for" and "head" in viii. 8 has fallen out the word ***, "I will take away." If, as in the last case cited, a word may fall out, so frequently from a word a letter may be missing, of which numerous examples might be cited. To these causes of change may be added exchanges of letters which either look or sound alike. Thus, in xi. 4, *** demanded by the parallelism appears as ***, and in i. 7, xxv. 2, and xxix. 5, instead of *** there appears ***.

Intentional amendment appears in the change from the third person to the first in v. 3-6, influenced by verse 2. Indeed, the riddles of interpretation in whole sections of Isaiah, such as the six deliverances of chaps. xxviii.-xxxv., the section xxiv.-xxvii., and their relation to other parts of the book require as a preliminary to their solution the amendment of the text, which is a preliminary to the work of the higher criticism and the determination of the time to which these sections belong.

3. Authorship: (§ 1). Prophetic Authorship in General. It is evident that a prophet who intervened in public affairs in crises so important, whose experiences were so large, who, even in the quiet of private life, was unwearyingly diligent in instructing a band of disciples with a broad future in view, employed writing not only for the purpose of extending his personal activity beyond his immediate environment, as, for example, to the Israelites in exile, to the end that they might have his words of comfort in their original form, but that he had an outlook upon the more distant future. This must have been especially the case when the subject matter was issued at the joining-point of the past and the future when old things were becoming new, when the utterances were needed as a means of recognizing God’s work at the time and for the time. It must have been in such a spirit that the prophets wrote their books and unified their earlier utterances in written discourse. They were enabled in this way to supplement by adding historical notices and even to refer to the words of earlier prophets. Since, in the book ascribed to Isaiah, there exist in the first person recollections of the fifty-second year of Uzziah, and in close connection with these and in similar style discourses which relate to affairs at least sixteen years later in the time of Ahaz, and inasmuch as these latter approve themselves as Isaianic by their congruity with the activities and character of Isaiah as shown in chaps. xxxvi.-xxxvii., and further, since in this book there appear whole series of addresses parallel in matter with the occasions of the time, and setting forth the same main idea, it is a fair presumption that Isaiah undertook a collection of his prophecies. The question is whether the present book contains only his sayings, or contains them in full, or in their original order. Until this is settled, it is of little use to quote what Sirach, Ambrosius, Jerome, Cyril, and others down to the present have said as to the worth of Isaiah from a Christian, ethical, or esthetic standpoint.

(§ 2). Interrelations of i.-xxxv. and xl.-lxvi. To judge of all this a thoroughly new working-over is required, a historical investigation, and for this there is no better and no other starting-point than the section in chaps. xxxvi.-xxxix., a trustworthy narrative which has found place also in the Books of Kings (xviii. 13 sqq.). This narrative is interjected by the compiler of the book between two well-arranged collections of anonymous addresses, the first of which have relation to the Assyrian period and correspond to the contents of chaps. xxxvi.-xxxvii., while the second series has relation to the Babylonian side and corresponds to chap. xxxix. The second of the two series of addresses begins with a command to give comfort as the first closed with encouragement (xxxv. 3 sqq.); the second comes to a close in an opposition of Edom and Zion (lx. 1-lxiii. 6) just as does the first (xxxiii. 13-xxxv. 10). Since in both the general view of the Holy Land and Jerusalem is that of a desolate and depopulated region, to be repeopled by the return of the exiled, doubtless the editor meant to convey the idea that, of both parts, the Isaiah of xxxvi.-xxxix. is the prophetic author. It is therefore unscientific arbitrariness, instead of setting apart chaps. xxviii.-lxvi. and employing chaps. xxviii.-xxxix. as the key to xl.-lxvi., to break off after xxxv.-xxxix. and to imagine oneself in a new region. He who reads xxxv. 3-4 does not stumble at xl. 1; and only he who reads xxviii.-xxxix. can understand xlviii. 3-11, and can regard the same prophet as basing a second prediction upon the fulfilment of the first. He can apply xlii. 19 to the downfall of the northern kingdom, and xliii. 8-10 to the deliverance from Sennacherib, and lvi. 9-lvii. 21 to the end of the Isaianic times. Whoever dares to read the six addresses of a nameless prophet in xxviii.-xxxv. beginning with "Woe" and to regard them as Isaianic as a whole and to follow this out in such alleged exilic pieces as xxxiv.-xxxv. has no philosophical reason for the timidity with which he refuses to recognize xl.-lxvi. as also Isaianic. A hindrance to this has been the obviousness with which Cyrus is mentioned even by name, and the assurance with which the downfall of Babylon and the freeing of the Israelites is announced, predictions which the modern construction of all elements of the prophetic consciousness on the basis of our knowledge of his times seem to make impossible. But the Servant of Yahweh who is named Righteous is as concretely and definitely indicated as Cyrus and his relations to Babylon and Israel; and the hegemony of the restored Jerusalem and the repopulating of the Holy Land is more definitely portrayed than the downfall of Babylon. And, although the one fits better with Jesus of Nazareth, and the other with the Jerusalem of Herod’s time, at least in externals, than with any other prophet or with the Jerusalem of any other time, yet the refusal is made so to relate the connections. If the enthusiastic utterances of a prophet work out into realization 500 years later, why could they not with reference to Cyrus? In fact, the book does not predict a coming victor to bear the name of Cyrus, but says of one who has come that he is the realization of predictions made long before for Jerusalem; the victory and success of Cyrus had been so directly indicated that it was evident that he could use his victory only as Yahweh willed, and the honor was to come not to him, but to Yahweh and his people. Thus Yahweh had laid violent hands upon the prophet when he seized upon the Isaianic period in which to bring before the prophet’s vision this picture of the future. Isaiah realized that the present conqueror had been predicted long before as called from the East to carry out Yahweh’s purposes of punishment, but that he had been driven back when in wilfulness he had attempted to go farther than Yahweh’s purposes had carried. Why, then, should he not foresee a second conqueror, coming from the East and more completely realizing God’s designs, who, by the very misfortunes which he brought, should create the desire in the heathen world for Yahweh, the only healing God, who is to be found in the midst of his people (xlv. 14-25)? And why should he not foresee the prophet who should so complete the work of renovation as to bring about the regeneration of the community? And to what prophet could such a vision so appropriately have come as to Isaiah, a man who, in the midst of the most untoward circumstances, could see around him the promise of a brilliant and righteous future?

(§ 3). Authorship Substantially Isaianic. If this be true, a new exposition of chaps. xl.-lxvi. is required (the view-point of which was indicated in the Lutherische Zeitschrift, 1876) and a new investigation of the framework. But it will not do to resolve the section into a threefold arrangement, each part having nine chapters. As the first part is introduced by xl. 1-11, the second part is prefaced by xlviii. 16-22. The more naturally the investigation proceeds, the surer does it become that xl.-lxvi. does not as such proceed from Isaiah, but that it arranges and works over older prophecies. The tendency of modern criticism is to distinguish the "Servant of Yahweh section" and a "Trito-Isaiah," and, indeed, as many Isaiahs as differences in style suggest; yet by retaining for them the name Isaiah this criticism follows a correct instinct. The editor urges chaps. xxxvi.-xxxix. upon the reader as the key to the meaning of both xl.-lxvi. and xxviii.-xxxv., and as the vindication of these parts as Isaianic in substance.

(§ 4). Isaianic Authorship of xxvii.-xxxv. It appears from the book of Isaiah that at least from the thirteenth year of Hezekiah till after the campaign of Sennacherib the prophet wielded a weighty and acknowledged authority with king, court, and priests, that he made predictions which were observably realized, that he assured the continuance of Jerusalem and Judah beyond the period of Assyrian stress and storm, while Assyria was to become a possession of Babylon; but besides this, it is clear that Hezekiah’s resolution to withstand the Assyrian demands rested upon Isaiah’s warnings and promises, and that the prophet was the responsible guarantor of a seemingly impossible fortunate issue. Indeed, xxxvii. 26 indicates a prediction by Isaiah of the Assyrian victories before Sennacherib’s appearance. Upon the verification of this word of Yahweh as the Lord of the world was built the assurance that in the very moment when Assyrian victories were made the basis of belief that Yahweh was overcome the impotence of the Assyrian against him would be made manifest, and this dispensation would reveal decisively Yahweh’s relation to Jerusalem and to the Davidic house. In view of this, the six woes which appear indissolubly woven together in chaps. xxviii.-xxxv. impress one as rendering exactly the historical position of the Isaiah of chaps. xxxvi.-xxxix. and as belonging to the texture of thought which is there demonstrably that of Isaiah. It may be asked whether these were put together by the prophet or by one of his disciples out of his deliverances. A doubt has been raised by the passage xxx. 6-7, a piece which is related to the "burdens" of chaps. xxi.-xxii.; but the interconnection of xxx. 5 with verse 8 indicates a continuity of thought. Moreover, chaps. xxxiii.-xxxv. are inseparably bound together, as was long ago recognized by Ewald; the direction in xxxiv. 1 sqq. to all peoples to listen to the story of the coming judgment is parallel to that in xxxiii. 13 warning the nations to take to heart the judgment upon the Assyrian host. If they do this, they may be exempt from the general judgment to be executed upon the peoples hostile to Yahweh, which is to find its chief exemplification in the punishment of Idumea (xxxiv. 6). Yet when Ewald remarked that xxxv. must be regarded as Isaianic, while of xxxiv. so much can not be certainly affirmed, he was within the bounds of probability, since it is likely that the prophet here used earlier predictions. The passage xxxiv.-xxxv. would never have been taken for exilic had not first the waste in xxxv. been arbitrarily and unnaturally regarded as the desert between Babylon and Judea, and if, in the second place, the "book of Yahweh" of xxxiv. 16 had not been foolishly regarded as the book of our prophet. This book is indeed the book of the kingdom, in which the future world-king Yahweh has entered the names of his peoples with their provinces (Ps. lxxxvii.), a book that was known to Isaiah (iv. 3); while the play of this pictorial representation of the depopulation of a land exactly corresponds to that in xxxiii. 23, in xxx. 32-33, 23-24, and to the taunting, enigmatical character which all these discourses show. If now chaps. xxxiii.-xxxv. belong together as a sixth discourse, Isaiah is the originator, and the present arrangement corresponds to his intention. Then the foreign elements, whether by another author or by himself from another occasion, can not be separated from the whole. It is a distortion to regard xxviii. 1-6 as an oracle concerning Samaria; rather is xxviii. the first of six oracles about Judah and Jerusalem, dating from the time before the fall of the northern kingdom as a state, and belonging with iv. 2 sqq., as the resemblance between that passage and xxviii. 5-6 shows. It is true that here, as in ii.-iv., the prophet has employed other oracles, either his own or those of another prophet; moreover, to remove xxviii. 1-6 would leave what followed without a beginning and destroy the cycle of oracles. Accordingly the prophet and the editor of these six deliverances are essentially the same, while the relation is different from that in xl.-lxvi. But the editor put these passages before xxxvi.-xxxix. as he put xl.-lxvi. after them because of their formally and essentially similar situation. Isaiah could not publish this book without indicating his part in it; and it is possible that Isa. i. was the introduction to the book xxviii.-xxxv. when Isaiah or his disciple published it as a monument of his activity in the brilliant prophetic period of Hezekiah for the following generation, and that the editor inserted between i. and xxviii. the parts which have their own titles (ii. 1 and xiii. 1).

(§ 5). Chapters ii.-xii. There is now in our possession an assured basis from which to consider and decide how far the two sections ii.-xii. and xiii.-xxvii., which bear Isaiah’s name, do so with justice. There is not only a large number of parallels with chaps. xxviii.-xxxix., but there is a remarkable agreement in situation, in spite of the intermingling of varied fragments and complete sections. There come out particularly the ingratitude and obstinacy of Judah and Jerusalem and the consequently necessary purging by punishment (ii.-iv.). It seems credible that Isaiah himself arranged ii.-iv.; and as he surely wrote vi. and xii. as components of a connected whole, all the individual parts of v.-xii. are traceable to him, though that interpolations have taken place need not be denied. It is possible that these last were, according to the custom of the times, attributed to Isaiah, and that the editor had the book in manuscript form before him in which the individual pieces had been inserted unintelligently among others which were then laid aside or put in other connections, and that transpositions were made which brought these parts into positions earlier or later in the book than they originally occupied.

(§ 6). Chapters xiii.-xxvii. In the second part, which separates into the four "burdens" of xiii.-xviii. and the six of xix.-xxiii., there are certain guiding threads which come both from i.-xii. and from xxviii.-xxxv. The "burden" of the beasts of the South in xxx. 6 sqq. finds its counterparts in the "burdens" of xix.-xxiii.; and xxxiv. 1 sqq. agrees with xviii. 3. On the other hand, the note of the leveling of the heights found in chap ii. is repeated in xix. and xxiii., while the doing away of the lordship of Jacob and of the remains of Damascus in xviii. 12 sqq. is anticipated in viii. 7-10. Indeed, chap. xviii. comes into connection with both xi. 11 and lxvi. 20-21 in its thought of the return of the Hebrews from distant lands. The "burdens" are marked out from all other prophetic oracles by the fact that they bear the impress of having been delivered in the ecstatic state, and besides this they deal with the immense or the distant in time. They take on a different coloring entirely from those prophecies which come out of the prophet’s own life or relate to the history of the times. Thus it comes about that they are separated from the other deliverances of the prophet and appear as cycles of deliverances distinguished by their tone. So their titles arise from a catchword, or a subject, or a locality, or an emblem, some of which can be shown to rest upon mistakes of the text (xxi. 1). Under these circumstances it is necessary to ask whether they are arranged after the literary ideas of the prophet Isaiah. It is remarkable that the oracle on Philistia (xiv. 29 sqq.), the people on the western border, passes on in xv.- xvi. to Moab and Edom, on the east and southeast, and in xvii. 1 to Damascus and the Holy Land in order to portray the extreme need in Israel and the overpowering revolution in the salvation of Jerusalem (xviii. 7). This corresponds to the way in which Amos reached the expression of the judgment upon Israel (Amos i.-ii). In xv.-xvi. Isaiah has so remodeled an old prophecy that it now has a relation to the foregoing "burden"; x. 5-12 is specifically Isaianic, so that the arrangement of at least three of these "burdens" is his. But there is a clear connection of these with the oracle in xvii. 12-xviii. 7, which shows a deliverance in Zion and the substitution of the government of a Davidic rule in place of that of the condemned tyrant of the peoples. This tyrant, the king of the satirical song in xiv. 4 sqq., is an ideal representation of the tyranny which is opposed to God, which subdues the world and oppresses God’s people, but is cast into the depth of Hades. By his overthrow Yahweh frees the world of its incubus, and Zion becomes the refuge of the peoples under the Davidic dynasty. Similarly, the downfall of Babylon is pictured in xiii., and it is possible that in chap xix. the tyrant who oppresses the Egyptians is this same ideal tyrant by whose overthrow Egypt is to become a province of Canaan. The explanation of the position of xxi.-xxii. between the entirely parallel "burdens" of xix.-xx. and xxiii. is more difficult. In xxi. clearly the fate of heathen cities is determined by the decrees of Yahweh, for the execution of which the watchers are waiting. Chap. xxii. shows a contrast in the view of the valley of vision, where the watcher bewails the coming misfortune, while in the second part the expectations of Shebna for a quiet death and honorable burial in a chosen place are predicted to be baseless. The two chapters seem to show the necessity of the purgation of sin through death, out of which resurrection is to come. But this is related to the portrayal in xxiv. The succeeding chapters seem to portray like processes through which alike Israel and the nations are to pass, the particular judgments upon the nations which have been passed in review being generalized until there comes into view the salvation of the once rejected people, awakened into new life (xxvi. 1-19, cf. ix. 2). So that in the second half the ruling idea is the universal kingdom of Yahweh as it arises out of the judgment of the nations and the humiliation of human might and centers of power, the earthly representation of which is the throne and city of David raised to a glorious eminence.

(§ 7). Results of the Investigation. The transmission and arrangement of this book demand of the reader that he view as the source of its peculiar prophetic content and as its predictive subject the historically known Isaiah, who orally and by writing sought to mold public opinion and reared up by esoteric instruction the followers and disciples (viii. 16 sqq., lix. 21) who were heirs of his prophecy to continue his testimony. These heirs of Isaianic prophecy received his testimony and made it fruitful partly by publishing in book form his oral and written testimony for "Judah and Jerusalem" (i. 1), and partly by reproducing in the circles of the faithful the esoteric instruction given them (xlviii. 16) and making it the basis and guide of their addresses. In order to preserve essentially and in completeness the testimony of Isaiah, these developments of Isaianic contents required later fixation in writing and union with the then existing book of Isaiah. Since the author of the addition in lxiii. 7-lxvi. 24, whose theodicy reproduces Isaianic declarations, looked back upon the destruction of the temple, and since the preacher of xli. 1 sqq. had seen the victorious march of Cyrus, the origin of the present book is later than 550 B.C. This method of treating the Isaianic deliverances, apart from other results, was worked out in abbreviations (as in ii.-iv.), enrichment (as in the lyrics of the Deutero-Isaiah), and reinterpretation (e.g., xiv. 5 sqq.). In view of these results fuller justice is done the book if its relation to the historical Isaiah is the guide to its exegesis than if the tradition regarding its authorship is disregarded and its authors are scattered along through the centuries.

(AUGUST KLOSTERMANN.)

III. The Critical View: (§ 1). The Problem. The Book of Isaiah in its present form is very generally regarded as possessing a certain unity of plan and purpose. The traditional view has from time immemorial discovered, in this unity, the pen of a single author, Isaiah, the contemporary of Hezekiah, while recent critical scholarship maintains that this writing was arranged and edited by some unknown scribe or scribes, acting as diaskeuasts in the first quarter of the first century B.C. In a little over a quarter of a century, after Döderlein (1775) in his commentary on Isaiah first threw serious doubt on the genuineness of Isa. xl.-lxvi., a fragmentary hypothesis of the origin of this prophetic work gradually gained in popularity. The latter view was first enunciated by Koppe in his notes to Bishop Lowth’s work on Isaiah (1779-81). Koppe's theory, that the canonical Book of Isaiah was made up of eighty-five fragments, never won general acceptance as it was strenuously opposed by the Hebraist Gesenius and the commentator Hitzig. But a new form of the fragmentary hypothesis (see below, §§ 3 sqq.), differing materially from that of Koppe, has won many adherents among Biblical scholars since it was brilliantly advocated by Duhm (1892), Cheyne (1895), and Marti (1900).

(§ 2). Structure of the Book. To understand fully the history of critical opinion, and especially its latest phases, one must note the structure of the book. All commentators, modern as well as ancient, have observed the threefold division into which the Book of Isaiah naturally falls: (1) i.-xxxv., (2) xxxvi.-xxxix., (3) xl.-lxvi. The second of these groups, giving an account of Isaiah’s activity in the crisis produced by Sennacherib’s invasion, 701 B.C. was excerpted from the Book of Kings. Chapters xxxvi.-xxxix. form the dividing line between the two main sections of the work. The passages on one side differ from those on the other in historical background, point of view, theological conceptions, diction and phraseology. The earlier chapters reflect the historical changes and movements of 740-701 B.C.; the monarchs mentioned--Hezekiah, Sargon (xx. 1), Sennacherib (xxxvi., xxxvii. 17, 21, 37), and Merodach-Baladan (xxxix. 1)--are those of the eighth century. In the third section (xl.-lxvi.) Cyrus is in the flood tide of his victorious career (xliv. 28, xlv.; cf. xli. 2-3, 25, etc.); the Assyrian has disappeared from the stage of history, and in his stead Israel’s oppressors are the Babylonians (xliii. 14, 25, xlvii. 1 sqq., xlviii. 14, 20). In the third section Jerusalem is described as lying in ruins and desolate (xliv. 26b, lviii. 12, lxi. 4, lxiii. 18, lxiv. 10-11), while in the first part she is still standing, the object of her enemies’ attacks and the special ward of Jehovah (i.-xxix. 1-8, 36-39). In addition to these distinguishing features, the two parts differ greatly in spirit; the latter is a book of consolation, the very first word being "comfort" (xl. 1), while the former is made up of threatening and judgment, the tone of arraignment struck in chap. i. appearing in one form or other clear through to chap. xxxv. While in this connection stress is not laid upon the fact that the phraseology is in striking contrast, as this frequently leads to a mechanical argument, the difference in diction may not be passed over lightly, as the careful reader notices the change even in the English version, while one accustomed to using Hebrew almost instinctively notes the passing from a piece of literature in a style "condensed, lapidary and plastic," to one that is clear and flowing. In chaps. i.-xxxix. the emphasis is laid upon the majesty of Yahweh (ii. 10 sqq., 17, 19 sqq., x. 5 sqq., etc.), in xl.-lxvi. on his infinitude (xl. 12-26-xli. 4, etc.), in the third section the personal Messiah is depicted as the righteous and suffering servant (xlii. 1-4, xlix. 1-6, 1. 4-9, lii. 13-liii. 12) instead of the ideal king of the future (vii. 14, ix. 1-6, xi. 1-5).

(§ 3). Results of Criticism. Such differences as these were deemed valid grounds for dating Isa. xl.-lxvi. in the sixth century by almost every great commentator of the last century (Gesenius, Ewald, Knobel, Dillmann, Delitzsch in his last edition, Cheyne, Orelli, Duhm, G. A. Smith). Dillmann characterized this view as "one of the surest results of modern literary investigation." Since Delitzsch in the fourth edition of his commentary (1889) went over to this position, it may truthfully be said that no scientific exegetical work has held to the traditional view of the unity of the Book of Isaiah. In America the assignment of Isa. xl.-lxvi. to the sixth century was strenuously opposed in magazine articles by Prof. W. H. Green of Princeton (Presbyterian and Reformed Review, vol. iii.), but this school of theology has produced no work of exposition on the prophecies of Isaiah since the appearance of that commentary of first rank by J. A. Alexander (1846, rev. ed. 1865). The argument from "the analogy of prophecy" worked this complete revolution in critical opinion. That a prophet primarily addresses his contemporaries; that, however far he may project himself into the future, his point of departure is his own age; that he paints the distant scene of the remotest future in the colors of his own day; that he plants his feet firmly upon the events of his own time, before he attempts to scan the distant horizon--these are principles recognized as axiomatic by all interpreters of prophecy. If they are correctly assumed, Isa. xl.-lxvi. can not be assigned to Isaiah, the son of Amoz. In fact, the exilic background of these chapters has been recognized by some of the most zealous defenders of the Isaianic authorship, but it has been attributed to "the prophet’s ideal point of view" (Keil; cf. Hengstenberg).

(§ 4). Analysis of Isaiah i.-xxxix. Having attained this result, criticism did not halt, for the argument from the analogy of prophecy will not leave the first part of the work intact (chaps. i.-xxxv.). As early as Eichhorn (1783) it was applied to this section, and resulted in the denial of the genuineness of a number of passages. (1) The oracle on the fall of Babylon (xiii. 1- xiv. 23) was assigned to the Babylonian exile, because the Medes are mentioned as the instruments of the destruction (xiii. 17), and Babylon is described as the supreme world power of that age (xiii. 11, 19, xiv. 4-5, 12 sqq., 16-17). (2) In the critical disposition of passages, xxi. 1-10 is naturally associated with xiii. 1-xiv. 23, for in it the prophet describes the fall of Babylon, and refers to Elam and Media (verse 2) in terms which would be more natural to a prophet of the sixth century than to Isaiah of the eighth. (3) With these two sections just noted go chaps. xxxiv. and xxxv. The latter is a beautiful lyric which is a mosaic of phrases and imagery borrowed from Deutero-Isaiah (the title provisionally assigned to the author of part three); the former is assigned to the exile, because of the bitter hatred and dire vengeance against Edom which it breathes (xxxiv. 5 sqq., 8 sqq.; cf. Ps. cxxxvii. 7). (4) While, in regard to the section Isa. xxiv.-xxvii. there is a general agreement that it is not the work of Isaiah, no consensus of opinion has been reached as to the age to which it should he assigned. Conservative critics are inclined to be satisfied with placing it in the days of the Persian empire. Dates, varying from the reign of Darius Hystaspis (520-485) to that of Artaxerxes Ochus (359-339), have been given. Here the argument from Biblical theology overshadows that based upon the analogy of prophecy. No explicit historical references occur; the imagery is apocalyptic in character, which in itself points to the age of the decay of prophecy. The writer’s ideas of the future life--immortality, xxv. 8, and the resurrection, xxvi. 19--are distinct advances on those of Isaiah’s age, but the traces of Persian angelology commonly alleged are not so evident. Critical opinion is divided about the age of chap. xxiii. The only reason for denying the Isaianic character of this passage is the occurrence of the phrase "Behold the land of the Chaldeans" (verse 13). The text is extremely uncertain and has led to emendations; instead of Chaldeans, Ewald suggested Canaanites, and Duhm offers Chittim. It may justly be regarded as an Isaianic passage to be assigned either to 723 or to 701 B.C. Such was the view of critical scholarship before the rise of the modern fragmentary hypothesis which has been advocated by Duhm and Marti in their commentaries (1892, 1900), and by Cheyne in his Introduction to the Book of Isaiah (1895). These three exegetes leave only a very small part of chaps. i.-xxxix. to Isaiah, and Cheyne has tersely enunciated the principles and results of this school, "It is too bold to maintain that we still have any collection of Isaianic prophecies which in its present form goes back to the period of the prophet" (EB, ii. 2194). Cheyne in his Introduction to the Book of Isaiah assigns only the following passages of i.-xxxix. to Isaiah: i. 5-31, ii. 6-21, iii. 1, 4-5, 8-9 (2-3, 6-7 may be Isaianic), 12-15, 16-17, 24, v. 1-14, 17-22, 23-25b, 26-29, vi. 1-13, vii. 2-8a, 9-14, 16, 18-20, viii. 1-4, 5-6, 7a, 8-18, ix. 7-12, 15-x. 4, x. 5-9, 13,-14, 28-32, xiv. 24-27 (omit 25b), 29-32, xvi. 14, xvii. 1-6, 9-14, xviii. 1-6, xx. 1, 3-6, xxi. 16 sqq., xxii. 1-5, 6-9a, llb-14, 15a, 16-18, xxiii. 1-2, 3(?), 4, 6-12, 14, xxviii. 1- 4, 7-19, 21-22, xxix. 1-4a, 6, 9-10, 13-14, xxix. 15, xxx. 1-7a, 8-17b, xxxi. 1-5a.

(§ 5). Analysis of Isaiah xl.-lxvi. Before the advent of this fragmentary school, Isa. xl.-lxvi. was looked upon as a literary unity, and was attributed to a single prophet, commonly termed the "Great Unknown of the Exile" or Deutero-Isaiah. This prophecy was regarded as falling into three sections marked by the refrain xlviii. 22, lvii. 21 (Rückert, Hitzig, and Delitzsch). Ewald first propounded a theory, the forerunner of the one now to be considered. He maintained that Isa. xl.-lxvi. was a collection of "pamphlets or fly-leaves which the surging stream of time drew forth, one after another, from the prophet." The writer arranged these pamphlets in two books, xl.-xlviii., xlix.-lx., to which were added an epilogue, lxi. 1-lxiii. 6, and an appendix, lxiii. 7-lxvi. 24. According to Ewald, Deutero-Isaiah borrowed xl. 1, 2, lii. 13-liii. 12, lvi. 9-lvii, 11 from a prophet of Manasseh’s reign, and lvii. 1-lix. 20 from a contemporary of Ezekiel. Dillmann and his school have always stood for the substantial unity of this section of the Book of Isaiah (cf. Dillmann’s Kommentar, ed. Kittel, Leipsic, 1898). The earlier efforts to deny the unity of Deutero-Isaiah bore fruit in the commentary of Duhm already mentioned. In this epoch-making book, Duhm maintained that Isa. xl.-lxvi. is the work of three different writers. (1) Deutero-Isaiah is reduced to xl.-lv,, and then one-fourth of its contents is subtracted as later additions. Deutero-Isaiah is supposed to have written his work about 540 B.C. in Lebanon or Phenicia. Duhm regards the following verses as later additions: xl. 5, 31b, xli. 5, xlii. 12, 15-24, xliii. 20b, 21, xliv. 9-20, 28b, xlv. 10, 13b, xlvi. 6-8, xlvii. 3a, 14b, xlviii. 1 in part, 2, 4, 5b, 7b, 8b-10, 16b-19, 22, 1. 10, 11, li. 11, 16, 18, lii. 3-6, liv. 15, 17b, lv. 3a, 7. (2) From chaps. xl.-lv. several passages, the so-called "Servant of Yahweh Songs" (xlii. 1-4, xlix. 1-6, 1. 4-9, lii. 13-liii. 12), were exscinded and assigned to a later date. Duhm takes pains to show that these lyrics are dependent on Jeremiah, Job, and Deutero-Isaiah, although the last-named does not show any acquaintance with them. The Servant of Yahweh Songs were read by Trito-Isaiah, and influenced Malachi; the literary connections thus traced point to a member of the Jewish Church of the first half of the fifth century B.C. as their author. Marti differs from Duhm in regarding these songs as an integral part of Deutero-Isaiah. (3) The closing section, chaps. lvi.-lxvi., is attributed to a third writer, who is designated Trito-Isaiah. He writes in the same measure as Deutero-Isaiah, imitates his style, and agrees with him in proclaiming the future glory of Jerusalem. From the internal evidence, it is argued that he was a resident of Jerusalem, and wrote shortly before the mission of Nehemiah. It is to be noted that Cheyne analyzes this section, and regards it as a compilation from several sources.

(§ 6). Conclusion. Sanity and common sense suggest that the literary criticism of the fragmentists has overreached itself. The arguments from the analogy of prophecy and Biblical theology as applied by Cheyne, Duhm, and Marti necessarily imply a minute knowledge of history such as we do not possess. While this is true, historical criticism has reached some assured results. It has been proved that chaps. xxxvi.-xxxix. were excerpted from the Book of Kings, and certain passages of chaps. i.-xxxix. can not have been written by Isaiah (see above). The literary history of chaps. xl.-lxvi. is not as simple as it once was supposed to be. Of these chapters, xl.-lv. may confidently be assigned to Deutero-Isaiah, xl.-xlviii. being written in the exile (c. 546), and xlix.-lv. in Palestine shortly after the return. The manner and date of origin of lvii.-lxvi. can not be determined with certainty; probably they were written in the age of Ezra and Nehemiah, and were the product of a school of writers rather than of a single pen.

JAMES A. KELSO.