and that he received all the conquered kingdoms | ing chapter of Jeremiah to be spurious. This is of the earth as a gift from Jehovah. This cannot refer to any other predictions of the prophet, but only to what are called the spurious portions of Isaiah, in which the Lord grants to Cyrus all his future conquests, and appoints him to be the restorer of his temple (comp. xli. 2-4; xliv. 2428; xlv. 1-13; xlvi. Ì1; xlviii. 13-15). The edict adopts almost the words of these passages (comp. the synopsis in the above-mentioned work of Kleinert, p. 142). In reply to this, our adversaries assert that Cyrus was deceived by pseudoprophecies forged in the name of Isaiah; but if Cyrus could be deceived in so clumsy a manner, he was not the man that history represents him; and to have committed forgery is so contrary to what was to be expected from the author of chaps. xl.-lxvi., that even the feelings of our opponents revolt at the supposition that the pseudo-Isaiah should have forged vaticinia post eventum in the name of the prophets. Had these prophecies been written, as it is alleged, only in sight of the conquest of Babylon, Cyrus would have been deceived before the eyes of the author, and this could not have been effected without collusion on the part of the author. This collusion would be undeniable, since the author again and again repeats that he was proclaiming unheard-of facts, which were beyond all human calculation. 5. In the books of the prophets who lived after Isaiah, and before the period of the so-called pseudo-Isaiah, we find imitations of those prophecies which have been ascribed to the latter. Since Gesenius has demonstrated that all the portions which have been considered spurious are to be ascribed to only one author, it can be shown that they were all in existence before the time assigned to the pseudo-Isaiah, although we can produce the imitations of only some of these portions. But even those opponents who ascribe these portions to different authors must grant that their objections are invalidated, if it can be shown that later prophets have referred to these portions, because the arguments employed against them closely resemble each other: consequently these prophecies stand and fall together. The verbal coincidence between Jeremiah and the so-called pseudo-Isaiah is in this respect most important. Jeremiah frequently makes use of the earlier prophets, and he refers equally, and in the same manner, to the portions of Isaiah whose genuineness has been questioned, as to those which are deemed authentic (comp. Küper, Jeremias librorum sacrorum interpres atque vindex, pp. 132155). The most striking is the coincidence of Jeremiah 1. 51, with the predictions against Babylon in Isaiah. Jeremiah here gives to God the appellation, the Holy One of Israel, which frequently occurs in Isaiah, especially in the portions whose authenticity is questioned, but is found only three times in the other books of the Old Testament. Isaiah uses the appellation a certainly a desperate stroke, because the chapter is otherwise written in the very characteristic style of that prophet. This desperation, however, gives us the advantage afforded by an involuntary testimony in favour of those portions of Isaiah which have been attacked. The words of Isaiah, in ch. li. 15, I am the Lord thy God who moves the sea that its waves roar,' are repeated in Jer. xxxi. 35. The image of the cup of fury in Isa. li. 17, is in Jer. xxv. 15-29, transformed into a symbolic act, according to his custom of embodying the imagery of earlier prophets, and especially that of Isaiah. In order to prove that other prophets also made a similar use of Isaiah, we refer to Zephaniah ii. 15, where we find Isaiah's address to Babylon applied to Nineveh, 'Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart I am, and none else beside me,' &c. Zephaniah, living towards the termination of prophetism, has, like Jeremiah, a dependent character, and has here even repeated the characteristic and difficult word 'DEN. Küper (p. 138) has clearly demonstrated that the passage cannot be original in Zephaniah. The words of Isaiah (lii. 7), 'How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace,' are repeated by Nahum in ch. i. 15 (ii. 1); and what he adds, the wicked shall no more pass through thee,' agrees remarkably with Isa. lii. 1, 'for henceforth shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.' Nahum iii. 7 contains an allusion to Isa. li. 19. Beside these references to the portions of Isaiah which are said to be spurious, we find others to the portions which are deemed genuine (compare, for instance, Nahum i. 13, with Isa. x. 27). 6. Again, the most ancient production of Jewish literature after the completion of the canon, furnishes proof of the integral authenticity of Isaiah. The book of Jesus Sirach, commonly called Ecclesiasticus, was written as early as the third century before Christ, as Hug has clearly demonstrated, in opposition to those who place it in the second century before Christ. In Ecclesiasticus xlviii. 22-25, Isaiah is thus praised: For Hezekiah had done the thing that pleased the Lord, and was strong in the ways of David his father, as Isaiah the prophet, who was great and faithful in his vision, had commanded him. In his time the sun went backward, and he lengthened the king's life. He saw by an excellent spirit what should come to pass at the last, and he comforted them that mourned in Sion. He showed what should come to pass for ever, and secret things or ever they came." This commendation especially refers, as even Gesenius grants, to the disputed portions of the prophet, in which we find predictions of the most distant futurity. The comfort for Zion is found more particularly in the second part of Isaiah, p with peculiar predilection, because it which begins with the words 'Comfort ye, comfort points out the omnipotent covenant-fidelity of the ye, my people.' The author of this second part himLord; which was to be considered, especially as self says (xlviii. 3), I have declared the former it guarantees the truth of the contents of those things from the beginning; and they went forth out prophecies which are attacked by our opponents. of my mouth, and I showed them. Thus we perThis circumstance is so striking that Von Coelln ceive that Jesus Sirach, the learned scribe, conand De Wette, on this account, and in contradic-fidently attributes the debated passages to Isaiah, tion to every argument, declare even the correspond- in such a manner as plainly indicates that there was no doubt in his days respecting the integral authenticity of that book, which has the testimony of historical tradition in its favour. Jesus Sirach declares his intention (Ecclus. xliv.-l.) to praise the most celebrated men of his nation. The whole tenor of these chapters shows that he does not contine himself to celebrated authors. We therefore say that the praise which he bestows upon Isaiah is not intended for the book personified, but for the person of the prophet. If Jesus Sirach had entertained doubts respecting the genuineness of those prophecies on which, in particular, he bases his praise, he could not have so lauded the prophet. In the Jewish synagogue the integral authenticity of Isaiah has always been recognised. This general recognition cannot be accounted for except by the power of tradition based upon truth; and it is supported as well by the New Testament, in which Isaiah is quoted as the author of the whole collection which bears his name, as also by the express testimony of Josephus, especially in his Antiquities (x. 2. 2, and xi. 1. 1). After such confirmation it would be superfluous to mention the Talmudists. 4 7. According to the hypothesis of our opponents, the author or authors of the spurious portions wrote at the end of the Babylonian exile. They confess that these portions belong to the finest productions of prophetism. Now it is very remarkable that in the far from scanty historical accounts of this period, considering all circumstances, no mention is made of any prophet to whom we could well ascribe these prophecies. This is the more remarkable, because at that period prophetism was on the wane, and the few prophets who still existed excited on that account the greater attention. What Ewald (p. 57) writes concerning the time about the conclusion of the Babylonian exile, is quite unhistorical. He says, In this highly excited period of liberty regained, and of a national church re-established, there were rapidly produced a great number of prophecies, circulated in a thousand pamphlets, many of which were of great poetical beauty.' What Ewald states about a new flood of prophetic writings which then poured forth, is likewise unhistorical. History shows that during the exile prophetism was on the wane. What we read in the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel proves that these prophets were isolated; and from the book of Ezra we learn what was the spiritual condition of the new colony. If we compare with their predecessors the prophets who then prophesied, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, we cannot say much about a revival of the prophetic spirit towards the conclusion of the exile. Everything concurs to show that the efficiency of prophetism was drawing towards its end. The later the prophets are, the more do they lean upon the earlier prophets; so that we are enabled to trace the gradual transition of prophetism into the learning of scribes. Prophetism dug, as it were, its own grave. The authority which it demands for its earlier productions necessarily caused that the later were dependent upon the earlier; and the more this became the case during the progress of time, the more limited became the field for new productions. It is not only unhistorical, but, according to the condition of the later productions of prophecy, quite impossible, that about the con In clusion of the exile there should have sprung up a fresh prophetic literature of great extent. this period we hear only the echo of prophecy. That one of the later prophets of whom we possess most, namely Zechariah, leans entirely upon Jeremiah and Ezekiel, as upon his latest predecessors. There is not a vestige of an intervening prophetic literature. The feebleness of our opponents is manifested by their being obliged to have recourse to such unhistorical fictions in order to defend their opinions. Thus we have seen that we possess a series of external arguments in favour of the integral authenticity of Isaiah. Each of these arguments is of importance, and, in their combination, they have a weight which could only be counterbalanced by insurmountable difficulties in the contents of these prophecies. We now proceed to show that there are no such difficulties, and that the internal arguments unite with the external in demonstrating the authenticity of Isaiah as a whole. 1. The portions of Isaiah which have been declared by our opponents to be spurious are, as we have already said, almost entirely such as contain prophecies of an especially definite character. It is this very definiteness which is brought forward as the chief argument against their genuineness. Those of our adversaries who go farthest assert in downright terms that predictions in the stricter sense, such, namely, as are more than a vague foreboding, are impossible. The more considerate of our opponents express this argument in milder terms, saying, that it was against the usage of the Hebrew prophets to prophesy with so much individuality, or to give to their prophecies so individual a bearing. They say that these prophecies were never anything more than general prophetic descriptions, and that, consequently, where we find a definite reference to historical facts quite beyond the horizon of a human being like Isaiah, we are enabled by analogy to declare those portions of the work in which they occur to be spurious. Although this assertion is pronounced with great assurance, it is sufficiently refuted by an impartial examination of the prophetic writings. Our opponents have attempted to prove the spuriousness of whatever is in contradiction with this assertion, as, for instance, the book of Daniel; but there still remain a number of prophecies announcing future events with great definiteness. Micah, for example (iv. 8-10), announces the Babylonian exile, and the deliverance from that exile, one hundred and fifty years before its accomplishment, and before the commencement of any hostilities between Babylon and Judah, and even before Babylon was an independent state. All the prophets, commencing with the earliest, predict the coming destruction of their city and temple, and the exile of the people. All the prophets whose predictions refer to the Assyrian invasion, coincide in asserting that the Assyrians would NOT be instrumental in realising these predictions; that Judah should be delivered from those enemies, from whom to be delivered seemed impossible; and this not by Egyptian aid, which seemed to be the least unlikely, but by an immediate intervention of the Lord; and, on the contrary, all the prophets whose predictions refer to the successors of the Assyrians, the Chaldees, unanimously announce that these were to fulfil the Lord? No human combinations can lead to such results. Savonarola, for instance, was a pious man, and an acute observer; but when he fancied himself to be a prophet, and ventured to predict events which should come to pass, he was immediately refuted by facts (comp. Biographie Savonarola's, von Rudelbach). If we had nothing of prophetic literature, beside the portions of Isaiah which have been attacked, they alone would afford an ample refutation of our opponents, because they contain, in chapter liii., the most remarkable of Old Testament prophecies, predicting the passion, death, and glory of our Saviour. If it can be proved that this one prophecy necessarily refers to Christ, we can no longer feel tempted to reject other prophecies of Isaiah, on account of their referring too explicitly to some event, like that of the Babylonian exile. As soon as only one genuine prophecy has been proved, the whole argument of our opponents falls to the ground. This argument is also opposed by the authority of Christ and his apostles; and whoever will consistently maintain this opinion must reject the authority of Christ. The prophets are described in the New Testament not as acute politicians, or as poets full of a foreboding genius, but as messengers of God raised by His Spirit above the intellectual sphere of mere man. Christ repeatedly mentions that the events of his own life were also destined to realise the fulfilment of prophecy, saying, this must come to pass in order that the Scripture may be fulfilled.' And after his resurrection, he interprets to his disciples the prophecies concerning himself. Peter, speaking of the prophets, says, in his First Epistle (i. 11), Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ, which was in them, did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow; and, in his Second Epistle (i. 21), For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost -inò veúμaтos ȧyíov pepóμevoi. ancient prediction, and exhort to resignation to Eichhorn's hypothesis is also amply refuted by the unquestioned portion of Isaiah. How can it be explained that Isaiah confidently predicts the destruction of the empire of Israel by the Assyrians, and the preservation of the empire of Judah from these enemies, and that he with certainty knew beforehand that no help would be afforded to Judah from Egypt, that the Assyrians would advance to the gates of Jerusalem, and there be destroyed only by the judgment of the Since we have shown that there are in the Holy Scriptures definite prophecies, the à priori argument of our opponents, who pretend that prophecy is useless, loses its significance. Even if we could not understand the purpose of prophecy, the inquiry respecting its reality should nevertheless be independent of such à priori reasoning, since the cause of our NOT understanding it might be in ourselves. We frequently find, after we have been raised to a higher position, the causes of facts which at an earlier period we could not comprehend. A later age frequently understands what was hidden to the preceding. However, the purpose of definite predictions is not hidden to those who recognise the reality of the divine scheme for There is one truth in the opinion of our opponents. The predictions of the future by the prophets are always on a general basis, by which they are characteristically distinguished from soothsaying. Real prophecy is based upon the idea of God. The acts of God are based upon his essence, and have therefore the character of necessity. The most elevated prerogative of the prophets is that they have possessed themselves of his idea, that they have penetrated into his essence, that they have become conscious of the eternal laws by which the world is governed. For instance, if they demonstrate that sin is the perdition of man, that where the carcase is, the eagles will be assembled, the most important point in this prediction is not the How but the WHAT which first by them was clearly communicated to the people of God, and of which the lively remembrance is by them kept up. But if the prophets had merely kept to the THAT, and had never spoken about the How, or if, like Savonarola, they had erroneously described this HOW, they would be unfit effectually to teach the THAT to those people who have not yet acquired an independent idea of God. According to human weakness, the knowledge of the FORM is requisite in order to fertilize the knowledge of the ESSENCE, especially in a mission to a people among whom formality so much predominated as among the people of the Old Covenant. The position of the prophets depends upon these circumstances. They had not, like the priests, an external warrant. Therefore Moses (Deut. xviii.) directed them to produce true prophecies as their warrant. According to verse 22, the true and the false prophet are distinguished by the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of prophecy. This criterion is destroyed by the modern opinion respecting prophetism. Without this warrant, the principal point of prophetical preaching, the doctrine of the Messiah, could not be brought to the knowledge of the people, as being of primary importance. Without this ful- | filment the prophets had no answer to those who declared that the hopes raised by them were fantastic and fanatical. It is true that, according to what we have stated, the necessity of prophecy arises only from the weakness of man. Miracles also are necessary only on account of this weakness. Prophecy is necessary only under certain conditions; but these conditions were fully extant during the period of the ancient Covenant. During the New Covenant human weakness is supported by other and more powerful means, which were wanting during the time of the Old Covenant; especially by the operation of the Spirit of Christ upon the hearts of the faithful; which operation is by far more powerful than that of the Spirit of God during the Old Covenant; consequently, definite predictions can be dispensed with, especially since the faithful of the New Testament derive benefit also from the prophecies granted to the people of the Old Testament. pride, and all its consequences. And, according to the eternal laws by which God governs the world, an overbearing spirit is the certain forerunner of destruction. The future liberation of Israel might also be theologically foreseen; and we cannot look upon this prediction as so abrupt as a prediction of the deliverance of other nations would have been, and as, for instance, a false prediction of the deliverance of Moab would have appeared. Even the Pentateuch emphatically in forms us that the covenant-people cannot be given up to final perdition, and that mercy is always concealed behind the judgments which befall them. 2. Attempts have been made to demonstrate the spuriousness of several portions from the circumstance that the author takes his position not in the period of Isaiah, but in much later times, namely, those of the exile. It has been said, 'Let it be granted that the prophet had a knowledge of futurity: in that case we cannot suppose that he would predict it otherwise than as future, and he cannot proclaim it as present.' The prophets, however, did not prophesy in a state of calculating reflection, but inò TveúμаTOS ȧylov pepoμévoi, 'borne along by the Holy Ghost.' The objects offered themselves to their spiritual vision. On that account they are frequently called seers, to whom futurity appears as present. Even Hebrew grammar has long ago recognised this fact in the terms præterita prophetica. These prophetical præter tenses indicate a time ideally past, in contra-distinction to the time which is really past. Every chapter of Isaiah furnishes examples of this grammatical fact. Even in the first there is contained a remarkable instance of it. Interpreters frequently went astray, because they misunderstood the nature of prophecy, and took the præterita prophetica as real præterites; consequently, they could only by some inconsistency escape from Eichhorn's opinion, that the prophecies were veiled historical descriptions. The prophets have futurity always before their eyes. Prophetism, therefore, is subject to the laws of poetry more than to those of history (compare the ingenious remarks on the connection of poetry and prophetism in the work of Steinbeck, Der Dichter ein Seher, Leipzig, 1836). Prophetism places us in medias res, or rather the prophet is placed in medias res. The Spirit of God elevates him above the terra firma of common reality, and of common perception. The prophet beholds as connected, things externally separated, if they are linked together by their internal character. The prophet beholds what is cealed to the eyes of flesh, already exists. This was, for instance, the case with Israel's captivity and deliverance. Neither happened by chance. Both events proceeded from the justice and mercy of God, a living knowledge of which necessarily produced the beholding knowledge of the same. The prophet views things in the light of that God who calls the things that are not as though they were, and to whom the future is present. The predictions of futurity in the Old Testament have also a considerable bearing upon the contemporaries of the prophet. Consequently, they stand not so isolated and unconnected as our opponents assert. The Chaldæans, for in-distant as near, if its hidden basis, although constance, who are said to threaten destruction to Israel, were, in the days of Isaiah, already on the stage of history; and their juvenile power, if compared with the decline of the Assyrians, might lead to the conjecture that they would some time or other supplant the Assyrians in dominion over Asia. Babylon, certainly, was as yet under Assyrian government; but it was still during the lifetime of the prophet that this city tried to shake off their yoke. This attempt was unsuccessful, but the conditions under which it might succeed at a future period were already in existence. The future exaltation of this city might be foreseen from history, and its future fall from theology. In a pagan nation success is always the forerunner of 3. What the prophet says about what is present to him (namely, about that which appears to him in the form of the present time), is correctly and minutely detailed; and what he describes as future, are ideal and animated hopes which far exceed terrene reality. Hence our opponents attempt to prove that the present time in those portions which they reject, is not ideal but real; and that the author was actually an eye-witness of the exile, because, they say, if the prophet merely placed himself in the period of the exile, then this present time would be ideal, and in that case there could be no difference between this ideally present time and the more distant future. But we question this fact most decidedly. The descriptions of the person of Messiah in the second part of Isaiah are far more circumstantial than the descriptions of the person of Cyrus. Of Cyrus these prophecies furnish a very incomplete description. Whoever does not fill up from history what is wanting, obtains a very imperfect idea of Cyrus. But there is sufficient information to show the relation between history and prophecy; and nothing more was required than that the essence of prophecy should be clear. The form might remain obscure until it was cleared up by its historical fulfilment. The Messiah, on the contrary, is accurately depicted, especially in ch. liii., so that there is scarcely wanting any essential trait. It is quite natural that there should be greater clearness and definiteness here, because the anti-type of redemption stands in a far nearer relation to the ideal than is the case with Cyrus, so that form and essence less diverge. The assertion that the animated hopes, expressed in the second part of Isaiah, had been very imperfectly fulfilled, proceeds from the erroneous supposition that these hopes were to be entirely fulfilled in the times immediately following the exile. But if we must grant that these prophecies refer both to the deliverance from captivity, and to the time of the Messiah in its whole extent, from the lowliness of Christ to the glorious completion of his kingdom, then the fulfilment is clearly placed before our eyes; and we may expect that whatever is yet unfulfilled, will, in due time, find its accomplishment. In this hope we are supported by the New Testament, and still more by the nature of the matter in question. If the prophecies of Isaiah were nothing but arbitrary predictions on his own external authority, without any internal warrant, one might speak here of an evasion of the difficulty; but as the matter stands, this objection proves only that those who make it are incapable of comprehending the idea which pervades the whole representation. The entire salvation which the Lord has destined to his people has been placed before the spiritual eye of the prophet. His prediction is not entirely fulfilled in history, so that we could say we have now done with it, but every isolated fulfilment is again a prediction de facto, supporting our hope of the final accomplishment of the whole word of prophecy. to the later Hebrew style. Bertholdt, Umbreit, and others, base upon this their argument, that the Song of Solomon was written after the Babylonian exile. They even maintain that it could not have been written before that period. On the contrary, the two most recent commentators, Ewald and Doepke, say most decidedly that the Song of Solomon, in spite of its Aramaisms, was written in the days of Solomon. Hirzel, in his work De Chaldaismi Biblici origine, Leipsic, 1830, has contributed considerably to the formation of a correct estimate of this argument. He has proved that in all the books of the Old Testament, even in the most ancient, there occur a few Chaldaisms. This may be explained by the fact that the patriarchs were surrounded by a population whose language was Chaldee. Such Chaldaisms are especially found in poetical language in which unusual expressions are preferred. Consequently, not a few isolated Chaldaisms, but only their decided prevalence, or a Chaldee tincture of the whole style, can prove that a book has been written after the exile. Nobody can assert that this is the case in those portions of Isaiah whose authenticity has been questioned. Even our opponents grant that the Chaldaisms in this portion are not numerous. After what have erroneously been called Chaldaisms are subtracted, we are led to a striking result, namely, that the unquestionable Chaldaisms are more numerous in the portions of Isaiah of which the genuineness is granted, than in the portions which have been called spurious. Hirzel, an entirely unsuspected witness, mentions in his work De Chaldaismo, p. 9, that there are found only four real Chaldaisms in the whole of Isaiah; and that these all occur in the portions which are declared genuine; namely, in vii. 14 (where, however, if the grammatical form is rightly understood, we need not admit a Chaldaism); xxix. 1; xviii. 7; xxi. 12. 5. The circumstance that the diction in the attacked portions of Isaiah belongs to the first, and not to the second period of the Hebrew language, must render us strongly inclined to admit their authenticity. It has been said that these portions were written during, and even after, the Babylonian exile, when the ancient Hebrew language fell into disuse, and the vanquished people began to adopt the language of their conquerors, and that thus many Chaldaisms penetrated into the works of authors who wrote in ancient Hebrew. Since this is not the case in the attacked portions of Isaiah, granting the assertions of our opponents to be correct, we should be compelled to suppose that their author or authors had intentionally abstained from the language of their times, and purposely imitated the purer diction of former ages. That this is not quite impossible we learn from the prophecies of Haggai, Malachi, and especially from those of Zechariah, which are nearly as free from Chaldaisms as the writings before the exile. But it is improbable, in this case, because the pseudo-Isaiah is stated to have That this argument is very feeble even our been in a position very different from that of the opponents have granted in instances where it can prophets just mentioned, who belonged to the be adduced with by far greater stringency than in newly returned colony. The pseudo-Isaiah has the questioned portions of Isaiah. This appears been placed in a position similar to that of the especially from the example of the Song of Solo-strougly Chaldaizing Ezekiel and Daniel; and mon, in which there occur a considerable number even more unfavourably for the attainment of of Aramaic words and expressions, said to belong | purity of diction, because he had not, like these 4. Our opponents think that they have proved that a portion of Isaiah is not genuine, if they can show that there occur a few Aramaic words and forms of speech, which they endeavour to explain from the style prevalent in a period later than Isaiah. |