ENTERED, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1847,

BY ALBERT BARNES,

In the Office of the Clerk of the District Court of the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania.

B37 1857 1.2

THE PROPHET ISAIAH.

CHAPTER XXXVI.

360

ANALYSIS.

This chapter commences the historical portion of Isaiah, which continues to the close of the xxxixth chapter. The main subject is the destruction of Sennacherib and his army. It contains also an account of the sickness and recovery of Hezekiah; the song with which he celebrated his recovery and an account of his ostentation in showing his treasures to the ambassadors of the king of Bbylon. In 2 Chron. xxxii. 32, the following record occurs. "Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah and his goodness, behold they are wren in the vision of Isaiah, the son of Amoz ;" and it is to this portion of Isaiah to which the author orthe Book of Chronicles doubtless refers.

There was an obvious propriety in Isaiah's making a record of the invasion and destruction of Sennacherib. That event has occupied a considerable portion of his prophetic announcements; and as he lived to see them fulfilled, it was proper that he should record the event. The prophecy and its fulfilment can thus be compared together; aud while there is the strongest internal testimony that the prophecy was utte.ed before the event, there is also the most striking and clear fulfilment of all the predictions on the subject.

A parallel history of these transactions occurs in 2 Kings xvii.-xx.; and in 2 Chron. xxxii. The history in Chronicles, though it contains an account of the same transaction, is evidently by another hand, as it bears no further resemblance to this than that it contains an account of the same transactions. But between the account here and in 2 Kings, there is a most striking resemblance, so much so as to show that they were mainly by the same hand. It has been made a matter of inquiry whether Isaiah was the original author, or whether he copied a history which he found in the book of Kings, or whether both he and the author of the book of Kings copied from some original document which is now lost, or whether the collectors of the prophetic writings after the return from the captivity at Babylon, judging that such a history would appropriately explain the prophecies of Isaiah, copied the account from some historical record, and inserted it among his prophecies. This last is the opinion of Rosenmuller-an opinion which evidently lacks all historical evidence, and indeed all probability. The most obvious and fair supposition undoubtedly is, that this history was inserted here by Isaiah, or that he made this record according to the statement in 2 Chron, xxxii. 32.-Gesenius also accords substantially with Rosenmuller in supposing that this history is an elaboration of that in the book of Kings, and that it was reduced to its present form by some one who collected and edited the Books of isaiah after the Babylonish captivity. Vitringa supposes that both the accounts in Kings and in Isaiah have been derived from a common historical document, and have been adopted and somewhat abridged or modified by the author of the Book of Kings and by Isaiah.

It is impossible now to determine the truth in regard to this subject; nor is it of much importance.. Those who are desirous of seeing the subject discussed more at length may consult Vitringa, Rosen muller, and Gesenius. The view of Gesenius is chiefly valuable because he has gone into a com parison of the account in Isaiah with that in Kings, The following remarks are all that occur to me as desirable to make, and express the conclusion which I have been able to form on the subject. (1.) The two accounts have a common origin, or are substantially the production of the same hand. This is apparent on the face of them. The same course of the narrative is pursued, the same expressions occur, and the same style of composition is found. It is possible, indeed, that the Holy Spirit might have inspired two different authors to adopt the same style and expressions in recording the sam events, but this is not the mode elsewhere observed in the Scriptures. Every sacred writer is allowed to pursue his own method of narration, and to express himself in a style and manner of his own.

(2.) There is no evidence that the two accounts were abridged from a more full narrative. Such a thing is possible; nor is there any impropriety in the supposition. But it lacks historical support. That there were histories among the Jews which are now lost; that there were public records which were the fountains whence the authors of the histories which we now have drew their information, no one can doubt who reads the Old Testament, Thus we have accounts of the writings of Gad, and Iddo the seer, and Nathan, and the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and of the Book of Jehu the prophet (2 Cnron, ix. 25, xx. 34. 1 Kings xvi. 1), all of which are now lost except so far as they are incorporated in the historical and prophetical books of the Old Testament. It is possible, therefore, that these accounts may have been abridged from some such common record, but there is no historical testimony to the fact.

(3.) There is no evidence that these chapters in Isaiah were inserted by Ezra, or the other inspired men who collected the sacred writings, and published a recension, or an edition of them after the return from Babylon. That there was such a work performed by Ezra and his contemporaries is the testimony of a. the Jewish historians. See Dr. Alexander on the canon of Scripture. But there is no historical evidence that they thus introduced into the writings of Isaiah an entire historical narrative from the previous histories, or that they composed this history to be inserted here. It is done no where else. And had it been done on this occasion, we should have had reason to expect that they would have inserted historical records of the fulfilment of all the other prophecies which had been tulfilled. We should have looked, therefore, for historical statements of the downfall of Damasaus

The University of low? 513758 LIBRARIES