Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 13.djvu/395

 ISAIAH 379 other view of its origin), yet hi its present form it lias undergone the manipulation of a disciple of the prophet. Isaiah s disciples are indeed expressly referred to by the prophet himself as the guardians of one important prophecy (viii. 16) ; and, granting an editorial activity, it is the most conservative and current view open to us to suppose that tli3 disciples of the prophet were also his first editors. Every one is familiar with the idea of the editorial process through which the historical books of the Old Testament have passed ; it would be culpable indolence to neglect the phenomena which record the similar process through which the other books, especially the prophetic, have passed. It should be added, however, that the Isaianic origin of the epilogue in xix. 18-24 (the point of commence ment of the epilogue is given differently by some) has been frequently called in question. The chief stumbling-blocks are the precise, circumstantial details of the prophecy, which are thought to be not in the manner of Isaiah. In particular the reference to the &quot; city of destruction,&quot; * / ha-keres (v.L, &quot; city of the sun,&quot; ir ha-kheres), has awakened suspicion. Accepting (which it is not necessary to do) the various reading, it would be plausible to regard ver. IS as a fictitious prophecy in the interests of Onias, the founder of the rival Egyptian temple to Jehovah at Leontopolis (in the nome of Heliopolis), Joseph.ua, Antiq., xii. 9, 7. II. We are now brought face to face with the question whether the whole of the book which now bears the name of Isaiah was really written by that prophet. The question relates to xiii. 2-xiv. 23, xxiv.-xxvii., xxxiv., xxxv., and xl.-lxvi. (xxi. 1-10 must henceforth be excluded, on objective, historical grounds, from the list of doubtful pro phecies). It is not necessary here to enter into the history of the controversy (the father of which may be said to be the subtle-minded Aben Ezra). Nor will it be necessary to spend much time on the well-worn but inconclusive arguments of the older critics. The existence of a tradi tion in the last three centuries before Christ as to the authorship of any book is (to those acquainted with the habits of thought of that age) of but little critical moment ; the Sopherirn or students of Scripture in those times were simply anxious for the authority of the Scriptures, not for the ascertainment of their precise historical origin. It was of the utmost importance to declare that (especially) Isaiah xl.-lx.vi. was a prophetic work of the highest order ; this was reason sufficient (the Sopherim may have had other reasons, such as phraseological affinities in xl.-lxvi., but this was sufficient) for ascribing them to the royal prophet Isiiah. When the view had once obtained currency, it would naturally become a tradition. The question of the Isaianic or non-Isaianic origin of the dis puted prophecies (especially xl.-lxvi.) must be decided on grounds of exegesis alone. There are indications among critics, bred in very different schools, of a growing percep tion of this truth. We therefore simply chronicle the fact that the older critics appeal to Ezra i. 2 (interpreted by Josephus, Antiq., xi. 1, 1-2), to the Septuagint version of the book (produced between 200 and 130 B.C.), in which the disputed prophecies are already found, and to the Greek translation of the Wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach, which distinctly refers to Isaiah as the comforter of those that mourned in Zion (Ecclus. xlviii. 24, 25). It will be remembered that our prophet himself flourished in the 8th century B.C., and that the Babylonian captivity intervened. The fault of the combatants (for there has been far too much animosity on both sides) in the controversy as to the origin of what we may call, for brevity s sake, II. Isaiah (including all the disputed prophecies) has been that each party has only seen one side of the -shield.&quot; It will be admitted by philological students that the exegetical data supplied by (at any rato) Isa. xl.-lxvi, are conflicting, and therefore susceptible of no simple solution. (In other words, Isa. xl.-lxvi. cannot have been written as it stands either by Isaiah or by a prophet at the close of the exile.) This remark applies, it is true, chiefly to the portion which begins at lii. 13. The earlier part of Isa. xl.-lxvi. admits of a perfectly consistent interpretation from first to last. There is nothing in it to indicate that the author s standing-point is earlier than the Babylonian captivity. His object is to warn, stimulate, and console the captive Jews, some full believers, some semi-believers, some unbelievers or idolaters. At lii. 13 new phenomena begin to show themselves, indicative, not indeed of a changed standing-point, but at least of another date and pen. No doubt an author may change his style, writing in a different mood ; we must at all events suppose that the author (whoever lie may have been) was in a different tone of mind when he wrote so &quot; hardly, obscurely, and awkwardly &quot; (Delitzsch) as in lii. 13-liii. [Ewald is bolder. Ho traces this passage to an anonymous prophet of the reign of Manasseh, to whom are also due xl. 1, 2 (?) and Ivi. 9-lvii. 11 ; and it must be owned that the style of the latter is equally harsh with that of lii. 13, &c.] III. But let us devote a somewhat closer attention to the easier and more intelligible portion of the last twenty-seven chapters. It will amply remunerate us ; for there is no more striking specimen of prophetic rhetoric in the Old Testament. More particularly, it will be well to study continuously chaps, xl. -xlviii., which evidently form a section by themselves, introductory to that which begins at chap. xlix. They have one leading idea the great crisis impending over Babylon and Israel. Babylon and her gods must fall, that Israel may rise again with the glorious function of giving a religion to the world. The develop ment of this idea is full of contrasts and surprises: the vanity of the idol-gods and the omnipotence of Israel s helper, the sinfulness and infirmity of Israel and her high spiritual destiny, and the selection (so offensive to patriotic Jews, xlv. 9, 10) of the heathen Cyrus as the instrument of Jehovah s purposes, as in fact His Messiah or Anointed One (xlv. 1), are brought successively before us. [The prophet, however, does now and then speak as if Jehovah Himself would interpose to help His people, see xlii. 13, &c.] Hence the semi-dramatic character of the style. Already in the opening passage mysterious voices are heard crying, &quot; Comfort ye, comfort ye my people &quot; ; the plural indicates that there were other prophets among the exiles besides the author of Isa. xl.-xlviii. Then the Jews and the Asiatic nations in general are introduced trembling at the imminent downfall of the Babylonian empire. The former are reasoned with and exhorted to believe; the latter are contemptuously silenced by an exhibition of the futility of their religion. Then another mysterious form appears on the scene, bearing the honour able title of &quot;Servant of Jehovah.&quot; Who this personage may be is much disputed, and naturally enough ; for while, according to xliii. 1, he may &quot;in some sense be called&quot; Israel, it is clear from xliii. 8 that in another sense he is perfectly distinct from Israel. This is ,a paradox to which this, the first book as it may be called of the Prophecy of Israel s Restoration, does not supply the key. All that we learn from this portion is that Jehovah has removed the two chief obstacles to Israel s accomplish ment of its destiny, the one by a free pardon, the other by raising up Cyrus as the instrument of the national regenera tion. The section which begins at chap. xlix. is written (at first, at any rate) in the same delightfully flowing style as its predecessor. We are still among the exiles at the close of the captivity. But the new book has one peculiarity, viz., that Babylon and Cyrus are not mentioned in it at