Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 13.djvu/400

 I S A I S A narrative is repeated in 2 Kings xviii. 13-xx. 19, and which are, generally speaking, very peculiar, and therefore probably more authentic. See especially Isa. xxxviii., noticing the abbreviation of vers. 4 and 5, the addition of the Psalm of Hezekiah, and the wrong position given to ver. 21. (2) By the circumstance that the style of Isa. xxxvi. andxxxvii. (2 Kings xviii. -xix. 37) contains nothing to distinguish it from that of many other portions of the two books of Kings, which are evidently extracted from the royal chronicles, and that the style of Isa. xxxviii. (excludingthe Psalm) and xxxix. closely resembles that of the final editor of the historical books (Genesis-2 Kings)&quot; (The Book of Isaiah Chronologically Arranged, p. 102). To this it may now be added that the first verse of the narrative contains a glaring mistake (which also profoundly affects the sequel), which can only be accounted for on the supposition that a long period had elapsed since the events referred to. We refer to the substitution of &quot;the fourteenth year (of King Hezekiah)&quot; for &quot;the twenty- seventh,&quot; and the confusion of the invasion of Sargon with the later one of Sennacherib (see The Prophecies of Isaiah, vol. i. p. 192, &c. ). In short, the case of this appendix appears to be similar to that of the passage vii. 1-ix. 7, which can be shown to have assumed its present form not till long after the utterance of the prophecies imbedded in it. That the great prophecy enshrined in our historical appendix is in the highest degree Isaianic we have already pointed out ; it were to be wished that there were equal grounds for assuming that the so-called Psalm of Hezekiah were really the work of that pious and literary king. The probability is that we have in this Psalm the work of one of those inspired but less original Sopherim of whom we have spoken above. (&amp;lt;?) Isaiah, it is admitted, was a prophet and an historian ; was he also a psalmist ? His twelfth chapter (if really by him) is in fact a psalm; but Hitzig goes further, and conjectures that Psalms xlvi.- xlviii. were composed by our prophet on the successive overthrows of the Syrians, Philistines, and Assyrians (Die Psahncn, i. 255-6). All, however, that can safely be inferred from the parallelisms which Hitzig produces is that the prophecies of Isaiah exercised a strong influence on contemporary or Inter writers, especially those which dealt with the great turning points in the history of the nations. A still larger harvest of affinities may be reaped in the later psalms, as Canon Elliott has well shown (Speaker s Commen tary, iv. 506-512), and it will be noticed that only one of them, and that not one of the closest, relates to the acknowledged pro phecies of Isaiah. Similarity of style is not an infallible proof of unity of authorship. (c) One of the most important contributions to the right estimate of II. Isaiah (as also of the book of Daniel) has been the discovery of two cuneiform texts relative to the fall of Babylon and the religious policy of Cyrus. The results are not favourable to a mechanical view of prophecy as involving absolute accuracj^ of state ment on points not essentially connected with moral and religious truth. Cyrus appears in the unassailably authentic cylinder in scription &quot; as a complete religious indifferentist, willing to go through any amount of ceremonies to soothe the prejudices of a sus ceptible population. &quot; He preserves a strange and significant silence with regard to Ormazd, the supreme God of Zoroastrianism, and in fact, as Professor Sayce and M. Halevy have shown, cannot have been a Zoroastrian believer at all. Cyrus, on whom the prophet of Jehovah lavishes such honourable titles, Cyrus, who, the pro phet even appeal s to hope, may be won over to the true faith, is a polytheist and an idolater.&quot; On the historical and religious bearings of these two inscriptions the reader must be referred to the essay on &quot;II. Isaiah and the Inscriptions&quot; in the work already several times quoted from. It must be carefully remembered that &quot;the inscription, when rightly understood, is not in conflict with the prophecy, but only with a gloss upon the prophecy,&quot; and that our estimate of prophecy must be brought into harmony with facts, not facts with our preconceived theory of prophecy. In conclusion, it seems not inopportune to remind the student that the investigation of the critical problems of the Old Testament is not mere guess work, but proceeds on the sure basis of comparison and analogy. We have got beyond the stage at which the books of the Old Testament were regarded as so many isolated phenomena, and reached the conception of a literature, with closely related parts, slowly and very gradually brought into its present shape. The coordination in an historical outline of the results already attained would be the most effectual justification of the critical analysis of the Old Testament. It is worse than idle, however, to meddle with analytical work without a preliminary discipline in the disinterested exegetical study of the texts. Commentaries, &c. 1. On the entire book : Calvin, Comm. in Jes., 3d. ed., Geneva, 1570 : Vitringa, Comm. in libr. projih. Jcsajse, 2 vols., Lceuwarden, 1714-28, and 1724; Lowtli, Isaiah: a new translation, with a preliminary dissertation and notes, London, 1778 ; Gesenius, Dcr Pi: Jes. iibersctzt, &c. , Lcipsic, 1821 ; Hitzig, Dcr Propli. Jes., Heidelberg, 1833 ; Ewald, Die proph. dcs A. B. , 2d. ed. , 3 vols., Gottingen, 1867-68 (in course of translation) ; Kuobel, Dcr Pr. Jes., 4th ed. (by Diestel), Leipsic, 1872 ; Drechsler, Der Pr. Jes., 3 vols., Stuttgart and Berlin, 1845-57; Delitzsch, Der Pr. Jes., 3d. ed., Leipsic, 1879; Nagelsbach, Dcr Pr. Jes., in Lange s Bibehvcrk, Bielefeld and Leipsic, 1877; Alexander, Com mentary, ed. Eadie, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1865; Kay, in Speaker s Commentary, vol. v., London, 1875 ; Cheyne, The Book of Isaiah Chronologically Arranged, London, 1870, and The Prophecies of Isaiah, 2 vols., London, 1880-81. 2. On portions of the first part : Meier, Dcr Pr. Jes. I. (on chaps, i.-xxiii. ), Pforzheim, 1850 ; Roerda, &quot; Annotationes ... ad vaticinia Jes. i.-ix. 6&quot; (in Juyr.- boll s Orientalia, vol. i. p. 67, &c.) ; Stade, DC Jes. vaticiniis sEtlde- picis diatribe, Leipsic, 1873. 3. On the second part : Stier, Ja,ajas nicht Pscudo-jcsajas, Barmen, 1850 ; Seinecke, Der Evangelist des alten Testamcntcs, Leipsic, 1870. 4. On the critical question of the second part: Delitzsch, &quot;Schlussbemerkungen,&quot;in Drechsler s6Vw - mcntar, Theil iii. ; Kutgers, De cehthcid van de twee.de gedeclte van Jesaja, Leipsic, 1866 ; Klostermann, Zcitsclir. fiir lutherisehe Thcc- logic, 1876, p. 1, &c. 5. Monographs and generally illustrative works : Hengstenljeig,Christolo(jie dcs alten Testaments, vol. ii. (trans lated in Clark) ; Strachey, Jewish History and Polities in t/te Times of Sargon and Sennacherib, 2d. ed., London, 1874, 8vo ; Neubauer and Driver, The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah according to the Jcivish Interpreters, 2 vols., Oxford, 1877 ; Urwiclc, The Servant of Jehovah, a Commentary, Edinburgh, 1877 ; Caspari, Bcitrage, zur Einleitung in das Buch Jes., Berlin, 1848; Payr.e Smith, The Authenticity and Messianic Interpretation of the. Prophecies of Isaiah, Oxford and London, 1862 ; M Gill, &quot;Critical Remarks on Isaiah, xviii. 1, 2,&quot; in Journal of Sacred Literature, 1862, pp. 310-324 ; Cheyne, Notes and Criticisms on the Ilcbrcio Text of Isaiah, London, 1868 ; Lagarde, Scmitica, i., Gottingen, 1873 (pp. 1-32 contain critical notes on Isaiah i.-xvii.). (T. K. C.) ISAURIA, in ancient geography, was a district in the interior of Asia Minor, bounded by Mount Taurus and Cilicia on the S., by Lycaonia on the E., by Phrygia on the N., and by Pisidia on the W. Like the neighbouring Lycaouia, it consisted in great part of a cold and barren upland plain, while the southern portions weie rugged and mountainous. No mention is found of the Isaurians dur ing the early periods of the history of Asia ; but they were doubtless, like their neighbours the Pisidians, in all ages a lawless race of freebooters, owing merely a nominal allegi ance to either the Persian or the Macedonian monarchy. The only occasion on which they come prominently forward in history was during the war of the Cilician and other pirates against Rome, in which they took so active a pan that the proconsul P. Servilius deemed it necessary to follow them into their mountain fastnesses, and compelled the whole people to submission, an exploit for which he received the title of Isauricus (75 B.C.). They were after wards placed for a time under the rule of Amyntas, king of Galatia ; but it is evident that they always continued to retain their predatory habits and their virtual independ ence ; and under the Roman empire they gave so much trouble that it was ultimately agreed to leave them in the undisturbed possession of their inaccessible mountain homes. In the 4th century they arc still described by Ammianus Marcellinus as the scourge of the neighbouring provinces of Asia Minor ; but they are said to have been effectually subdued in the reign of Justinian. From the nature of the countiy Isauria contained bub very few towns, the most important of which bore the name of Isaura, as the capital of the district. It was rebuilt by Amyntas, and extensive remains of it are still visible at a place called Zengi Bor. Carallia, which seems to have been included in the province, and was noted as giving name to the Lake Caralitis, was situated farther north. This lake, now known as the Kereli Gol, is a con siderable sheet of water; it communicates by the river called Bei Sechr with a lesser lake called by Strabo Trogitis, now known as Soghla Gol ; both are perfectly fresh. The boundary of Isauria and Lycaonia seems to have been always unsettled. Strabo indeed speaks of Isauria as a part of Lycaonia, but it is certain that they were separate districts for administrative purposes, though their limits cannot be accurately defined. Of the ethnographical character or origin of the Isaurians we know nothing. The comparatively obscure tribe of the Isaurians had