I. It is a principle of higher criticism, that both whole works and the single parts of the same, must be regarded as the production of the author to whom they are attributed, so long as it is not shewn by internal and external grounds, that he could not have been the author. That this has not been done in the present case, we have already shewn; while the second part is fully attributed to Isaiah by the circumstance, that it is found in the collection to which his name is prefixed. That Isaiah was uniformly acknowledged in the Jewish synagogue as the author, may be shewn by unimpeachable witnesses. The most ancient is that of Siracides, c. 48: 22 sq. Isaiah the great prophet,' it is there said, 'filled with the Spirit, looked forward into the remotest future, and comforted the mourners in Zion.' This can refer only to the second part; as Gesenius himself concedes.* In the New Testament Isaiah is always named as the author, whenever a passage from the second part is cited. It may indeed be said, that the writers of the New Testament have only followed the prevailing modes of citation, without thereby expressing any opinion as to the authenticity. But passages like Rom. 10: 20 shew, that they regarded Isaiah as the real author of the second part. Josephus and Philo also acknowledge Isaiah as the author of the whole collection. II. The fact assumed in regard to Isaiah, when it is asserted that a number of heterogenous portions are intermingled with his genuine writings, is without any demonstrable analogy in the Hebrew literature. An appeal is made to the book of Canticles; but the view of those who find in this book a series of poems of different authors, is in recent times almost wholly abandoned, and the oneness of the author acknowledged. An appeal is made to the Proverbs; but here also the supposition, that Solomon is only a collective appellation is unfounded. In the prophetical literature, the attempt has not even been made, to show any thing analogous. It is acknowledged, that all the pieces in the collections under the names of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, belong to them as the authors and in the minor prophets also there is no similar appearance, except that some critics, on very feeble grounds, have assailed the latter half of Zechariah. It is true that this absence of any analogy can itself decide nothing; the case of Isaiah might still be the only instance of the kind. But nevertheless this want of analogy serves at least * Th. I. p. 37. : to shew us, how strong the grounds must be, which shall compel us to yield assent to the assertion of our opponents. Besides these considerations, the opponents are also pressed by the difficulty of pointing out any object, which the compiler could have had in such a proceeding. In one point all these critics are united, viz. that the compiler was aware that these pieces were not from Isaiah. This indeed they are compelled to admit; for their assumed compiler and the author of the second part must have been contemporary. According to Eichhorn, the genuine pieces of Isaiah did not fill out a roll. But who tells us, that large rolls only were employed? And if any one had wished thus to connect any thing with Isaiah, why should he not have distinguished it from the genuine writings of Isaiah by a space and superscription, just as the minor prophets are distinguished, although they constitute but one collection? To this it cannot be objected, that the name of the prophet could not be given, because it was not known; for the name of so distinguished a prophet could not be unknown to the compiler, especially as the race of prophets had then become almost extinct.-Others, as Doederlein, assume that the author of the second part also bore the name of Isaiah; and that thus his prophecies came to be received among those of the elder Isaiah. But that a second Isaiah, son of Amoz, lived during the time of the exile, is a supposition drawn merely from the air, confirmed by no historical testimony whatever, and would indeed be a most remarkable coincidence. But even admitting the supposition to be true, still the coincidence of the name could have afforded no ground for the compiler, to join together the productions of both without the slightest remark.-Others speak here of a pia fraus of the compiler; he is said to have had the purpose of procuring for the prophecies of a contemporary a greater authority, by causing them to be attributed to Isaiah. But a pia fraus of this nature could not have remained undetected; if the writer lived in the time of the Babylonish exile, he could not, in his preeminence, but have been as well known to those whom the compiler thus wished to deceive, as to the compiler himself. Another class suppose, that the threatening prophecy in c. 39, was the occasion of subjoining the consolatory predictions contained in the second part. But, on the one hand, such a strange proceeding of the compiler can be supported by no analogous example; and on the other, no reason can be assigned, why this second part of Isaiah might not then just as well have been interpolated in some other collection of prophetic writings, since several other prophets had also foretold the Babylonish exile; why, especially, it might not have been appended to Micah or to Jeremiah, both of whom speak of the exile with the utmost definiteness.-Gesenius, aware of the difficulties of all these suppositions, regards the whole as the work of chance. This however is only an admission, that the fact itself is inexplicable. As a possibility Gesenius asserts, that the mere connexion of this anonymous oracle with those of Isaiah in one roll, might have been ground enough for a later possessor of this roll, to ascribe to Isaiah all that was contained in it. But the very point in question is, how the compiler came to join them both together in one roll. III. There are in the second part of Isaiah many peculiarities of style, which it has in common with the first part, but which are very seldom, or not at all, found in the other books of the Old Testament. Of these both Jahn and Moeller have made a diligent collection.* We cite here only two examples. , קְדוֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל,The first is the constant appellation of Jehovah Holy One of Israel, which occurs throughout the whole book, and just as often in the second part, as in the first. This name is found elsewhere only five times in the whole of the Old Testament, viz. Ps. 71: 22. 78: 41. 89: 19. Jer. 50: 29. 51: 5. In both these last passages, moreover, it does not strictly even belong to Jeremiah, but to Isaiah, whom Jeremiah has in these chapters imitated. How entirely the use of this name was peculiar to Isaiah, is also apparent from the fact, that it is also found in 2 K. 19: 22 in the address of Isaiah; while it occurs no where else in the books of Kings. The second peculiar idiom, which was first pointed out by Gesenius himself, is, that in the second part, as well as in the first, the verb to be named or called is very frequently employed instead of to be.† These idioms have occasioned great difficulty to the opponents. They admit of themselves, that these idioms cannot possibly be acci 460 sq. * Jahn l. c. p. + E. g. Is. 1: 26. 1, 4, 5. 48: 8. 56: 7. 63: 16. These are all Th. III. p. 29. ED. No. IV. 4:3. 9: 5. 19: 18. 30: 7. 35: 8. 44: 5. 47: 58: 12. 60: 14, 18. 61: 3, 6. 62: 2, 4, 12. the examples specified by Gesenius, Comm. 92 dental.* The solution which they adopt is a violent one. They affirm, that these idioms have arisen from an assimilating hand, which was also active in the general shaping of the whole. But this assertion is wholly arbitrary. There can then, in general, no question whatever of higher criticism be decided, on the grounds of style and language; for the same liberties which the opposers of the genuineness of any piece permit to themselves, they must also permit to its defenders. It is a supposition entirely unnatural and at variance with the spirit of that period, even as the opponents themselves represent it, that the compiler, or whoever else it might be, should have set himself down and collected single words and phrases out of the first part, and then have substituted them for others in the second part. What object could he have had in this? It was only by accident, as the opponents themselves affirm, that the second part was joined to the first. Consequently, he could not have had the purpose, to enable himself thereby to pass off the second part with greater plausibility as the work of Isaiah. And even if he did entertain this purpose, he could not, from the character of the readers of that age, expect to accomplish his object. For who at that period had a taste for the critical comparison of various idioms, in the manner that it is now practised? IV. Against the opinion, that the second part of Isaiah was composed during the exile, an argument by no means to be contemned is furnished by its style. During the Babylonish exile, the influence of the Aramaean language upon the Hebrew, which had already existed in some degree, naturally became very important. Even before the end of the exile, the Hebrew began to be a learned language. A Chaldee element quite important is already contained in the writings of Jeremiah, who lived before the exile and at the commencement of it, not at Babylon but at Jerusalem; and one still more important is found in those of Ezekiel, who passed his life in exile. But in the style of the so called Pseudo-Isaiah, we ought to expect a far greater measure of Chaldaic influence. According to the determination of opposing critics, he must have prophesied at Babylon towards the last year of the seventy years' captivity. Of course he was never in Judea; he had lived from his youth upward among a foreign people. We find in him, however, a dic Compare De Wette Einl. p. 231. Gesenius Einleitung zu dem zweyten Theil, p. 29. tion, which, according to the admission of the opponents themselves, is parallel in purity and beauty to the productions of the most flourishing periods of the Hebrew literature. That the Pseudo-Isaiah had retained the purity of his language, cannot with propriety be affirmed, with our opponents; for what he never possessed, could not well be retained; and that he had formed his style after the model of more ancient writings, cannot well suffice for the explanation of the fact in question. It does not seem possible, in times so unfavourable for learned studies, to avoid so entirely the influence of surrounding persons and objects, that this influence should no where become visible in a work of such extent. When an appeal is made to a similar case in the book of Job, the later age of this oldest among all the productions of Hebrew literature is unjustly presupposed. When again it is affirmed, that many Psalms, written in a style either wholly or at least tolerably pure, belong to the times of the Babylonish exile, it is still the case that most of those also are arbitrarily assigned to this period. Those Psalms which really belong to this period prove nothing; since in a poem consisting of only a few verses, many Chaldaisms cannot of course occur. Nor can an appeal be made to the books of Kings; for in them, on the one hand, there are found not a few Chaldaisms; and on the other, in the composition of them, older contemporary documents were literally transcribed. V. The first and second parts have also, in other respects, many peculiarities in common. Both delight in appending bymns of thanksgiving to the prophecies. Examples of this kind are found indeed in other prophets; but still by no means so frequent in proportion. In both parts visions and symbolical actions occur only seldom. The first part contains only one vision, c. 6; the second also only one, c. 63. Both have the same simplicity and artlessness, and not the overloaded manner which prevailed among later writers. Of symbolical actions there are only two in the first part, c. 8 and 20; and in the second part only one, c. 62: 6, where the prophet declares that he will set watchmen, who shall pray upon the walls of Jerusalem; which may strictly be regarded rather as a figure, than as a symbolical action. This peculiarity, as being common to both parts, is in itself very striking; but it speaks so much the more for the authenticity of the second part, because if the time of its composition be assumed during the exile, we should naturally expect many visions and symbolical actions. At least these |