I)\ii: UK TilK Book. — It is clear from internal evidence that II. prophesied towards the beginning of the Chalda>an supremacy ; but the precise date of his propliecy is difficult to fix. It depends in fact, at least in part, upon the answer given to a difficult question connected with ch. 1, which must therefore be considered first. The explanation of this chapter adopted above is the u.sual one ; but it must be admitted that there are difficulties con- nected with it, and that it has failed to satisfy many recent .scholars. In the first place, whereas the establishment of the power of the Chakheans appears, in 1° (where it is represented as incred- ible to those who hear of it) and in 1^ (where the phra.se used is ' Behold, I am raising np'), to lie in the future ; elsewhere, and especially in I's-ni ysii. II). i;^ tije prophet describes their treatment of comiuered nations, and reflects upon the moral problems to which this gave rise, in a manner which seems to imply that he and his countrymen were perfectly familiar with it. Secondly, if 1--' be the prophet's complaint respecting the injustice prevalent in Israel itself, which (!*"") is to be avenged by the Chaldajans, how can he consistently complain of the Chaldieans' treatment of his people, and pronounce judgment upon them on account of it ? Thirdly, the .subject of the com- plaint in 2' is naturally, it is urged, the same iis that of l-'-* ; whereas, in the explanation adopted above, it is different. Fourthly, the ' wicked ' and the ' righteous ' in l'^ are naturally the same, respectively, as the ' wicked ' and the ' righteous ' in I'' ; whereas, upon the same explanation, they are different (the wicked and the righteous in Israel itself in I*, the Chaldsans and Israel in l'^). Upon these grounds it was argued by Giesebrecht {Beilriiije zur Jesaiakritik, 1890, p. 197 f.) that the true sequel to 1* was li- ; that 1^" (announcing the advent of the Chaldaians) was a complete, independent prophecy, written before the rest of chs. 1-2, and not now in its original place, and that l--" describes the tyranny of the Chaldmans (v.^t), and its consequences as shown in the relaxation of law and religion (vv.3<:- ■!«) in Judah. Wellhausen and Xowack (in their Commentaries) agree. It is true, I''-" does seem to presuppose a different historical situation from l'--'', and, with 1--* (as ordinarily understood), may well have been written
down by H. at an earlier date : the book as a whole, as Kirkpatrick ob.<erves (Doctrine of the iVll/l/lf^•^', 2li8), ' is the fruit of religious retiection ; it exhibits the communing and questioning of the Iiro|)hers soul with (iod,' which doubtless was 'spread over .siMne considerable time," and l)resents conclusions which were no doulit reached (Uily after 'a prolonged ment.al struggle.' Hence there is nothing unreasonable in the .•iii|ii)iisition that 1--" reflects the impression left upon the prophet's mind when he first thought of the ChaUlieans as the instrument apiiointcd for the punishment of tludah's sin, and that I'-"- expresses the perplexity which he became conscious of afterwards, when the character of the ChaUheans had become more fully known to him. For the other inferences mentioned above there does not seem to be a sufficient foundation. The explanation which refers 1--^ to the tyranny of the Cliahheans, and its effects in .ludah, is unnatural and forced. Nor is there any intrinsic reason why 'righteous' and ' wicked' shouhl refer to the .same persons, respec- tively, in l* and 1'^; that would be neces.sary oidy if it were the case that the prophet had the same individuals in view in the two pas.sage.s — which is just what here has to lie shown, even if the terms of 1^^ are not opposed to it.
A verv original view of clis. 1-2 has been pronnundoil bv Hudde (i7«</. K. Kril. 1S9:!, [>. .■!%■( If : EriniKilor. .\lav Isil.'), i'.. :!"■-> If.). Ac<-orilinfr to this scliolar 12-<. iJ-i: rcfi-rs not to tb./ Chal(lii*ans but to tlie Axui/ridtm; l«-n stood orijrlnaliy after 2* a.s a description of the power (tlie C'iialda-ans) wbicli would .shortly hrintr the rule of the .\ssyriftns t<i an end, and li"^^ i^'ive.s e.xliressinn to the joy with whieh tlie nations would preet their fall. In the oricinal projihecy tlie t'linlda-ana thus appeared as the liberfttor.s of Israel from the yoke of Assyria ; but events so rnu'lly helled the role thus pveu to them, that It was believed Incredible that a prophet could ever have ascribed it to them; arrordiiurly a later editor transferred 1*~*' to its present place, addinir 1^' as an Introductory verse, and by tlie transposition so alterini; tlie orif^inal sense of the [iroiihecy that 113-17 *j*ff. could now lie read only as referriuf? to the CiutUtifaitH, who thus, from lieiiii.' the power destroyiufj the Assyrians, became the [lOwer to lie destroyed. The explanation is ingenious, but of a kind that could be deemed iirobable only if it rested upon exceptionally strong grounds, which, however, in the present Instance, cannot be said to be the case ; cf. more fully Davidson, pp. &0-.'>.'^.
The most probable date for the prophecy of H. is shortly before B.C. 600 — 1--", if the view adopted aliove be correct, being written somewhat earlier than the rest of the prophecy. Kabopolassar had made Babylon the seat of an independent monarchy in (12.") ; in 607, with the help (as recently discovered inscriptions inform us*) of the Uminaii- manda, Nineveh had been destroyed ; in 604, Xabopolassar's son, Nebuchadrezzar, had inflicted a defeat upon Pharaoh - necho at Carcheini.sh (.Jer4()-), the natur.al result of which, as .Jeremiah at once s.aw (ch. 2.5, etc.), could only be that the whole of Western Asia would fall into the hands of the ChaUheans. The Chakhtans invaded Judah for the first time in 601 or 600 (2 K 24'). Our knowledge of the progress of the Chaldiean arms, and of the effects which the news of it produced in Judah, is not minute enough to enable us to fix dates with precision ; but while l^-" may belong to the earlier or middle part of the period which has been here referred to, when (v.^) the power of the Chaldie- ,T,ns WMS being consolidated, but (v. 5) the formidable character which it would ere long (' in your days ') attain was still not realized in Judah, the famili- arity shown in such passages as in-ir :i-'*. «. i; etc. with their treatment of .subject nations, and the reflections which their threatened interference in Judah arouses in the prophet's mind, point to the close of the same period as that to which the main part of the prophecy belongs.