188
ISAIAH
ISAIAH
Bvraptoms of a late date. These reasons are aiiy- tliin^ but conclusive. Few will doubt that the delinquencies of Ahaz furnished suUicient occasion to Isaiah for his hope of the appearance of a real clianiiiion and righteous ruler of Israel. It is equally hard to believe the great prophet incap- able, at that age in Israel, of a dream of universal peace ; one might as well argue that such a dream was impossible in the post-exilic period (to which Hackmann relegates it) because many of the writ- ings of tlie latter, like Jl 4 and ' Zt.c ' 10, exhibit a rude delight in war. The truth is that among all nations and in all periods of their history the hope of peace has existed along with a belief in the necessity of war, and even with a delight in it. Hackmann finds a more plausible reason (147 f.) for a late date for these passages in their lan^ua^e, « hich bears a few post-exilic features. He also denies to Isaiah the well-known pas.sage 2-'°, re- peated in Mic 4'"°, on the ground that its ideals of the sovereignty of J" over foreign nations, their adoption of His law, the supremacy of the temple, and universal peace, a^ee better with a post-exilic llian with a pre-exilic date (so, too, Mitchell, Isaiah, a Study of Chaps, i.-xii.. New York, ISO", 108 ir. ). On the last point an answer has been given above ; nor on any of the others is there anything incompatible with a date in the 8th centurj'. (So even Duhm : on the details .see the present writer's Twelve Proph. i. 365 f.). Cheyne, who had previously (see above) agreed with the majority of critics as to what were Isaiah's authentic prophecies, stated modifications of his views in the JQR for 1891 f., and in 1895 published his very able and thorough Introd. to the Bk. of Isainh, in which, wliile accepting some of Dulims and Hackmann's results, he went stOl further and withdrew nearly a third of 1-12 from Isaiah, and from the oracles hitherto regarded as genuine in 13- S-i nearly a half. It is impossible to examine his argument in details. His general principle must be regarded as sound by all who have worked at the text of the prophets, viz. that to the oracles of even the greatest of the prophets later genera- tions of Israel added supplements, in onler to mitigate unqualified messages of doom, or for other purposes of edification. This is a principle, however, in the application of which tliere must naturally be very great difference of opinion. The conclusions do largely depend on the subjectivity of the critic ; and, speaking generally (which is all that the space of this article permits), it must be said that Cheyne's reasons for withdrawing passages from Isaiah are sometimes very hypo- thetical, and tliat, to say the least, there often exist in the periods to which he assigns these passages as many difficulties as in the age of Isaiah. There is not a little arbitrariness, as, for instance, when he says that the post-exilic origin of 2-"° is ' beyond reasonable doubt ' ; or in refer- ence to 15. 16 (which he takes to be not pre- but post-Isaian) ' was Isaiah the man to use another prophet's material ? ' There is sometimes an un- due depreciation of the literary (cf. p. 88) and spiritual abilities of the pre-exilie period in Israel, especially if one keeps in mind the womlerful com- position of the constituents of JE. And one may reasonably ask whether hope and comfort were not as much required by Israel, and not as likely to be contributed by her greatest prophet, in the 8th cent, as after the Exile. These considerations detract from the conclusiveness of Cheyne's power- ful and candid armiments. Some further de- tails may be noticed. Inch. 1, v^'.^'* and "■ ^ are taken from Isaiah, hardly with sufficient reason ; 4-"" is placed after the Exile, probably correctly ; on 9''* ' Hackmann is probably right, and better though still not conclusive reasons are offered for
a date later than Isaiah ; so with U'A In 13-23, 19 is iJl post-exilic (Skinner agrees that vv.'"-* are probably so). 23"""* is (in agreement with previous critics) a later addition. It is in 29-33 that Cheyne withdraws most from Isaiah : he gives strong reasons for tlie post-exilic date of 29'«-»', less strong for that of 30>«-=« ; 32 is also assigned to after the Exile, but hardly with sufficient reason, though strong objections to Isaiah's authorship are not unduly stated. 33 has been suspected as not autlientic since Ewald'g time. Kuenen placed it under Josiah or later, Stade after the Exile, and to the latter Cbiyne inclines. There are indeed several difficulties both of style and substance in assigning the cli. to Isaiah (cf. Skinner ; Driver leaves it with Isaiah). V. The Prophecies of the Messiah in Isaiah 1-39. — In addition to the examin.ition of tlie dillerent passages given above, the .Messi- anic element in Is 1-39 requires a more general discussion, not only because of its intrinsic im- portance, but on account of the tendency of recent
criticism to deny that the Messiah appeared at all in the prophecy of Israel before the Exile. Tliis thesis, stated by Marti {Gesch. der Isr. Eel. I'M),