the former head, the sole ground urged is the standpoint occupied by the writer of the later chapters, which is that of an exile in Babylon, writing when Jerusalem and the temple have long lain in ruins, and the Jews are becoming dispirited at the apparent refusal of God to interpose in their behalf; under the latter come the sarcastic descriptions of idolatry, the appee.ls to the victories of Cyrus, the references to the influence of the angelic powers (eh. xriv. 21), the resurrection of the body (eh. xxvi. 19), the everlasting punishment of the wicked (eh. I. 11; lxvi. 24), and the idea of vicarious atonement (eh. liii.).1 It was only after Isaiah had been split up into fragments upon the ground of the contents of the different portions, that the argument from differences in the style of different parts occurred to the critics, and was brought forward as subsidiary. Even now no great stress is laid upon it. It is admitted that questions concerning style e.re very much matters of taste, and that no unanimity can be expected ou them.• It is allowed that "the Great Unnamed," if a different writer from Isaiah, often imitated his style, and knew his prophecies by heart.• It is not even pretended that seven styles can be made out, corresponding to the seven Isaianic authors of Ewe.Id's list. The most that has been attempted is to prove two styles-an earlier and a. later; but even here the success of the efforts made is not great. In Germany the unity of the style has been maintained, in spite of them, by Jahn, Hengstenberg, Kleinert, Havernick, Stier, Keil, Delitzsch, and F. Windischmann; in England, by Henderson, Huxtable, Kay, Urwick, Dean Payne Smith, Professor Birks, and Professor Stanley Lee.thee. A recent advocate of the separatist theory seems almost to concede the point, when he sets himself to argue that unity of style does not necessarily imply unity of authorship, and so that " Isaiah " mJJ,y be a. work by several hands, even though the style be uniform.' •
§ 6. A DEFENCE or THE UNITY or THE Boox. The question whether" Isaiah" be the work of one writer or more, is to be regarded rather as one of literary interest than of theological importance. Nobody doubts but that the "book" existed in the form in which we have it during the time of our Lord and his apostles; and it is thus our present book which has their sanction as a portion of the inspired Word of God. This it is equally, whether it is the work of one prophet, or of severi, or of seventy. The controversy may therefore be conducted without heat or asperity, being one as purely literary as that of the unity of· the 'Odyssey' or the ' Iliad.' • 1 Cheyne, • The Book of Isaiah chronologically arranged.' p. xxill. It ia noticeable that, in two cases, these "late ideas" are contained in passages which Ewald BSsigc1 to Isaiah himself. • Cheyne, • Prophecies of Isa.iah,' vol ii p. 218, CoDlpare Moody-Stuart, 'The Bible Trne to ltBelf,' p. 416, who quote■ Prvfell801 Robertson 8D1ith and Bleek to the same eft'ec&. • Cheyne, ' Propheciea of lsaiall,' 1QL ij. p. ,232, • Ibid,, p. 219, THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET ISAIAll. :ui
The arguments in favour of the unity may be divided into the external and the internal. Of external arguments, the first and most ~mportant is that of the versions, especially the Septuagint, which is a. distinct evidence that, as early e.s about B.O. 250, the entire contents of the "book '' were ascribed to Isaiah the son of Amoz. It is said that the Psalms were similarly ascribed to David, though many were not of his composition; but this is not the fact. The Septuagint translators headed the Book of Psalms with the simple word " Psalms ; " and in their headings to particular psalms assigned several to authors other than David, as Moses, Jeremiah, A_eapb, Ethan,, Haggai, and Zachariah. The next external testimony is that of Jesus the son of Siraeh, the author of the Book of Ecclesiasticus. The writer is supposed to have lived about B.C. 180. He distinctly ascribes to the Isaiah who was contemporary with Hezekiah the portion of the work (eh. xl.-lxvi.) which the separatists of all shades assign to an author, or authors, of a later date (Ecclus. xlviii. 18-24). Now the prologue to the son of Sirach's work declares him to have been "a man of great diligence and wisdom among the Hebrews," and "no less famous for great learning," so that he may be assumed to deliver the judgment of the most learned among the Jews of his time. Isaiah's authorship of the later (disputed) chapters was further, most clearly, accepted by the writers of the New Testament and their contempo- raries-by St. Matthew (iii. 3, etc.); St. Mark (i. 2, Revised,Version), St. Luke (iii. 4-6); St. John (xii. 88); St. Paul (Rom. x. 16-21, etc.); St. John the Baptist (John i. 28); the Ethiopian eanuch (Acts viii. 28- 34); the elders of Nazareth (Luke iv. 16-20); Josephus (' Ant. Jud.,' ri. 1), etc. If the greater part of these were unlearned and uncritical men, yet St. Paul, at any rate, who was "brought up at the feet of Gamaliel '' (Acts x.xii. 3), had been fully instructed in the Scriptures, and "must have known," 88 :Mr. Urwick says, "if the learned Jews of his day recognized two Ieaiahs, or the absorption of the prophecies of a very great yet un- named exile into those of the first Isaiah." 1 J osephas was also a man of considerable reading and research; yet he unhesitatingly ascribes to Isaiah the composition of the prophecies respecting Cyrus (eh. xliv. 28, etc.). It may be confidently laid down that there was no Jewish tradition which taught that the "Book of Isaiah" was a composite work-a congeries of prophecies of various dates, and from the hands of various authors. Aben Ezra, who wrote in the twelfth century after our era, was the firs* critic who ventured on the suggestion that the prophecies of eh. xl.-1.xvi. might not be the actual work of Isaiah. Previously to his time, and again from his date until the close of the eighteenth century, not a breath of suspicion was uttered, not a whisper on the subject was heard. The Bo?k of Psalms was known to be composite; the Book of Proverbs bore on its face that it consisted of four collections (Prov. i. 1; xxv. 1; x:u::. 1 ; xxxi. I); but Isaiah was universally accepted as the confanuons wo1·k of one and ihe same author. 1 •The Setvant of Jehovah,' p, 11. nli INTRODUCTION TO