RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Isaiah
disappeared from the stage of history, and in his stead Israel's oppressors are the Babylonians (xliii. 14, 25, xlvii. 1 sqq.^ xlviii. 14, 20). In the third section Jerusalem is described as lying in ruins and desolate (xliv. 26b, lviii. 12, lxi. 4, lxiii. 18, lxiv. 10-11), while in the first part she is still standing, the object of lieFehemies' attacks andftfie special ward of Jehovah (i.-xxix. 1-8, 36-J&T In addition to these distinguishing features^the two parts differ greatly in spirit; the latter is a book of consolation, the very first word being " comfort " (xl. 1), while the former is made up of threatening and judgment, the tone of arraignment struck Jjv chap. i. appearing in one form or other clear through to chap. xxxv. While in this connection stress is not laid upon the fact that the phraseology is in striking contrast, as this frequently leads to a mechanical argument, the difference in diction may not be passed over lightly, as the careful reader notices the change even in the English version, while one accustomed to using Hebrew almost instinctively notes the passing from a piece of literature in a style " condensed, lapidary and plastic," to one that is clear and flowing. In chaps, i.xxxix. the emphasis is laid upon the majesty of Yahweh (ii. 10 sqq., 17, 19 sqq., x. 5 sqq., etc.), in xl.-lxvi. on his infinitude""(xl. 12-26-xli. 4, etc.), in the third section the personal Messiah is depicted as the righteous and suffering servant (xlii. 1-4, xlix. 1-6, 1. 4-9, hi, 13-liii. 12) instead of the ideai'' king of the future (vii. 14, ix. 1-6, xi. 1-5).
Such differences as these were deemed valid grounds for dating Isa. xl.-lxvi. in the sixth century by almost every great commentator of the last century (Gesenius, Ewald, Knobel, Dillmann, Delitzsch in his last edition, Cheyne, Orelli,
3. Results Duhm, G. A. Smith). Dillmann charof acterized this view as " one of the sur-
Criticism. est results of modern literary investigation." Since Delitzsch in the fourth edition of his commentary (1889) went over to this position, it may truthfully be said that no scientific exegetical work has held to the traditional view of the unity of the Book of Isaiah. In America the assignment of Isa. xl.-lxvi. to the sixth century was strenuously opposed in magazine articles by Prof. W. H. Green of Princeton {Presbyterian and Reformed Review, vol. iii.), but this school of theology has produced no work of exposition on the prophecies of Isaiah since the appearance of that commentary of first rank by J. A. Alexander (1846, rev. ed. 1865). The argument from " the analogy of prophecy " worked this complete revolution in critical opinion. That a prophet primarily addresses his contemporaries; that, however far he may project himself into the future, his point of departure is his own age; that he paints the distant scene of the remotest future in the colors of his own day; that he plants his feet firmly upon the events of his own time, before he attempts to scan the distant horizon — these are principles recognized as axiomatic by all interpreters of prophecy. If they are correctly assumed, Isa. xl.-lxvi. can not be assigned to Isaiah, the son of Amoz. In fact, the exilic background of these chapters has been recognized by some of the most zealous de-
fenders of the Isaianic authorship, but it has been attributed to ' ' the prophet's ideal point of view " (Keil; cf. Hengstenberg).
Having attained this result, criticism did not halt, for the argument from the analogy of prophecy will not leave the first part of the work intact (chaps, i.-xxxv.). As early as Eichhorn (1783) it was applied to this section, and re-
4. Anal- suited in the denial of the genuineness ysis or 0f a number of passages. (A) The
. _XX3Cjx oracle on the fall of Babylon (xiii. 1xiv. 23) was assigned to the Babylonian exile, because the Medes are mentioned as the instruments of the destruction (xiii. 17), and Babylon is described as the supreme world power of that age (xiii. 11, 19, xiv. 4-5, 12 sqq., 16-17). (2)' In the critical disposition of passages, xxi. 1-10 is naturally associated with xiii. 1-xiv. 23, for in it the prophet describes the fall of Babylon, and refers to Elam and Media (verse 2) in terms which would be more natural to a prophet of the sixth century than to Isaiah of the eighth. (U^With these two sections just noted go chaps, xxxiv. and xxxv. The latter is a beautiful lyric which is a mosaic of phrases and imagery borrowed from Deutero-Isaiah (the title provisionally assigned to the author of part three) ; the former is assigned to the exile, because of the bitter hatred and dire vengeance against Edom which it breathes (xxxiv. 5 sqq., 8 sqq.; cf. Ps. cxxxvii. 7). (4) While, in regard to the section Isa. xxiv.-xxvii. there is a general agreement that it is not., the work of Isaiah, no consensus of opinion has been reached as to the age to which it should be assigned. Conservative critics are inclined to be satisfied with placing it in the days of the Persian empire. Dates, varying from the reign of Darius Hystaspis (520-485) to that of Artaxerxes Ochus (359-339), have been given. Here the argument from Biblical theology overshadows that based upon the analogy of prophecy. No explicit historical references occur; the imagery is apocalyptic in character, which in itself points to the age of the decay of prophecy. The writer's ideas of the future life — immortality, xxv. 8, and the resurrection, xxvi. 19 — are distinct advances on those of Isaiah's age, but the traces of Persian angelology commonly alleged are not so evident. Critical opinion is divided about the age of chap, xxiii. The only reason for denying the Isaianic character of this passage is the occurrence of the phrase " Behold the land of the Chaldeans " (verse 13). The text is extremely uncertain and has led to emendations; instead of Chaldeans, Ewald suggested Canaanites, and Duhm offers Chittim. It may justly be regarded as an Isaianic passage to be assigned either to 723 or to 701 b.c. Such was the view of critical scholarship before the rise of the modern fragmentary hypothesis which has been advocated by Duhm and Marti in their commentaries (1892, 1900), and by Cheyne in his Introduction to the Book of Isaiah (1895). These three exegetes leave only a very small part of chaps, i.-xxxix. to Isaiah, and Cheyne has tersely enunciated the principles and results of this school, " It is too bold to maintain that we still have any collection of Isaianic prophecies which in its pres-
Isaiah Ishbosheth