veral prophecies into this one book, about the end of the Babylonish captivity; but others have already remarked that this passage may have been taken by Isaiah from Mic. iv. 1-3 or by Micah from Isaiah,* or by both from some more ancient prophecy.

II. Chaps. xi. and xii. have been supposed not to belong to Isaiah, because, c. xi. 11-16, the very distant event of the return of the Israelites from Assyria and Egypt and other regions, is predicted. But this return was predicted also by Micah, the contemporary of Isaiah, by Hosea, and by Amos.†

III. The prophecy c. xv. xvi. is thought to have been written three years before the devastation of Moab by Nebuchadnezzar xiv. 13. s., because Zephaniah, ii. 8. ss., and Jeremiah c. xlviii., threaten the Moabites with the same calamity. But who can show that Isaiah did not speak of another calamity to be inflicted upon them by the Assyrians? or who would suppose that the Assyrians spared the Moabites? Their country was devastated, therefore, as Isaiah foretold, by the Assyrians, and then again by the Chaldeans, of whom Zephaniah and Jeremiah prophesied. That this prophecy of Isaiah was much older than the time of Jeremiah, is certain; for Jeremiah, c. xlviii. borrows many ideas from it, as must be evident to every one who compares the two. That it is the production of Isaiah himself, is shown by the time of its fulfilment being stated, which is according to Isaiah's usual practice. See vii. 14—17. viii. 4. s.

IV. No other reason is brought to prove that the passage c. xix. 18-25. is not Isaiah's, than this, that in the same chapter, v. 1-15. a prophecy of the calamity of Egypt had preceded, whereas v. 18— 25. predict prosperity. But this is nothing more than is common with the prophets-to promise better fortune after predicting calamity. As the Egyptians are called, v. 25, the people of JEHOVAH, and the Assyrians, the work of the hands of JEHOVAH, the prophecy must necessarily have been the production of a Hebrew, and it is much more probable that Isaiah should have written it, than any more modern author.

[This is the opinion of BERTHOLDT. Tr.]

[These chapters are allowed by DE WETTE, Einleit. S. 292., although rejected by Gesenius. Tr.]

V. Isa. xxii. 1-14, is rejected as spurious because the Elamites are mentioned, v. 6; but from a comparison of v. 8-11, with II Chr. xxxii. 2-5. and Isa. vii., it appears that the subject is the irruption of Sennacherib: the mention of the Elamites, therefore, must be at least as old as the time of Isaiah: why, then, seek for any other author than Isaiah, who is mentioned in the title of the prophecy ?*

VI. They who contend that it is not natural that Isaiah should have uttered so many prophecies concerning the irruption of Sennacherib alone, do not consider that this event was one of great importance, and contributed very much to confirm the Hebrews in their religion, so that it well deserved a multitude of prophetic notices. The style and construction, too, confirm the opinion that they are productions of Isaiah, since they do not differ more from each other in this respect, than do the various Conferences of Hariri, or the different Psalms of David.

VII. The prophecy, Isa. xxiv-xxvii., is referred to a more recent date, on account of the frequent occurrence of paronomasia. Now we know that these are considered singular beauties in the oriental style, and that Micah the contemporary of Isaiah makes frequent use of them, so that they are no proof of a recent date. Besides, Isaiah himself elsewhere frequently uses paronomasia. See Isa. i. 7, 23, iii. 1, 5. vii. 7, 8, 22. s. xxix. 16., comp. Hos. i. 4. s. v. 1., Mic. i. 14. s. iii. 12. iv. 10.

and

VIII. The xxxivth chapter of Isaiah, in which the devastation of Idumea is predicted, is thought to be of later origin because the same devastation is predicted by Jeremiah xlix. 7. ss., and by Ezekiel, xxv. 12. ss., and after a long time was first effected by Nebuchadnezzar, which is thought to be too distant from the time of the prophet. But it has not been disproved that Isaiah is speaking, c. xxxiv., of another calamity, to be inflicted on Idumea by the Assyrians, of which Amos, c. i. 11-15., had spoken before him.

IX. The xxxvth chapter of Isaiah is entirely destitute of anything which could give countenance to the supposition of a more recent origin, and v. 8. comp. II Ki. xvii. 25, proves it to belong to the age of Hezekiah.

* (DE WETTE, Einleit. S. 292., considers this passage as certainly genuine. Tr.]

§ 106. The Prophecy against Tyre, Isa. xxiii.

The prophecy concerning the destruction of Tyre by the Chaldeans, Isa. xxiii., points out its own age in v. 13., where the Chaldeans are said to be a recent nation, to whom a district of country lying on the Euphrates had been assigned by the Assyrians, who must, consequently, have been at that time the prevailing power. For as Habbakuk also, who lived under Manasseh, asserts (i. 6.) that the Chaldeans were a late people, who were endeavouring to possess themselves of the territories of others, it is plain that the time of the delivery of the prophecy in Isa. xxiii. could not have been far distant from that of Habbakuk. It is indeed uncertain whether Isaiah lived till the reign of Manasseh; but as the Chaldeans made frequent irruptions out of their own settlements in the eastern and northern parts of Armenia into the more southern territories, during a long period of time, without doubt these incursions had begun as early as the latter years of the reign of Hezekiah, since the kingdom of Assyria was at that time so much weakened by the assassination of Sennacherib and the intestine tumults which followed that event, as to afford a sufficient inducement for such expeditions.Without sufficient reason also is it asserted that the 70 years mentioned Isa. xxiii. 10, are a prophetic number taken from Jeremiah, xxv. 11. §. xxix. 10., and that therefore the whole prophecy must be later than the time of Jeremiah. If either of the prophets borrowed this number from the other, it is certainly more reasonable to conclude that Jeremiah, who, we know, has borrowed from prophets more ancient than himself, took it from the prophecy of Isaiah, than that the author of this prophecy, who every where else appears to rely solely upon his own resources, was indebted for it to Jeremiah. What confirms this conclusion is, that particular specifications of time are altogether in character with Isaiah's manner. The distance of the event predicted is no objection; for Amos had before the time of Isaiah, denounced the destruction of Tyre.The Chaldaisms, Isa. xxiii. 11.

to לשמר מעזניה,will disappear, if we point the words לשמר מעזניה

§ 107. Prophecies against Babylon.

The prophecies concerning the overthrow of the Chaldæo-Babylonian kingdom, and concerning the return of the Hebrews from cap. tivity, Isa. xiii. 1—14, 23. xxi. and xl-lxvi, are referred to the time of the captivity, for the following reasons.

I. The difference of style: for in the last twenty-seven chapters, the better part of the people is distinguished as the servant or worshipper of JEHOVAH, xli. 8. s. xlii. 1. ss. xliv. 1. xlviii. 12, 20. xlix. 7. lii. 13, which is not the case in the former part of the book.- -Idolatry is exposed to derision and contempt, xl. 19. s. xliv. 9—17. xlvi. 5— 7, an exhibition not to be found in those passages of the former part, g. ii. 19, wherein idolatry is reprehended.The accomplishment of former prophecies is frequently noticed, xli. 21-24, 26-29. xliv. 6. s. xlv. 21. xlviii. 5, which argues a modern author and is not to be found in the first part.-Lastly, words and phrases of frequent occurrence in the first part, are not discoverable in the second.

e.

II. The particularity of the prophecies, and the distance of the events from the time of their prediction. In the age of Isaiah there was no Chaldean monarchy, nor were the Medes and Elamites, who are predicted to be the destroyers of the Chaldean monarchy, nations of any celebrity. From the fourteenth year of Hezekiah to the founding of that monarchy was ninety years: it was one hundred and fifteen to the birth of Cyrus. who was appointed general of the Median army in the one hundred and fifty-fifth year after Hezekiah, and it was not until the one hundred and seventy-sixth year that he overthrew the Chaldean monarchy. Yet our prophet so long before sees Judea and Jerusalem devastated by the Chaldeans, xlv. 26-28; discerns the kingdom which had brought such destruction upon Judea verging to its ruin, and its enemies already rushing from the north, xlii. 14. xli. 2, 25: and even designates Cyrus twice by his very name as the deliverer of the Hebrews, xliv. 28. xlv. 1.

III. The prophecies of events as far as the time of Cyrus are clear and perspicuous; but those which refer to later times are obscure; hence it may be concluded that the author was contemporary with Cyrus. For if it had pleased God to grant such very clear prophecies in times so far remote, and even to reveal the name of Cyrus ;

why is it said, xlv. 14, that the Hebrews after their return to their country, should participate in the commerce of the Cushites and Sabæans, when, as is evident from Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi, the event was not so? Nor were the great promises made c. lx. 6-10, ever fulfilled. The contemporaries of Isaiah certainly never could have been able to discern that those things which were prophesied concerning Cyrus should be literally fulfilled, but the others only in part, and figuratively.

§ 108. The prophecies against Babylon are the productions of Isaiah.

I. The language, style and composition are certainly not such as must necessarily be referred to the time of the captivity, and could not have been produced by Isaiah. On the contrary, the purity of the language, the sublimity of the style, and the elegance of the composition, are such as could not be expected from the leaden age of Hebrew literature; but show their origin to have been in the silver age. Comp. above, Part II. § 104. The difference of style in the two parts is not greater than the difference of Micah, i-v. from vi. vii. and is less than that which may be observed in Hosea, i. iii, compared with ii. iv-xiv, or in Amos i-vi. compared with vii. viii, or in the different psalms of David. The occurrence of some words or phrases not to be found in the other writings of the age of Isaiah, proves nothing for it is not to be expected that in the small remains of Hebrew literature, all the words and phrases of any particular age should repeatedly occur. Yet there are in the writings in question exceedingly few words or phrases of this kind.[a]—On the contrary, the accustomed vehemence of Isaiah, the same dismemberment of objects, and the same antithesis between Jacob and Israel, are observable in both parts of these prophecies. All the difference is, that the prophet in the first part was censuring wickedness, in the latter endeavours rather to teach and console, as the nature of his subject required yet even here he sometimes inveighs against different vices, lvi. 9--lvii. 12. lviii. 1-7. lix. 1—8. lxv. 11-14. If Isaiah wrote these prophecies in the latter years of his life, it is easy to conceive that the prophet now old (in the time of Manasseh, as appears from every part of these prophecies,) filled with consolatory pros