« PoprzedniaDalej »
point of time, would stand nearest our chapters. Yet what a difference between those and these in respect to the character of the language in general. Contrasted with this great difference, the relatively few singularities that are urged in favor of the exile origin of our chapters cannot be regarded. If we consider how many-sided the spirit of Isaiah is, and how he knows how to fit the form to the contents, we cannot wonder if he uses up the entire store of words at his command, and therefore at times draws from popular speech, from kindred dialects and even from foreign languages, and here and there allows himself to diverge from the normal modes of expression with a rhetorical art, whose fineness we are not always in condition to appreciate. Doubtless, too, many an expression that occurs only in later writers is to be referred to Isaiah as its source. To this is to be added that Isaiah no doubt wrote our chapters in the latest period of his life, that therefore a period of forty or more years, perhaps, separate his latest and earliest literary productions, and that the, in many respects, new contents naturally conditioned a corresponding new form. EwALD says of the genuine Isaiah: “As the subject requires, he has easily at command every sort of speech and every change of representation, and that establishes his greatness, and also in general is one of his most prominent advantages.” (Proph. d. A. B. I. p. 173, comp. HENGSTENBERG, Christol. II. p. 213). And yet, regardless of this recognized peculiarity of Isaiah, and spite of the existing relationship in respect to form so recognized, men will deny that chapters xl.-lxvi., are Isaiah's l I would add still further, that much that is urged as proof of difference is to be put to the account of the few interpolations that I think I must assume (see the commentary). Thus I might be held excused from entering upon the consideration of the several points that are urged in regard to style and language. Yet I will investigate a few of these points by way of example, in order to show how little reliable the critical results are. Thus KNOBEL urges that the author frequently doubles words for the sake of emphasis, i. e., applies the rhetorical figure of anadiplosis or epanalepsis. He quotes in proof xl. 1; xli. 27; xliii. 11, 25; xlviii. 11, 15; li. 9, 12, 17; lii. 1, 11; lvii. 6, 14, 19; lxii. 10; lzv. 1. But this form of speech occurs not seldom in the passages recognized as genuine: viii. 9; xviii. 2, 7; xxi. 11; xxviii. 10, 13; xxix. 1. If we add to this that it appears also in the assailed passages of part first (xv. 1; xxi. 9; xxiv. 16; xxv. 1; xxvi. 3, 5, 15; xxvii. 5; xxxviii. 11, 17, 19), we can only say that it is, after all, a peculiarity of our Prophet that answers to the liveliness of his spirit. In these chapters are found “a great many expressions that occur only in them, or at least only in the later books beside, and that for the most part need to be explained from the Aramaic,” says KNobFL (p. 335). As regards the many à Ta; Aeyóueva, they furnish no proof in themselves. For even in the unassailed passages such are found in great number. Their use is to be explained by this, that the Prophet completely commanded the entire vocabulary of his language, and hence, for the more fitting expression of some turns of thought, drew from some province of language not otherwise known to us. If many such expressions occur only once in Isaiah, and are found beside only in later writers, it ought first to be proved that the latter did not borrow from Isaiah. Regarding the statement that these expressions must for the most part be explained from the Aramaic, it must be remembered that in very many instances the etymology is doubtful. Beside, it is quite possible that the root of the words in question received in the Aramaic branch of the language a stronger, in the Hebrew a weaker development. But, as has been said, Isaiah used less frequent words, and forms of language and discourse, as he needed them. The commentary offers the proof of all this. The word Do? (xli. 25), which KNobel, says is Persian, is now most conclusively proved to be Assyrian (comp. Schr ADER, Die Keilinschriften u. d. A. T. p. 254, 32; 270, 15; 279, 6). For the rest we refer to the List prepared by me with great pains, and to be found at the close of the volume. It offers a convenient survey of the vocabulary of chapters xl.-lxvi. It may be seen there what words and word forms (and to some extent, turns of expression) occur in both parts, and what in only part second, and what are absolute or relative àta; 28)6Heva. This collection contains all the words that occur, excepting such words as can properly mark no characteristic difference. By this means I have put a considerable weight into the scale of criticism. But, on the one hand, this exacts the scientific rule of debate, which forbids arguing er dubiis. On the other hand this disadvantage is more than balanced by the advantage that the result, which, as it seems to me, favors the authenticity of chapters xl.-lvi., may be recognized as all the more assured. It is true that from this arrangement of the survey it also becomes plain that several of the controverted passages of part first, expressly xxxiv.–xxxv., aro very nearly related to the chapters xl.-lxvi., belonging, as they doubtless do, to the same period of the Prophet's life. I would add that the collection in so far gives an unsatisfactory representation, that, though it shows where each word occurs in Isaiah, it does not show where it is to be found beside; therefore, especially, it does not appear in it whether a word belongs to the older or more recent period of the language. Space did not allow me to embrace this feature in the collection: yet the commentary makes up as much as possible what is wanting. The sum of the matter is: it will appear from the comparison that chapters xl.lxvi, do indeed differ considerably in language from the passages of Isaiah that are recognized as genuine; but that still that there is so much that is common to both, that these differences afford no satisfactory reasons for denying Isaiah's authorship of the chapters in question. I may be charged with inconsistency because, in reference to the genuineness of Lamentations, I attached such considerable weight to singularities of language as proving that Lamentations had not Jeremiah for their author, whereas I do otherwise in reference to Isa. xl.-lxvi. But, apart from the fact that the differences in language in the case of Isa. xl.-lxvi., seem to me less than those observed in the case of Lamentations, I am of the opinion that Isa. xl.-lvi, as a whole must be acknowledged to be as decidedly like Isaiah in character, as the Lamentations taken as a whole are unlike Jeremiah. When I make the above admission of general difference between the first and second parts of Isaiah, I must still emphasize here, that the first chapter of our book, i.e., the first introduction, forms a remarkable exception. For this chapter has plain traces of relationship to chapters xl.-lxvi. Now no one doubts the genuineness of chap. i. But if that is acknowledged, then, presupposing that relationship, one must decide in favor of the genuineness of xl.-lxvi. That such a relationship acttally exists may be seen from the following comparison, in which are enumerated those expressions that occur only in chap. i. and xl.-lxvi. (or in the contemporaneous chapters of part first, that are likewise pronounced not genuine).
Of course this list offers primarily only dry words and figures. But whoever examines closely will see that very characteristic traits are represented by them. Thus it is certainly not an accident
that the expressions bo and no, found in the reproofs addressed to the idolatrous nation still in exile, occur again only in chap. i. The Dog are mentioned i. 27 only in the same connection as in lix. 20, i.e., in connection with the idea of the restoration of law and justice. What meaning the * 5ty has in xl.-lxvi. will appear below. Can it be an accident that this conception occurs only i. 4, 28 and lxv. 11? Just as little as the use of yo noted in the foregoing list. The notion nowsh plays a great part in these chapters. How does it happen that it is only mentioned beside in i. 26? Nothing is said in the whole book of not and to on except at the beginning and end, as noted above. The same is the case with nat " 'E *s, with fox n-, with UP3, Run, all), no), 2n, on and all the modes of expression cited above. It is incontestible that the Prophet in chap. i. accords in many ways precisely with the sphere of thoughts in which he had moved in chaps. xl.-lxvi. And that agrees admirably with the view, in which we have followed DRECHSLER and others, that chap. i. was exactly the last piece written. For in that case it is quite natural that in this piece numerous agreements should appear with the final parts of the work just completed. And how very exactly the words i. 7-9 correspond to the situation of the land under Hezekiah, when the king of the land was isolated and shut up in his capital “like a bird in its cage" How admirably, too, it suits the grand, threefold entrance, that the author had before him in its chief substance the whole of his great work! REPLY To OBJECTION THREE.—Jer. xxvi. is cited as proof that the prophets who prophesied after Isaiah and before the exile did not know the chaps. xl.-lxvi. It is said that Jeremiah, having incurred the peril of his life by announcing the destruction of Jerusalem and of the holy places, would certainly in self-protection have appealed to these chapters had he been acquainted with them. This is a very weak objection. For, in the first place, what we read Jer. xxvi. 4-6 is only the quintessence of what he had to announce at that time. Yet even in this quintessence it is intimated that Jeremiah appealed to existing prophecies. For it is said there: “If ye will not hearken to me, to walk in my law, which I have set before you, to hearken to the words of my servants the prophets, whom I sent unto you, then will I make this house like Shiloh,” etc. Who can maintain that Jeremiah, if he mentioned the prophets that the Lord sent, did not cite, also some expression of theirs? The summary statement Jer. xxvi. 5 certainly does not exclude this. But if he did so, was he obliged to quote precisely Isa. xl.-lxvi. ? These chapters do not even discourse about the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple, but of their restoration. The sole passage that speaks of the destroyed sanctuaries is lxiv. 10, 11. But precisely this passage J eremiah could not quote, see
ing that (according to our view) it did not at that time exist. Any way this arguing a silentio proves too much, and therefore proves nothing. For since there cannot be found in Jeremiah xxvi. quotations from any other older prophecies that directly predict this destruction, one must conclude with the same justice that all reputed older prophecies of the sort were not in existence in Jeremiah's time. Take e. g., Isa. v. 5 sqq.; vi. 11; Hos. v. 14; Amos ii. 4 sq.; vi. 1 sqq.-Here criticism uses Jeremiah's silence to draw from it an argument against the genuineness of Isa. xl.-lxvi. In other places, where Jeremiah and his fellow-prophets after the time of Isaiah actually quote Isa. xl., lxvi., criticism will have that it is no quotation from our chapters, but a quotation on the part of the author of chapters xl.-lxvi. of the passages in question. The passages principally concerned here are the following:—
This list is by no means complete. It contains only a selection. We shall mention below a much larger number of parallel passages and examine them. Comp. also KUEPER, Jer, librorum ss. interpr. atque rinder, 1837, p. 132 sqq. But it will suffice to prove in a few passages the priority of our chapters, and to establish it generally as an existing fact. Such striking passages are found above all in Nahum who, as to time, comes next after Isaiah. It is now definitely known from the Assyrian monuments that Asurbanapal, the son and successor of Asarhaddon, destroyed the Egyptian Thebes (No-Amon) in his second great military expedition (see Schrader, D. Keilinschriften u. d. A. T. p. 287 sqq.). Nothing is known of any other destruction of Thebes. Thebes declined gradually after the residence of the Pharaohs had been transferred to the Delta. According to the monuments, that expedition of Asurbanapal occurred in the period immediately after the death of Tirhāka (664 B. c.). The destruction of Thebes, therefore, happened about the year 663. But Nahum, in whose mind this event was fresh, must have written soon after, say about the year 660 (as SchEADER conjectures, l.c.). If this was so, then it appears indubitable that chapters xl.-lxvi. had already been written. For certainly no candid man can controvert that Nahum ii. 1, is a diluted conglomeration from Isa. lii. 7, 1 and li. 23. Notice especially the construction Tby *, or 12-83, Isa. lii. 1 compared with †-op? Ty Tpr No in Nahum. In the latter not only is the Infin. --yo, the normal and easier construction compared with the harsher construction with the terb. fin. (which is common in Isaiah; see i. 19; vi. 13; xxix. 4; xlv. 21; xlvii. 1, 5; lii. 1; lxiv. 4, but never occurs in Nahum), but *śy is evidently borrowed from Isa. li. 23, yet is connected, not with Toy, which would be most natural, but with the 13 that is found in Isaiah. See moreover the commentary. It can be just as little controverted that Nah. iii. 7 and 10 find their pattern and source in Isa. li. 19, 20. For the proof see the commentary. Zeph. ii. 15 announces itself as a citation by the words ryn nxt. roy is specifically one of Isaiah's expressions, and as for Toyo, in no book does D38 occur so often as in Isaiah (see the comment). The words *] pn") bon join *ot mx3x min' Isaiah li. 15 are found in Jer. xxxi. 35 where they are quoted in proof of the unchangableness of the order of nature given by God. But the words are applicable in this sense
only when used of the ebb and flow of the tide. The words, in themselves considered, only signify that God is able by His omnipotence to stir up the sea into mighty heaving waves. This happens chiefly by storms. For the regular rising of the tide is not necessarily attended with mighty heaving waves. The reference to the ebb and flow of the tide is put into the words. Thus the words Isa. li. 15 stand in their original sense, and hence manifestly in their original place (see the comm., in loc, and also on Jer. xxxi. 35). The words or x', upon Isa. lvii. 20, spoken of the stirred up sea, are applied in Jer. xlix. 23 to the population of a city set in commotion by bad news. Here, too, one may see that Jeremiah has only transferred the words, and applied them in quite a special sense that does not quite agree with their original sound. For in Isa. the wicked are compared to the never-resting sea that ceaselessly casts up foam and dirt. There the expression '75)" to upwn is quite in place. But may one say that the populace of a city is continually in a commotion such as bad news occasions? Therefore Jeremiah characterizes a transitory condition with words that properly and originally can only describe a continuing state. Let us notice also that we find in Zechariah (vii.7) a very express testimony that our chapters, which he uses in many ways, were composed by one of the “old prophets” at a time “when Jerusalem was inhabited and prosperous, and the cities thereof round about her, when men inhabited the south and the plain.” See for particulars the comment on Isa. lviii. 6 sqq. REPLY To OBJECTION FourTH.—It is alleged that in the TALMUD Isaiah follows Ezekiel, because at that time already part second, written at the close of the exile, had been bound to part first, and both parts indeed were currently received as Isaiah's; yet an obscure hint of Isaiah not being the author was given by putting the book of two parts after Ezekiel (see FUERST, D. Kanon des A. T., ... p. 16). EICHHORN was the first to use this, and since then it has been continually repeated (see GESENIUs, I. 1, p. 22; HITzig, p. 475; KNobel, edited by DIESTEL, p. XXVIII., etc.). According to EICHHORN, the book of Isaiah is an anthology of prophecies, all the authors of which are unknown, excepting only Isaiah. The book of the twelve minor prophets also he would make out to be an anthology, but of prophets all of whom are known. Now because the latter anthology contained several names (Zech., Hag., Mal.) that were more recent than the most recent in the Isaiah anthology, this last named was placed before the other, between it and Ezekiel. EICHHORN says this in Part III., & 528 of his Introduction (and that even in the first edition of 1783). But in Part I., 37 he does not seem to have known that the order “Jer, Ezek., Isa.” occurs already in the TALMUD. He ascribes it to the more recent manuscripts, by which doubtless must be meant the German and Gallican; for the Spanish MSS., like the Masorets, put Isaiah before. But if now EICHHoRN regards this placing Isaiah after as a change which the Jews made “on account of certain and unknown causes, often on account of wonderful caprice,” may not the same be said of those old Jews that fancied the order found in the TALMUD7 Even WITRINGA (p. 21, ed. Basil) calls attention to the fact that, according to the TALMUD, Jeremiah wrote the Books of Kings (BABA BATRA, 15 a, FUERst, Kanon des A. T., p. 14). And, in fact, Jer, lii. is nearly identical with 2 Kings xxiv. 18 —xxv. 30. Therefore, because Jeremiah was regarded as the writer of the last book of the prophetae priores, his prophetical book was made the first of the prophetae posteriores. Then Isaiah must be put either between Jer. and Ezek., or after Ezekiel. The latter was resolved on under the influence of the fashion of gauging the principal contents of these books then current. Reproving was thought to be Jeremiah's characteristic (on noz, totus in vastatione), Ezekiel's to be half reproving, half consolatory (Roy npit, sonin Atom), Isaiah's to be altogether consolatory (snon, no). Thus was obtained a very fitting gradation. Isaiah, of course, is not wholly consolatory. But he may be considered so in the same degree that Jeremiah is considered to be wholly reproving. Putting Jeremiah and Ezekiel together may also have been occasioned by the fact that they were contemporaries, both prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans and the exile, both were witnesses of the judgment, the end of which Isaiah announced as the beginning of the glorious period of salvation. After all this it may well be regarded as a bold assertion, that the position assigned to the Prophet by talmudic tradition is to be taken as a proof of the exile authorship of part second. Besides we can refer to a witness that is older than the TALMUD, and easily holds the balance against the latter. That is Jesus SIRACH, who in his catalogus virorum illustrium (Ecclus. xliv-l.) enumerates the great prophets in their order: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel (Ecclus. Xlviii. 17—rlix. 9). He puts the twelve minor prophets as following these (xlix. 10). Of Isaiah in particular he says (xlviii. 22–25): “Ezekias was strong in the ways of David his father, as Esay the Prophet, who was great and faithful in his vision, ($v ćpáoet airoi), had com