STUDIES IN ISAIAH by EDWARD J. YOUNG, Th.M., Ph.D. Professor of Old Testament Westminster Theological Seminary Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Mc \9@ LONDON THE TYNDALE PRESS 39 BEDFORD SQUARE, LONDON, W.C.1 ~PREFACE The following articles appeared originally in The Westmin- ster Theological Journal, and are reprinted here with the permission of the editors of that journal. They serve to acquaint the reader with recent criticism of Isaiah and to defend the New Testament interpretation of the book. One point at which the battle between faith and unbelief finds vigorous expression is found in the discussions which are being carried on over the prophecy of Isaiah. If these articles will be used of God to stem, at least in some measure, the rising tide of unbelief and to strengthen faith in this portion of His infallible Word, the writer will feel that his labor has not been entirely in vain. The writer hopes particularly that the dis- cussion of the Immanuel prophecy will cause evangelical scholars to proceed with caution and not to abandon the true meaning of the prophecy. The writer hopes that he may some day issue a detailed commentary on the book of Isaiah, and thus do something toward aiding in understanding the beautiful and tender words of the evangelical prophet. It remains only to acknowledge my gratitude to a former student, Mr. Joseph E. Holbrook, jr., for calling my attention to the importance of the Aramaic Incantation Text discussed in footnote 27, page 181. Edward J. Young July 23, 19541 THE STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE THE TIME OF JOSEPH ADDISON ALEXANDER N JUNE 21, 1836 Dr. Joseph Addison Alexander wrote in his diary, “I began my notes on Isaiah and wrote on the first ten verses of chapter xlix’’.* Exactly ten years later, the first volume of his commentary appeared, bearing the title The Earlier Prophecies of Isaiah, and this was followed a year later by the second volume The Later Prophecies of Isaiah. The work soon was out of print, so that in 1865, four years after the author’s death, a new edition appeared under the editorship of Dr. John Eadie of Edinburgh. The work of the “learned American’? stands out as a monument to the scholar- ship of the time and is a true milestone in the history of the interpretation of the evangelical Prophet. It is to celebrate the centennial of the publication of this unique commentary that the present article is written. I. ALEXANDER AND HIS COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH Joseph Addison Alexander was born in Philadelphia on April 24, 1809. At a very early age he manifested a love for the study of languages and music. Under the tutelage of his distinguished father, Archibald Alexander,’ the young Addison soon acquired a knowledge of several thousand Latin words.‘ 1 Henry Carrington Alexander: The Life of Joseph Addison Alexander, D. D., Vot. I, 1870, p. 414. The work comprises two volumes. 2'T. K. Cheyne: The Prophectes of Isaiah, A New Translation with Com- mentary and Appendices, I, 1884, p. 225, note 2. 3 J. W. Alexander: The Life of Archibald Alexander, D. D., New York, 1854, 4 The method which Alexander employed in teaching his son Latin was the same as that used by the famous student of languages, Cardinal Mez- zofanti. Addison Alexander later found this method of inestimable help in the acquisition of other languages. 9STUDIES IN ISAIAH When only ten years of age he commenced the regular study of Hebrew, and before entering college had begun the study of Arabic, Syriac and Persian. This diligent study of languages continued throughout his life, and Alexander proved to be a linguist of the highest order. According to the estimate of his biographer, he possessed a philological knowledge of the fol- lowing tongues as well as the ability to read, write and speak them: English, Latin, German, French, almost certainly Italian and Spanish and probably Portuguese. Arabic, He- brew, Persian, Greek, Romaic and Aramaic he both read and wrote and knew philologically. In addition to these lan- guages he read Ethiopic, Dutch, Sanskrit, Syriac, Coptic, probably Flemish and possibly Norwegian. He knew the grammar of Polish and Swedish and to some extent had know!l- edge of Malay and Chinese.’ Alexander, as is evident, was not merely a linguist but a philologian, and his wide knowledge admirably fitted him for writing Biblical commentaries. He possessed, however, certain other qualifications which are indispensable for one who would expound the Scriptures. He had, as Charles Hodge pointed out, a sincere and humble piety coupled with frm faith in the Bible and reverence for the Bible as the Word of God.* From such a man we might well expect a great com- mentary, and our expectations are not disappointed. 5 Life, 11, pp. 863-864. A. A. Hodge: The Life of Charles Hodge, D. D., LL. D., New York, 1880, p. 560. Hodge’s estimate of Alexander is worthy of quotation. “In all my intercourse with men, though it has been limited, both in this coun- try and Europe, I never met with one having such a combination of wonder- ful gifts. The grace of God most to be admired was that, though of neces- sity perfectly familiar with all the forms of error held by the enemies of the truth, and especially the most insidious one of criticism, he had a most simple, child-like faith in the Scriptures, and the deepest reverence for the Word of God. Above all, his crowning glory was his spirituality and de- voted piety. We cannot properly estimate our loss till we think of what he was, and what he would have been, for he was only fifty-two years old, and the next ten years is the best period of such a man’s life” (op. cit., p. 437). In a sermon delivered on September 27, 1874, Hodge further re- marked, “I believe that I was rash enough to say on the floor of the General Assembly of 1860, that I thought Dr. Addison Alexander the greatest man whom I had ever scen. This was unwise: both because there are so many different kinds of greatness; and because I was no competent judge. I feel 10THE STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE ALEXANDER It was in 1835 that the idea of preparing a commentary upon Isaiah first entered Alexander's mind, and he immedi- ately set about gathering materials for the task. The work was difficult, and in 1842 he laid it aside to write upon the Minor Prophets. However, in 1843 he resumed his labors, and continued until the commentary was complete. His method of study is described by his youngest brother, “When he was writing his Commentary on Isaiah, he caused to be made two standing desks reaching from one end to the other of his large study. These were two stories high. On the lower story he placed the folios and quartos, and on the upper the octavos. I should estimate that these stands held about fifty volumes, all of them open. He would first pass down the line where the commentaries were, then go to the lexicons, then to other books; and when he was through, he would hurry to the table at which he wrote, write rapidly for a few minutes, and then return again to the books: and this he would repeat again and again, for ten or twelve hours together.... He was much troubled with toothache, and the hot weather affected him a good deal, and I have often heard him say that the best relief from both these annoyances was some difficult passage to explain.’’” From the author’s diary also we may discern his method of work. Under the entry of November 2, 1843, he writes, “Wrote four pages of my sermon before breakfast, and read Blunt on Genesis ix. and Nehemiah xi. in De Wette. Read Jarchi, Kimchi, Aben-Ezra, the Michlal Jophi, Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Junius, Cocceius, the Dutch Annotations, Pool’s Synopsis, Vitringa, Clericus, Gill, J. H. Michaelis, J. D. Michaelis, Lowth, Rosenmiiller, Augusti, Gesenius, Maurer, Hitzig, Hendewerk, Barnes, Henderson, De Wette, Ewald, and Umbreit, on Isaiah x. 33,34. Wrote the first draft of a commentary on these verses. At night wrote out my notes on the same.’’* free to say now, however, that I never saw a man who so constantly im- pressed me with a sense of his mental superiority — with his power to acquire knowledge and his power to communicate it. He seemed able to learn anything and to teach anything he pleased” (op. cit., p. 557). 7 Life, HI, p. 599. 8 ob. cit., H, p. 568. uSTUDIES IN ISAIAH Had he consulted personal preference, Alexander would probably have composed a popular commentary.’ However, various considerations led him to write for the ministry, in order to afford them ‘‘a. partial succedaneum for many costly books”, and to enable ‘‘them to profit by the latest philologi- cal improvements and discoveries, without the inconveniences and even dangers which attend a direct resort to the original authorities”. Underlying this purpose was the conviction that “the people may be best taught in such cases through their teachers, by furnishing a solid scientific basis for their popular instructions’.‘° ‘Through them”, he said with refer- ence to the clergy, ‘I may perhaps indulge the hope of doing something to promote correct opinions, and a taste for exe- getical pursuits, as means of intellectual and spiritual culture, even though this should prove to be my last as well as first contribution to the stores of sacred learning’. The resultant work is in every respect exemplary." Alex- ander’s commentary is marked, one might even say, is dis- tinguished, by its fidelity to the Bible as the Word of God and by its consistent defense of supernaturalism. Proceeding 9 John Hall: Forty Years’ Familiar Letters of James W. Alexander, D. D. Constituting, with the Notes, A Memoir of his Life, New York, 1860, II, p. 56. 10 Preface, The Earlier Prophecies of Isaiah, 1846, pp. HI f. ™ Life, I, p. 636. One of the most penetrating reviews of Alexander's commentary appeared in The Presbyterian Review, Edinburgh, Vol. XXI, Jan. 1848, pp. 63-78. The review, is on the whole very favorable but makes the fol- lowing criticisms. The reviewer (whose name does not accompany his article) feels that Alexander is too high in his praise of Vitringa, and upon some occasions is not altogether fair to Dr. Henderson, against whose posi- tion Alexander’s second volume is largely directed. Furthermore, the reviewer thinks that the commentary does not sufficiently indicate that inspiration is calm and solemn, in opposition to the ecstatic condition of frenzied false prophets; Alexander is thought to be too hard on the system of parallelisms, and his anti-Jewish prejudices are said to be too strong. More serious (and in the present writer’s opinion not entirely without merit) is the charge that the author’s conclusions “as to what the prophecies in general aim at” is defective. The full sense of important passages, it is charged, is sometimes overlooked, and the treatment of Isaiah 18, 24, 27, 34 and 66 is said to be “unsatisfactory”. Of particular interest is the criti- cism of Alexander's interpretation of the ‘‘Servant"’ passages as referring to a Corporate Person. The writer of the review believes that ‘‘Israel”’ in such passages is to be regarded as a name of Christ. 12THE STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE ALEXANDER upon the presupposition that the words of Isaiah are in reality Spirit-created words, the commentary exhibits a remarkable faithfulness to the Massoretic text. The Earlier Prophecies contains an introduction of sixty- two pages which begins with a discussion of the Hebrew and Greek words for “prophet”, “prophesy” and “prophecy” (pp. IX-XII). This is followed by a consideration of the prophetic institution as such, with particular attention de- voted to the question of the manner in which the prophet received his revelation and the position of the prophetical books in the Old Testament canon (pp. XII-~XX). Then occurs a treatment of the meaning of the name Isaiah and a brief survey of his life and times (pp. XX-X XIV). Alexander next proceeds to consider the question of the unity of the book. He discusses the New Testament allusions to Isaiah (pp. XXIV-XXV), and seeks to evaluate contempo- rary critical treatment of the prophecy (pp. XXV-XXIX). He rejects the “critical mania” of Koppe, Eichhorn and Bert- holdt and looks upon Rasenmiiller, De Wette and Gesenius as “representatives of a more moderate and later school” (p. XXVI). These men represent a “retrograde movement in the right direction”, which “‘as far as it goes has had a salutary influence, by making the criticism of the Hebrew text some- thing more than idle guess-work or fantastic child’s play” (idem). However, even these men are not free from the defects which pervade the school which they repudiate, and Alexander proceeds to point out the basic fallacies which underlie the “critical” procedure. These are: a) the assumption of the principle that ‘‘whatever any writer has said once, he must, as a general rule, have said again if not repeatedly” (p. XXXII); b) the allegation that ‘‘the style of certain passages is too prosaic, the metaphors too much confused, the rhythm too harsh, the allusions too obscure, the illustrations too familiar, the expression too inelegant, to be imputed to so great a writer (pp. XXXI-XXXII); c) the assumption that the prophets, even as poets and orators, ‘‘must be always doing their best’? (p. XXXII); d) ‘the vague and indeter- minate character of this criterion, as evinced by the diversity of its results” (p. XXXII); e) the “want of familiar and devotional acquaintance with the Scriptures” (p. XXXIII). 13STUDIES IN ISAIAH The author then sets forth the principles upon which his own commentary is based. These are: a) A critical conjec- ture only affords an additional alternative reading, and “multi- plies the objects among which we are to choose”. It does not of itself ‘‘determine’” the question in dispute” (p. XL); b) General presumption is against a change in the text (p. XL- XLI); c) “... the laws of interpretation may be well defined to be those of common sense, controlled by a regard to the divine authority and inspiration of the book, considered as a fact already established or received as true” (p. XLIII). The interpreter, thinks Alexander, cannot approach Isaiah with a neutral attitude toward the question of inspiration. ‘While the rationalist therefore avowedly proceeds upon the sup- position, that the book before him is and can be nothing more than a human composition, it is not only the right but the duty of the Christian interpreter to treat it as the work both of God and man, a divine revelation and a human composi- tion, the contents of which are never to be dealt with in a manner inconsistent either with the supposition of its inspira- tion or with that of its real human origin” (p. XLIII). In addition to the above principles, Alexander would add a few “exegetical maxims’: a) ‘‘All prophecies are not pre- dictions” (p. XLIV); b) All predictions are not ‘‘specific and exclusive, i. e. limited to one occasion or emergency, but many are descriptive of a sequence of events which has been often realized” (pp. XLIV-XLV); c) ‘All the predictions of Isaiah, whether general or specific, are not to be literally understood”’ (p. XLV); d) ‘The prophecies of this book are not to be always understood in a figurative or spiritual sense’’ (pp. XLV ff.). The Introduction closes with a lengthy account of the history of the study of Isaiah (pp. L-LXXIJ). This is one of the most valuable sections of the entire Introduction, since it presents the author's incisive evaluations of the works which were written before his time. The Commentary well fulfills the high expectations which had been raised for it by the Introduction. At the beginning of each chapter is a summary of the chapter’s contents. Each verse is then treated. The commentary proceeds upon sound philological principles, and exhibits a profound mastery of the Hebrew language. There are occasional references to the 14THE STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE ALEXANDER other Semitic languages, particularly the Arabic, but the work is not cluttered up by such references. There is also constant reference to interpretations which Alexander rejects, but the book is far more than a compendium of opinion. The great, supreme purpose of the author, which he does not lose from view for an instant, is to determine the true meaning of Isaiah. Even homiletical and practical reflections are omitted. The author bends every effort to present the thought of the prophet. This is his chief end, and this he accomplishes with remarkable success. The Later Prophecies of Isaiah is by no means inferior to the earlier work. According to Hodge, ‘The second volume of his Commentary on Isaiah, a closely printed octavo volume of five hundred pages, with all its erudition, was written, as I understand, during one summer vacation, which he passed in the city of New York. Few literary achievements can be compared to that."% The Commentary has as one of its principal aims a discussion of the views of Henderson and a refutation of the view that the promises are ‘‘suspended on the future restoration of the Jews to Palestine . . .’’.4 Like the first volume, this work also begins with a long Introduction.*s Alexander points out that one of the principal functions of the prophetic institutions was the exposition of the Law. This exposition was particularly important in Isaiah’s time since the Jews had lost sight of the true purpose of the Mosaic ritual and also entertained wrong views as to their relations with the surrounding nations (pp. vi-xi). From this discussion the author proceeds to point out the under- lying unity of Isaiah xl-Ixvi. Almost as though in anticipa- tion of Torrey, he indicates how few are the references in these chapters to Babylon and the Exile.” Alexander goes to some length in discussing the opinions of Gesenius and proceeds to refute the arguments which were generally introduced to deny the Isaianic authorship of these latter chapters ® Hodge, op. cit., p. 558. Cf. also Life, II, pp. 614, 635. ™ Preface, The Later Prophecies of Isaiah, 1847, p. iii. 5 pp. v-xl. © C, C. Torrey: The Second Isaiah, Edinburgh, 1928. Torrey, however, thinks that there are no such references. 15STUDIES IN ISAIAH (pp. xi-xxv).?7. These arguments are: a) alleged allusions to the Babylonish exile and b) the assertion that the diction, phraseology and style are not those of Isaiah. Against the denial of the Isaianic authorship of these chap- ters Alexander now brings forth some arguments of his own. These are: a) “That a writer confessedly of the highest genius, living at one of the most critical junctures in the his- tory of Israel, when the word of God began to be precious and prophetic inspiration rare, should have produced such a series of prophecies as this, with such effects upon the exiles and even upon Cyrus as tradition ascribes to them, and then have left them to the admiration of all future ages, without so much as a trace of his own personality about them, is a phe- nomenon of literary history compared with which the mystery of Junius is as nothing” (p. xxv); b) How did these anony- mous writings come to be attached to those of Isaiah when they had scarcely anything in common? Why is it that two thousand years passed before higher criticism discovered that they were first the work of many authors, then of one, and that this one was not Isaiah? (p. xxvi); c) The “ancient and uniform tradition of the Jews’; d) The “testimony of the general title’; e) The “influence exerted by these prophe- cies” on Cyrus; f) Ecclesiasticus’ recognition of the entire book as Isaiah’s; g) The “indiscriminate citation of its dif- ferent parts in the New Testament”; h) The writer repre- sents himself as living before some of the events which he describes; i) The “obvious allusions to Jerusalem and Judah as the writer's home”; j) The historical allusions to the state of the world are precisely similar to those in the genuine Isaiah; k) ‘‘The very structure of the prophecies relating to the exile” is “clear enough to be distinctly verified, and yet not so minute as a contemporary writer must have made them”; |) The ‘‘identity of Messiah here described with the Messiah of the undisputed prophecies” (pp. xxvi-xxvii). 11 Wilhelm Gesenius had published a translation of Isaiah 40-66 with critical and exegetical remarks under the title Der Prophet Jesaia, Leipzig, 1820. This was followed by his Phslologisch-kritischer und historischer Com- mentar tiber den Jesaia, 1821. 16THE STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE ALEXANDER Alexander next turns to a consideration of some of the interpretations of the later chapters of Isaiah which have from time to time made their appearance, and by means of discarding that which he believes to be erroneous, is able to lay the foundations for what he considers the correct interpretation. In form and in method of procedure, the second volume is like the first. At all points it exhibits the philological acumen and striving for accuracy which characterized the Earlier Prophecies. One point is particularly worthy of mention. Alexander insists that there is a collective use in the phrase “Servant of Jehovah’’."® By this phrase, we are to understand, thinks the author, a corporate Person, the Messiah and His body, the Church. This view had been obscurely stated by some of the ancient writers, and it is favored by the usage of 83] in Deuteronomy 18. In his comments on the individual occurences of the phrase, Alexander works out his argument in some detail. There is one further distinguishing characteristic of these commentaries to which attention should be called. They are truly exegetical. If one will examine some commentaries, particularly those of German authors, he will discover that while much is said about the emendation of the text and about questions of introduction and historical background, true exegesis is reduced almost to a minimum. Let anyone com- pare Hitzig with Alexander, for example, and this will be immediately apparent. In Alexander’s work exegesis is upon the throne. Here is manifest a conscious striving to discover the true meaning of the prophet, and all else is made sub- servient to the accomplishment of this one high end. That is why, despite the absence of homiletical and devotional helps, the careful study of Alexander’s work is of great devotional value. Here we are presented with an attempt to discover the Word of God. And, although one hundred years have passed, the reading of this commentary is a task which yields rich rewards, 8 Cf, e. g., The Later Prophecies, pp. 47-51. 17STUDIES IN ISAIAH II. From DRECHSLER TO DeELITzScH The next important step in the study of Isaiah was the appearance of the second part of Drechsler’s Commentary in 1849, the first part of which had been published in 1845.°° The first part had dealt only with the first twelve chapters of the prophecy and presented a wealth of sound exegesis. Drechsler had confessed his indebtedness to the great Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, although acknowledging that upon occasion he felt constrained to differ from him.?° In the first part of the commentary there is exhibited a reverent spirit and an interpretation of the Messianic prophecies that is very similar to that of Alexander. On February 19, 1850 Drechsler passed away. The first half of the second part of the commentary, continuing through Isaiah 27 had been printed, and the manuscript of chapters 28 through 39 had been worked out, although not yet ready for the press. The task of editing this material fell to Franz Delitzsch and Heinrich August Hahn, and this labor they have carried out in the spirit of the first volume. They speak of Drechsler’s work as ‘‘das anerkanntermassen zu den vor- ziiglichsten exegetischen Leistungen unserer Zeit gehérige Werk” but they have themselves maintained .the high stand- ards set by Drechsler.** % Der Prophet Jesaja, Ubersetz und Erklirt von D. Moritz Drechsler, Erster Theil, Stuttgart, 1845; Zweiter Theil, Erste Halfte, Stuttgart, 1849; Zweite Halfte (Edited after Drechsler’s death by Franz Delitzsch and August Hahn), Berlin, 1854; Dritter Theil! (Completed by Delitzsch and Hahn), Berlin, 1857. a0 “Fine Pflicht der Pietat habe ich namlich darinnen zu erfiillen, dass ich Hengstenberg ausdricklich als Denjenigen nenne, welchem ich das Verstindnis des Wesens der Weissagung, so weit ich desselben mich bisher habe benachrichtigen kénnen, zu verdanken habe” (op. cét., Erster Theil, preface). 31 Delitzsch comments as follows on Drechsler’s work, ‘“‘Drechster’s Com- mentary was a great advance in the exposition of Isaiah.... This was, comparatively speaking, the best commentary upon Isaiah that had ap- peared since the time of Vitringa, more especially the portion on ch. xiii- xxvii. Its peculiar excellency is not ta be found in the exposition of single sentences, which is unsatisfactory, on account of the comminuting, glos- satorial style of its exegesis, and, although diligent and thorough enough, is unequal and by no means productive, more especially from a grammatical 18THE STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE ALEXANDER The third part of the commentary is of particular interest. The material which Drechsler had left on Isaiah 40-66 was not sufficient to be utilized, and so these chapters are com- mented upon by Hahn.” From the introduction to these chapters we learn that the credit for continuing the work of Drechsler is due to a “‘Consistorialrat’” named Hoéfling. He it was who made all necessary arrangements, and because of his zeal the work was carried through to completion. Hahn believes that chapters 40-66 are the work of Isaiah the son of Amoz. Certain points of his exegesis may be singled out for mention. 42: 1 ff. he refers not to the Messiah, but to Israel, as God's disputant against the sinful world.* 49: 1 ff. refers not to Israel, the better part of Israel, or to the prophet but to the Messiah who is Israel in the true sense of the word.* 50:4-9 also refers to the Messiah, and could not possibly have reference to the entire people or to the better part of the people.5 The famous passage 52:13-53:12 is also interpreted messianically. Of interest is Hahn’s discussion of the difficult form TY in 52:15. The word he translates “to sprinkle’ point of view; but in the spiritual and spirited grasp of the whole, the deep insight which it exhibits into the character and ideas of the prophet and of prophecy, its vigorous penetration into the very heart of the plan and substance of the whole book” (Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah by Franz Delitzsch, translated from the German by the Rev. James Martin, Vol. 1, Edinburgh, 1884, pp. 65-66). 2 Heinrich August Hahn (1821-1861) was a Lutheran theologian who wrote, in addition to the commentary on Isaiah 40-66, a work on Job (1850), a work on Ecclesiastes (1860), a translation of the Song of Solomon (1852), and prepared an edition of the Chigi manuscript of the LXX of Daniel which he compared with the Syro-Hexaplar text (Leipzig, 1845). *» “Wollte man den Ausdruck hier anders, von dem Messias fassen, so wiirde man gegen den Grundgedanken wie gegen den Sprachgebrauch des ersten Abschnitts verstossen”’ (op. cit., pp. 46 ff.). 2 “Hiernach kann unter dem Redenden offenbar weiter Niemand ver- standen werden als der demaleinst aus Israel zu erweckende wahre Knecht Jehova's, der Messias, welcher als Streiter Gottes, als Israel im wahren Sinn des Worts, die Ungerechtigkeit seines in den Dienst des verganglichen Wesens versunkenen Volks zu tiberwinden und Israel's und aller Vélker Heiland zu werden im Rath Jehova's berufen ist” (of. cit., pp. 144-145). 2s“Die Unnmidglichkeit der Bezichung auf das Volk im Ganzen oder dessen bessern Theil leuchtet so sehr ein, dass sie nicht erst braucht dar- gethan zu werden” (op. cit., in loc.). 19STUDIES IN ISAIAH (besprengen) and says, ‘Die gegen diese Erkl. erhobenen Einwendungen sind ohne Bedeutung. Wenn man sagt, M7 werde immer nur mit einer Prap. 78, by, "18?, nie mit dem Acc. construirt, um den Gegenstand der Besprengung zu bezeichnen, und stehe niemals ohne Nennung der Materie, mit welcher das Sprengen vorgenommen werde, so ist dagegen zu erwidern, dass, wie YO) pflanzen und YI sden, welche zunachst mit dem Acc. zur Bez. des Gepflanzten und Gesaeten den Acc. zur Bez. des Orts, wo das Pflanzen und Saen betrifft, bei sich haben und bepflanzen und bessden bedeuten, ebenso auch if] in der Bed. besprengen gebraucht und, ohne dass die Materie der Sprengung naher bezeichnet wird, mit dem Acc. zur Bez. des besprengten Gegenstandes verbunden werden kann. Den Einwand, dass die Bed. besprengen dem Zusam- menhang zuwider sei, widerlegt die gegebene Erkl., welche zeigt, wie passend gerade diese Bed. im Zusammenhang ist. Die gew. Erkl., nach welcher ‘1i] aufspringen machen, vor Freude, Ehrfurcht, Staunen, Bewunderung, bed. soll, wird durch den Sprachgebrauch, nach welchem diese Bed. dem W. villig fremd ist, und durch die Beziehung, in welcher 17? zu 11371 steht, entschieden widerlegt.’’* From these examples one may obtain a satisfactory idea of the theological view- point adopted by Hahn, as well as of his philological and exegetical ability. One especially valuable feature of this excellent commentary is an Appendix, written by Franz Delitzsch, which contains a detailed survey of the contents of Isaiah 40-66 and some remarks on the genuineness of these chapters.*7 This material is very valuable, not only because it enables one the better to understand Delitzsch’s later thinking upon this subject, but also because of its own intrinsic merit. Since, as far as the writer knows, Delitzsch’s argument has never before been presented in English, and since this valuable material will serve as a corrective for much present-day shallow thinking concerning these great prophecies of Isaiah, it seems well to present Delitzsch’s argument, at least in summary form. % op. cil., p. 195. #7 Schlussbemerkungen: a.) Riickblich auf den Gesamtinhalt von c. 40-66, pp. 361-386; b.) Aechtheit dér c. 40-66 und der verwandten Weiss. (op. cit., pp. 386-414). 20THE. STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE ALEXANDER These chapters, reasons Delitzsch, are not to be regarded as reflecting the days of Hezekiah. Indeed, if they stood alone, separate from chapters 1-39, we could find nothing in them to point to this period. Havernick, Keil and others who think that they find historical allusions to the actual period in which the prophet lived are mistaken.7® Likewise, the idols which are condemned are those of Babylon and not of Palestine. The standpoint of these chapters (40-66) is that of the Baby- lonian exile. This, however, does not militate against the Isaianic authorship. Tradition, of course, points to Isaiah as the author, and tradition, thinks Delitzsch, has not been sufficiently valued by the critics. One probable evidence of unity which appeals to him is the historical passage, Isaiah 36-39, which serves as a connecting link between the Assyrian and Babylonian periods. The force of this argument is strengthened by the consideration that Isaiah 1~39 serves as a preparation for chapters 40-66. This argument is elaborated in great detail, and Delitzsch indicates that passages which in his day were recognized as Isaianic also transcend the time of Isaiah and Picture an ideal future. For example, 21:1-10 is shown to be Isaianic, and yet it presents a standpoint similar to that which is found in 40-66. The latter portion of the book is thus in reality a continuation of the first and there are many simi- larities between the two.79 Delitzsch finds another argument in the relationship in which Zephaniah and Jeremiah stand to these prophecies. Both Zephaniah and Jeremiah, he thinks, are later than Isaiah 40-66. This thought he develops with convincing logic, and subjects every passage to a careful examination. The argu- ment is powerful, and one receives the impression that De- litzsch is right. The conclusion to which he comes is that one is compelled“'...dieses Trostbuch ftir die Exulanten als jesajanisch anzuerkennen, wie es uns iiberliefert ist. Auf solche Beweisthiimer gestiitzt erhebt sich riesengross und ** Delitzsch discusses such “‘allusions” in some detail. a9 “| der zweite Theil der Sammlung c. 50-77 mit seinem Thema, seinem Standpunkt, seinem Style, seinen Ideen ist durch den ersten (c. 1-39) hindurch in stetigem fortschreitendem Werden” (op. cit., p. 402). 21STUDIES IN ISAIAH riesenstark die Majestat des Ueberlieferungszeugnisses und schlagt alle Zweifel zu Boden.'’° One must conclude that in this work, begun by Drechsler, and completed by Hahn and Delitzsch we have a sympathetic interpretation of the thought of the great eighth-century prophet combined with an apologetic which even in this pres- ent day will well serve the needs of Christ’s church. The year 1850 witnessed the appearance of two rather im- portant works on Isaiah, written from different points of view.* One of these, by Rudolf Stier, consisted of a defence of the Isaianic authorship of chapters 40-66.3? Stier’s dis- cussion of the questions of introduction is not as convincing as is that of Delitzsch; nevertheless, he does develop some important arguments in favor of the view that Isaiah the son 3 op. cit., p. 412, ’ % In 1846 there was published the second edition of Umbreit’s commen- tary. The first edition had been issued in 1842. Umbreit in many respects follows Ewald. According to Alexander (vol. I, p. LXI) the real merit of the work consists in its translation of the prophecy and its philological and critical notes. In 1848 Caspari, who had distinguished himself by his defence of the unity and integrity of Isaiah, published his Beitrdge eur Einlettung in das Buch Jesaja (Berlin), a work which Cheyne described as ‘Conservative: thorough to a fault” (op. cit., vol. IT, p. 286), and this was followed in 1849 by another work Ueber den syrisch-ephraimitischen Krieg unter Jotham und Ahaz. There also appeared in 1849 the commentary of M: L. Malbim (published at Krotoschin) a work which, according to Delitzsch “is chiefly occupied with the precise ideas conveyed by synonymous words and groups of words” (Delitzsch, op. cit., vol. I, p. 66). The year 1850 was witness to the appearance of an important Roman Catholic commentary, that of Peter Schegg, which follows the Vulgate, and exhibits deep exegetical insight and ability, as well as a strong defence of the Isaianic authorship of chapters 40-66. Schegg, as well as another Roman Catholic interpreter, Haneberg, appear to have anticipated Torrey, in that they regard the word #712 (Isaiah 44:28) as a gloss. To do this is to depend upon “verwerfliche Ausfliichte” (Delitzsch, Schlussbemerkungen in Drechsler, op. cit., IIT, p. 390). Delitzsch himself wrote an article, “Die Stellung der Weissagung Jes. 41:13-hit”' which was published in 1850 in the Zettschraft fur lutherische Theologie, in which he defended the proposition that the subject of the passage was the spiritual Israel. Happily, further study led him to retract this position, and in the Schlussbemerkungen he could write ‘‘Jedes Wort ist wie unter dem Kreuze auf Golgotha geschrieben”’ (0. cit., p. 376). » Rudolf Stier, Jesatas, nicht Pseudo-Jesaias, Barmen, 1850. 22THE STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE ALEXANDER of Amoz composed chapters 40-66. The commentary is some- what voluminous and written in a devotional spirit. There are frequent references to Jewish commentators and quota- tions from them, and this is one of the valuable features of the work. Furthermore, there is constant reference to the earlier chapters of Isaiah, and thus, as one reads, he becomes more and more impressed with the unity of the prophecy. Perhaps the weakest point of the book is to be found on the philological side. But compensation is surely made for this handicap by the accurate grasp which Stier has upon the broad, underlying principles of prophetic interpretation. It is possible for a master of Hebrew philology to show himself to be a child in exegesis. Stier, at least, is a good and safe guide to the study of Isaiah. The second commentary, alluded to above, was written by Ernst Meier, a professor at Tiibingen.#4 This work, which covers only Isaiah 1-23, is written from the standpoint which regards the prophets merely as men who were concerned about the ethical freedom of mankind. There are three sources, says Meier, which we may examine in order to learn the nature of Hebrew prophecy. The first of these is to be found in the historical books, but they are later than the times of the prophets and merely present the popular conception of prophecy.5 The second source, as far as Isaiah is concerned, is to be found in passages written at the close of the exile, namely, the latter part of Isaiah.36 The third source, which 8 Stier (1800-1862) is best known for his edition of a polyglot Bible (Polyglotten-Bibel zum praktischen Handgebrauch, 1854) and his work on the words of Jesus, which has appeared in an English translation (The Words of the Lord Jesus, Edinburgh, 7v., 1855-1858). 4 Ernst Meier, Der Prophet Jesaja, Erste Halfte, Pforzheifn, 1850. 35 “Sie (7. e. these sources in, the historical books) enthalten miindliche, sagenhafte und zum Theil mythische Volks-erzihlungen itber das Thun und Treiben der Propheten, besonders der alten, wie das Mose, Elia, Elisa, Jesaia.” “‘Danach erscheinen die hebraischen Propheten als Wiinder- thater, Wahrsager, zum Theil auch als Zauberer, und nehmen wesentlich denselben Standpunkt ein, wie die Propheten und Wahrsager der heid- nischen Vélker” (op. cit., p. V). 36 That Isaiah was the author of these chapters is said to be“... sprach- lich rein unméglich”, and the reason given is “...denn die exilischen Zustinde werden hier nicht etwa als Zukiinftige geweissagt, sondern als gegenwartige und wirkliche beschrieben” (op. cil., p. VI). 23STUDIES IN ISAIAH alone is trustworthy, is the genuine, authentic utterances of the prophet himself.27 This third source shows that the popu- lar conception of the prophets as miracle workers and fore- tellers was incorrect. Rather the prophets were merely reli- gious leaders who also were concerned with the national unity.3® In the book of Isaiah, thinks Meier, there are three prin- cipal collections. The first of these, chapters 1-23, is the basic one, and appeared about the 5th century B.C. Chapters 1-12 are of Isaianic authorship, but chapters 13-23 are from other hands. The second collection, chapters 24-39, probably, appeared in the fourth century. Only 28-33 and 37:22-35 are from Isaiah. The third collection consists of chapters 40-66, and none of this is from Isaiah. Of particular importance was the appearance in 1856 of an English translation of the second edition of Hengstenberg’s Christology3? The work was translated by Rev. Theodore 47 Die dritte und einzig zuverlassige Art von Quellen, an die wir haupt- sachlich uns zu halten haben, sind die echten, authentischen Reden der Propheten selbst, und deren besitzen wir zum Gliick eine grosse Anzahl” (op. cit., p. VII). 3*""Nach diesen Urkunden erscheinen die Propheten als begeisterte Volksredner und Volksfiibrer, als die eigentlichen Reprasentanten des nationalen und religiésen Gesammtbewusstseins, gleichsam als das laut- werdende Gewissen des hebraischen Volksgeistes” (op. cit, p. VIII). “Ohne irgend eine dussere Macht und Autoritét zu besitzen, treten sie durch geistige Ueberlegenheit, durch die Macht des Wortes an die Spitze des Volkes und begriinden und erhalten die Idee der nationalen Einheit"’ (op. ctt., p. X). 39 Attention should perhaps be directed to the appearance in 1851 of Nachman Krochmal’s work yprn 1313: np. It was published in Lemberg, eleven year§ after Krochmal’s death, and in it he regards the latter chap- ters of Isaiah as having come from the period of the exile. Cf. Solomon Schechter: Studies in Judaism, First Series, Philadelphia, 1938, pp. 46-72. In 1852 a second edition of Henderson’s commentary was issued, the first having appeared in 1840. To this work Alexander had made frequent reference, particularly in his second volume. Henderson’s work was written from a thoroughly conservative viewpoint. The author of the review of Alexander’s work which appeared in The Presbyterian Review, 1848 (see note 12 supra) takes exception to some of Alexander’s criticism of Hender- son. He believes that Alexander is at fault because he “has failed to re- member that literal interpretation of the future no more excludes the use of metaphorical terms than the literal fulfilment of the past’’ (op. cit., p. 74). 24THE STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE ALEXANDER Meyer of the New College, Edinburgh, and is a masterpiece of exegesis.*° After a few preliminary remarks, Hengstenberg begins his exegesis. His work is not a commentary on the entire prophecy, but deals only with the Messianic prophe- cies." In Hengstenberg, it may be said, Old Testament exe- gesis appears to have come to its rights." The work is charac- terized by thoroughness, such as is found in few commentaries on the Old Testament. Hengstenberg gives full discussion of the views which he rejects, and sets forth in great detail the reasons which compel him to adopt the position which he presents. Thus, his discussion of the all-important fifty-third chapter of Isaiah is followed by a lengthy history of the inter- pretation of the chapter among both Jews and Christians and a valuable consideration of the arguments both for and against the Messianic interpretation. Dr. John Eadie, in the editor’s preface to the new and revised edition of Alexander’s commentary (1873) remarks, “The volume of the late Dr. Henderson of Highbury is of great merit and ripe scholarship, and com- mends itself to us as the result of skilful and sanctified erudition. It often suggests the way to discover the truth, if in any case it fail to reveal it. Yet with all its perspicuity, its brevity or curtness is a marked defect” (, pp. vi f.). The following works appeared in 1854: Ruetschi: Studien und Kritiken, and Abhandlungen tiber den zweiten Theil des Buches Jesaia in Collectanea dissertationum ex memoria I. Reggio (Gontiae, 1854. 8). Neither of these works has been accessible to the present writer. 40 E. W. Hengstenberg: Christology of the Old Testament and a Commen- tary on the Messianic Predictions? Edinburgh, Vol. II, 1856, pp. 1-354. These are: Isaiah 2-4; 7; 8:23-9:6; 11; 12; 13:1-14:27; 17; 18; 19; 23; 24-27; 28:16; 33:17; 38:3-6; 42:1-9; 49:1-9; 50:4-11; 51:1-16; 52:13-53: 12; 55:1-5, 61:1-3. # Benjamin B. Warfield (Christology and Criticism, 1929, p. 7) speaks of Hengstenberg as ‘‘... one of the most searching expounders of the Scrip- tures that God has as yet given His church”. Despite all the criticism and vituperation which Hengstenberg has had to bear, the present writer believes that Warfield’s judgment is correct. Alexander was a great admirer of Hengstenberg, and adopted his prin- ciples of interpretation, although differing with him on some points. In his diary for January 14, 1834 he writes, ‘“Hengstenberg has convinced me that the Messianic interpretation (i. ¢. of Isaiah 7) is encumbered with fewer difficulties than any other. But the difficulties which it has are very serious. I am especially at a loss how to interpret the fifteenth and six- teenth verses in consistency with Hengstenberg’s hypothesis. I am very far, however, from being willing to abandon it” (Life, Vol. I, p. 354). 25STUDIES IN ISAIAH Hengstenberg himself adopts the Messianic interpretation of the great prophecies of Isaiah, and constantly brings to the aid of his exposition the light which other portions of the Bible, and particularly the New Testament, cast upon the Passage in question. As Cheyne rightly says, his work “‘is still the most complete expression of the theory which interprets the Old Testament solely and entirely in the light of the New’. Perhaps the greatest Jewish commentary on Isaiah of the nineteenth century was written by Samuel David Luzzatto.“ In an interesting preface the author sets forth ten basic prin- ciples upon which he proceeds, and also states that he had sent some portions of his work to Rosenmiiller who had apparently used them without acknowledgment. Luzzatto furnishes his work with an Italian translation, but wrote the commentary proper in Hebrew, using the Rabbinic script, since it was his desire to see books that were intended for Jews written in Hebrew. By far the greater part of the work (447 pages) is devoted to the first thirty-nine chapters of Isaiah, and only 201 pages are given to the remaining chapters. Since, in the writer’s opinion, Luzzatto is one of the high- lights in the history of Jewish interpretation, it will be well to present several examples of his exegesis. Luzzatto translates: Isaiah 7:14, “‘Ebbene, il Signore vi 8 op. ctt., Vol. II, p. 281. Hengstenberg did, of course, avail himself also of the help which the cognate Semitic languages and historical research had to offer. Dorner (History of Protestant Theology, E. T., Edinburgh, 1871, Vol. II, pp. 436-7), it seems to me, does not really do justice to Hengstenberg when he says, “He thus makes prophecy nothing more than the symbolical covering. of genera] eternal truths — a covering known to be such by the prophets, and the product of their conscious reflection" (p. 437n). “4S. D. Luzzatto, my 190, Padova, 1855. The work also bears the Italian title, IJ Profeta Isaia volgarizzato e commentato ad uso degl’ Israelitt. 45 news peda onans perysa tnene own yo nyp wnnpd ax*pn niwar nim vmvo'> ya Noy oe Rosenmiiller moa ‘an ‘byt InNd ornndy) YOEIn cmD nxp inprd ovDr ye Sy wip RTA DANZd ODDTT AX’pn nIw2 omby vow ne yrare %>3 mown pan ow by pa Sete op by pa jovone oma (p. 8). 48 pngeN Imp om pwr and nbwxw navK Don YdyTID OVW "30D WPI 7231 aaina owe Sates yrand pon an yen Sar sya $3 yyy et Ady Rd MEX nay (p. 8). 26THE STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE ALEXANDER dara Egli un segno: la Alma diverra incinta e partorira un figlio, cui mettera nome Immanuel’. The discussion begins with a consideration of the meaning of np>y which, together with 02Y, Luzzatto derives from the Aramaic, and says that the meaning is ‘“‘strong”’ or ‘‘powerful”. There follows a dis- cussion of various interpretations. Kings of the east, we are told, had concubines without number, and some of these were called Nioby. The 799y is thought to be one of the ninvy.«7 It is obvious to one who reads the comments that Luzzatto has not begun to sound the depths of this passage. Isaiah 9:5, ‘'Perciocché un bambino ci é nato, un figliccolo ci fu concesso, su’ cui omeri sara il potere, ed al quale é dato nome: Decreta prodigi Iddio potente, il sempre-padre, il signor della pace’. This translation can only be described as weird and clumsy. Delitzsch was entirely right when (Com. in loc.) he characterized the sentence as ‘‘sesquipedalian”’. Luzzatto, of course, believes that the reference is to Heze- kiah.** He rightly rejects an interpretation which had found favor with earlier Jewish expositors, namely — He who is Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father will call his name the Prince of Peace.4? But it must be confessed that his own translation is equally erroneous, and does not begin to do justice to the exegetical requirements of the text. Concerning the question of the authorship of chapters 40-66, Luzzatto has little to say. He believes that they are prophecies about the future, uttered by Isaiah himself, and merely states that there are those who disagree and think that the prophecies were not written until the days of Cyrus.5° The heading for chapters 40-52:12 which Luzzatto gives is, 47 npomeDy ayD ane mby wnxd ana nein .parn ow by moby wpn an nobyn nan mye re dy (p. 111). 48 As an introduction to 9:1-6 Luzzatto writes, “Alla nascita di un prin- cipe davidico (Ezechia) Isaia annunzia la futura grandezza di lui, e la disfatta d’un potente nemico (Senacheribo)" (op, cit., p. 129). 49 Luzzatto believes that there is reflection upon the question asked in Numbers 23:23 98 59® 72 and then comments: yoy DOT NNT AA NIT AM NST NI by mw Ty coe TaD bt pyr Ndw RD AN bin abe wiapd oy corr. se ben mugiain ak xb) mpint ony) yer Kaa Tw MAIS ON MO TV [RID PARISI PRD DVT OINNAD Oa Y3'RT PIM Wd qos Hans Ndw oy bnpa wd °D IY Iand2 Now Wye ndan (p. 446). 27STUDIES IN ISAIAH “Annunzio della liberazione dalla cattivita babilonese per opera di Ciro, con varie analogle allocuzioni”. It is to be expected that, from the Christian viewpoint, Luzzatto’s exposition of the famous ‘‘servant” passages would be disappointing. After mentioning other identifications of the servant which have been proposed for Isaiah 42: Iff., Luzzatto refers the passage to the people Israel. The work of bringing judgment to the people is said to consist in deliver- ing them from the error of paganism.’ To chapters 52:13-56:8 the author gives the heading. “Ultima dispersione degli Ebrei, loro peripezie, conservazione e liberazione”’. Isaiah 52:13, "T3” *DY! MIN, is interpreted by ban’ epinn yy So Awp mba oma a7 awe nnn by mnbxnp. 52:15a is translated, ‘‘Cost egli cagionera estrema sorpresa a nazioni numerose”’. Verses 56:9-57:13 are described as an ‘‘Interpolazione, contenente un Canto funebre per la morte d’ Isaia, ed am- mornizioni ai contemporanei, i quali (regnando Manasse) adoravano gl’ idoli’’. The entire work must be regarded as a serious commentary, and is of value, particularly with respect to philological and historical details. Luzzatto has not, however, entered into the deeper meaning of the prophet, and consequently, despite the many merits which the book possesses, it cannot be re- garded as being in the same class with the works of Alexander os Drechsler. Mention must also be made of a work by George Vance Smith, which sought to discuss the book of Isaiah in the light of the recent Assyrian discoveries. This book is particularly interesting, when read in the perspective of nearly one hun- dred years of Assyriological study. Smith devotes consider- able space to a discussion of the history of the Assyrians and Babylonians. He has some interesting comments to make ® 42:1 is translated as follows: Ma il mio servo, (il popolo) ch’io sostengo, il mio eletto a me caro; io imposi su di lui il mio spirito, egli fara emergere tra le genti la ginstizia (l'erroneita del paganesimo) (of. cit., p. 467). % The Prophecies Relating to Nineveh and the Assyrians, London, 1857. adTHE STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE ALEXANDER upon the early presence of a Scythic race in Babylonia and asserts also that the Phoenicians had originally emigrated from the shores of the Persian Gulf (pp. 7-8). Statements such as these are instructive in that they serve to show how knowledge has increased since Smith’s book was written. The author provides his own translation of the passages which he discusses.ss This translation is one of the chief merits of the book. The comments provided are disappointing. They are principally historical and illustrative remarks and, so far as the writer can discover, there is little serious attempt at exegesis. The author expressly disclaims any attempt to deal with theological questions, but affirms as his principal pur- pose the discussion of historical matters (p. 111). It would have been better if the author had not deviated from this purpose, for he is obviously not at his best in the field of exegesis. For example, one reads with some surprise a statement such as the following, ‘The early Christian writers find the application of the prophecy (jz. ¢., 9:5-6) in Christ and the Gospel; but, as is well known, they are not generally good expositors of the Old Testament. They are followed in this case, however, by the great majority of Christian inter- preters” (pp. 111-112). Despite the weakness of some of the exegetical remarks, and the fact that subsequent research has demonstrated the inaccuracy of some of the statements herein made, Smith's work may yet be used with profit by the discerning reader. Amongcommentators upon the book of Isaiah few are the equal of Franz Delitzsch, whose great work first appeared in 1866.5 5) These passages are Isaiah 5; 7:8~9:7; 23; 28; 10:5-12:6; 14:24-27; 19; 20; 29; 30~32; 17:12-18:7; 2. 4; 33:36-37, as well as the books of Nahum and Jonah and Zechariah 2:13-15 and Ezekiel 31. 8 In 1859 the first volume of Die messianische Weissagungen of L. Reinke was published, and the three remaining volumes appeared in the three subsequent years respectively. Reinke, a Roman Catholic professor at Miinster, has produced a work which in many respects is similar to Hengstenberg's Christology. It is written from the standpoint of strict supernaturalism and is one of the most thorough exegetical treatments of the prophets that the present writer has seen. The first two volumes are devoted exclusively to the Messianic prophecies in Isaiah. Of particular value and importance is the discussion of the history of interpretation of the prophecy, which, for thoroughness, probably sur- 29STUDIES IN ISAIAH This was followed by other editions.ss This commentary is well known in the English speaking world, and ranks as one of the finest on Isaiah. Since it represents the last word of Delitzsch on Isaiah, we shall note with interest in what passes what is to be found in most commentaries. With this same charac- teristic thoroughness is carried on the discussion of questions of introduc- tion. This is particularly the case in the treatment of the question of the authorship of Isaiah 40-66, Reinke holds to the genuineness of all the prophecies contained within the book of Isaiah, and he has defended this position with a wealth of detail. Furthermore, the exegetical treatment of the prophecies is of the best. Some may criticize the work as being too pedantic and detailed, but the present writer has perused it with the feeling that, as far as exegesis is concerned, he is in the presence of a master. In 1862 there appeared a volume of sermons by the great Syriac scholar, R. Payne Smith (The Authenticity and Messianic Interpretation of the Prophecies of Isaiah Vindicated in a Course of Sermons Preached before the University of Oxford). In non-technical language the author presents a thoroughly orthodox interpretation of some of Isaiah’s prophecies. The high point of the work, we think, is to be found in the chapter which treats of the question of the authorship of chapters 40-66. Mention should also be made of a work by V. F. Oehler: Der Knecht Jehova's im Deuterojesaja, which was published at Stuttgart in 1865. The volume comprises an exegetical treatment of all the “servant” passages in Isaiah 40-66. Ochler finds the servant of 52:13-53:12, for example, to be the people Israel. ss The four editions appeared in 1866, 1869, 1879 and 1889 respectively. The fourth edition was translated into English and provided with an introduction by S. R. Driver. This translation, which was accomplished by Rev. James Kennedy, Rev. William Hastie and Rev. Thomas A. Bicker- ton, is without date. All further quotations and citations will be from this translation, An earlier edition had been translated by Rev. James Martin, published in Edinburgh, 1884, to which reference has already been made. The two volume work of Rowland Williams: The Hebrew Prophets translated afresh from the Original, a somewhat superficial treatment of the prophecies, appeared in 1866~1871. Cheyne remarks (op. cit., Vol. II, p. 287) that the philology is eccentric and unsound. A far more important work was that of L. Seinecke, Der Evangelist des Alten Testaments, 1870. This commen- tary restricts itself to Isaiah 40-66 and proceeds upon a high philological and exegetical plane. The author holds to the unity of these chapters, but denies their Isaianic authorship. The Servant passages he refers to the Israelitish people, ‘Der Knecht Gottes ist eine ewige Corporation” (p. 21). The major contribution of Seinecke’s work lies in its forceful demonstra- tion of the fact that chapters 40-66 must have been composed in Palestine and not in Babylon. He also presents some telling considerations against the view that the chapters were written just before the downfall of Babylon, 3°THE STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE ALEXANDER respects the great commentator may have. changed his views. Driver, who wrote an introductory notice to the work, declares that it ‘...is accommodated throughout to the view of the origin and structure of the book generally accepted by modern scholars” (op. cit., vol. I, p. xv). This statement must be carefully considered. As far as I am able to determine, there is not one chapter in Isaiah 1-39 which Delitzsch refuses to attribute to the son of Amoz. In fact, throughout the entire exposition of these passages, the author proceeds upon the assumption that they were from Isaiah.s* In the Introduction, Delitzsch admits that he has never been able to find anything “‘inherently objectionable” to the view that discourses by other later prophets may have been included with those of Isaiah and the whole “blended and joined together in it on a definite plan” (op. cit., p. 38). After elaborating this position he remarks, ‘Such may pos- sibly be the case. It seems to me even probable, and almost certain, that this may be so; but indubitably certain it is not, in my opinion, and I shall die without getting over this hesi- tancy” (op. cit., p. 39). He then proceeds to point out the difficulties which the view involves. With regard to the authorship of chapters 40-66, Delitzsch by no means satisfies the critics. For example, he remarks, “And yet much seems to be better explained when chaps. xl- Ixvi are regarded as testamentary discourses of the one Isaiah, and the entire prophetic collection as the progressive develop- ment of his incomparable charism” (op. cit., vol. II, pp. 125- 26). This position is somewhat modified at a later point by the remark, ‘The author of chaps. xl-Ixvi is in any case a prophet of the Isaianic type, but of an Isaianic type peculiarly developed” (op. cit., p. 129). And again, “In any case, Isaiah has part in chaps. xl-Ixvi. If he is not the immediate author, ‘it is the outcome of impulses springing from him’’ (op. cit., although his own position, namely, that they were composed in 536 B.C., appears to me to be equally untenable. A Dutch work in defense of the Isaianic authorship of chapters 40-66 appeared in 1866, A. Rutgers: De echtheid van het tweede gedeelte van Jesaja. Cf. also Stanley Leathes: The Witness of the Old Testament to Christ, London, 1868. 56 Cf., e. g., the discussion of the opening verses of chapter 13. 31STUDIES IN ISAIAH p. 133). Perhaps, then, it is accurate to say that, in a certain sense, Delitzsch believed in a deutero-Isaiah. However, his position is difficult to determine. He knew too well the strength of the arguments for the Isaianic authorship of the entire book. In the light of the above considerations, coupled with the orthodox interpretation which pervades the entire work, I do not think that Driver's characterization is strictly accurate.” III. THE GrowTa oF THE ‘“‘SECOND”’ ISAIAH Impetus was given to the “two-Isaiah” theory by the appearance in 1872 of the fourth edition of Knobel’s com- mentary, edited by Ludwig Diestel.s* In this work criticism assumes a commanding position and the great eighth-century prophet is robbed of much of his work.5? Isaiah, a¢cording to this commentary, was the principal representative of prophecy, and consequently, it was customary to attach other prophecies to his work in the hope of preserving them. Thus we find, for example, that the following are not the work of Isaiah: 13-14:23; 21:1-10; 24-27; 34-35; 36-39 (with the exception of 37:21-35); 40-66. This theory is set forth in rather dogmatic language, although, as a matter of fact, there ig not a particle of evidence to support it. In equally dogma- tic fashion the reader is told that 40-66 are from a prophet who lived in the time of the Babylonian exile.©° When, in the 87 Cf. “The Last Edition of Delitzsch’s ‘Isaiah’ by W. T. Davison in The Expository Times, vol. 11, 1890-1891, pp, 16. 17. 88 August Knobel: Der Prophet Jesata erkldrt,* herausgegeben von Dr. Ludwig Diestel, Leipzig, 1872. In 1871 there appeared a commentary by the Rev. T. R. Birks, which defended the unity of authorship of the entire prophecy. The comments, however, are too meagre and the chief value of the work lies in its Appen- dices which deal with questions of authorship, historical background and interpretation. In this year also there was published a book by J. P. Vale- ton, Jesaja volgens zijne algemeen als echt erkende Schriften, Groningen. 89 “Es findet sich also in der jesaianischen Sammlung mehr Unichtes, als in irgend einem prophetischen Buche” (op. ci!., p. XXVI). *o “In der That gehért dieser Satz (4. ¢., that 40-66 are the work of one living in Babylon during the exile) auch zu den sichersten Ergebnissen der neueren Schriftforschung. Ihn erheben die triftigsten Beweisgriinde tiber allen Zweifel” (op. cit., p. 331). ’ 32THE STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE ALEXANDER perspective of over seventy years of criticism, one examines the arguments adduced ia support of this thesis, he is com- pelled to admit that they are truly weak. Knobel’s commen- tary, indeed, but represented the general attitude toward the authorship of Isaiah which was gaining greater prominence. The figure of the “Second” Isaiah, the great “Unknown” of the Babylonian exile, was looming larger and larger upon the horizon of Biblical scholarship. * A number of important works appeared between 1873-1880. Of these mention should be made of Bernhard Stade: De Isaiae vaticiniis Aethiopicis Diatribe, Leipzig, 1873; Ed. Riehm: Das erste Buch Mose, Halle, 1873, which contained an appendix of textual corrections in Isaiah; A. Hildebrandt: Juda's Verhdliniss 2u Assyrien in Jesaja’s Zeit nach Keilinschriften und Jesaianischen Prophetieen, Marburg, 1874; Sir Edward Strachey: Jewish History and Politics in the time of Sargon and Sennacherib,? London, 1874; Weber: Der Profet Jesaja in Bibelstunden ausgelegt, Nordlingen, 1875-76; Kay in the Speaker’s Commentary, 1875. In the year 1875 Duhm’s Die Theologie des Propheten als Grundlage fir die innere Entwicklungsgeschichie der israclitischen Religion, Bonn, appeared, In some respects this is the most significant work on Isaiah to be published during this decade, for it contains, at least in germ form, some of the thoughts which were so prom- inent in Duhm's later work. Mention should also be made of B. Neteler: Das Buch Isaias aus dem Urtext ubersetet und mit Berticksichtigung seiner Gherderung und der auf seinen Inhalt sich beziehenden assyr. Inschriften erkldrt, Miinster, 1876; Ed. Reuss: Les Prophétes, Paris, 1876; August Klostermann: “‘Jesaja, cap. xl- Ixvi. Eine Bitte um Hiilfe in grosser Noth” in Zeitschrift fur lutherische Theologie, 1816, pp. 1-60 (This article is incorrectly attributed to Hilde- brandt by Cheyne, op. cit., p. 287); H. Ort: “‘Jesaja xl” in Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1876, pp. 528 ff. Of importance was the appearance in 1876 of a translation into English of the commentary of Ewald on Isaiah. The work was performed by J. Frederick Smith (1875-81) and made accessible to the English-speaking world the interesting views of the great German scholar. Ewald believed that Isaiah had composed seven books, namely: 1) 2:2-5:25; 9:7-10:4; 5:26-30. 2) 6:1-9:6, 17:1-11. 3) 1; 14:28-32; 15-16; 21:11-17. 4) 22:1-14, 15-25; 23. 5) 28-32, 6) 10:5-12:6; 14:24- 27; 17:12-18:7; 20; 33; 37:22-35. 7) 19. In the fourth volume of the translation, which appeared in 1880, Ewald discusses the alleged anony- mous prophecies which he thinks are to be found in the book of Isaiah. These are 21:1-10; 13:2-14:23 and 40-66, which latter portion he describes as the work of the great anonymous prophet of the exile. It is interesting to note, however, that Ewald assigns the following passages to the time of Manasseh: 40:1; 53:1 ff.; 56:9 ff.; 57:1 ff. In the present writer’s opinion, Ewald's chief merit is to be found in his convincingly written introductions 33. STUDIES IN ISAIAH Of considerable importance, because of its scholarly inde- pendence, was the work of T. K. Cheyne. Because of this rather than in his exegetical notes. It cannot be denied that the appearance of this work in English dress has done much to increase the stature of the so-called “second” Isaiah in the English-speaking world. The following works are also of interest: Urwick: The Servant of Jehovah, A Commentary, Grammatical and Critical, upon Isaiah lit:13-lési:12, 1877; The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah according to the Jewish Interpreters, Vol. 1, Text, by Ad. Neubauer; Vol. II, Translations, by Ad. Neubauer and S, R. Driver, with an Introduction to the Translations, by E. B. Pusey, Oxford, 1877. This work is in reality a special study upon Isaiah 53. It is a veritable mine of valuable information, bringing, as it does, into one compass the comments of the principal Jewish scholars upon this impor- tant portion of Scripture. In 1877 there also appeared the commentary of Le Hir: Les trois grands prophétes, Isaie, Jeremie, Ezechiel, analyses et com- mentaires; and a book by Fredrik Fehr: Profeten Jesaja, Ett gammaltesta- mentligt Utkast, Upsala. The principal works of 1878 were Lohr: Zur Frage tiber die Echtheit von Jesaias 40-66, Drei Hefte, Berlin, 1878-80; articles by Paul de Lagarde, entitled “Semitica”, and the commentary by C. W. Eduard Nagelsbach, which appeared in the series edited by Lange. This commentary (Der Prophet Jesaja, theologisch-homiletisch bearbeitet) is a sturdy defence of the unity of the prophecy and of its authorship. On the whole, the work is a careful attempt to attain the true meaning of the prophet, and, consequently, one that is exegetically valuable. Mention must also be made of a work by Friedrich Késtlin: Jesata und Jeremia, Ihr Leben und ihr Wirken aus ihren Schriften dargestellt, Berlin, 1879, and of an article by the chief rabbi in Fiinfkirchen, Alexander Kohut: “Antiparsische Ausspriiche im Deuterojesajas”, which appeared in the Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlindischen Gesellschaft, 1879, pp. 709-722; C. Taylor: “An Interpretation of ona mr” in Journal of Philology, 1879, pp. 62-66; Hermann Strack: ‘Zur Textkritik des Jesaias’, in Zeit- schrift fiir luth. Theologie, 1877, pp. 17-52; G. L. Studer: “‘Beitrage zur Textkritik des Jesaja", in Jahrbiicher fiir protest. Theologie, 1877, pp. 706- 730. % Cheyne'’s first work on Isaiah, Notes and Criticisms on the Hebrew Text of Isaiah appeared in 1868. This was followed by The Book of Isaiah Chrono- logically Arranged, 1870, a volume which in some respects shows the influ- ence of Ewald and which confidently acknowledges the presence of “Baby- lonian” prophecies in Isaiah. It does not appear to exhibit the reserve of the later commentary, and in no sense can be compared with it, as far as exegetical value is concerned. In 1880 appeared the first edition of The Prophecies of Isaiah, and this commentary underwent several later editions. In the present writer’s opinion, it is by far the finest of Cheyne’s works on Isaiah. ‘ “ In the above discussion, the edition of 1884 has been used. Considera- tion of the later volume, The Mines of Isaiah Re-explored (1912), will be reserved for a subsequent article, 34THE STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE ALEXANDER independent attitude, and because of the novel views which he advanced, Cheyne has sometimes not received the credit which is his due. Nevertheless, his commentary of 1880 is a first-rate production. It breathes a reverent spirit, and is replete with helpful suggestions. It is a good example of multum in parvo, as may be seen, for example, by a perusal of the comments on chapter 53. Cheyne’s treatment of textual problems is restrained, and his attitude toward the question of the so-called second Isaiah is one of reserve. The attitude of reserve naturally influences his comments. “In the following commentary I shall leave it an open question whether the book was composed by Isaiah or by some other author or authors, and whether it falls into two, three, or more parts, but not whether it is in the fullest sense of the word prophetic. I hold, with Dr. Franz Delitzsch, that ‘if we only allow that the prophet really was a prophet, it is of no essential consequence to what age he belonged’; and that, however limited the historical horizon of these chapters may be, the significance of their presentiments is not bounded by the Exile, but extends to the advent of the historical Christ, and even beyond’ (op. cit., I, p. 242). The present writer does not hesitate to pronounce the commentary of 1880 a truly valuable contribution that must be taken into account in any serious study of the great eighth-century prophet.% 6: For example, Cheyne’s advocacy of the “‘Jerachmeel” hypothesis, % The decade 1880-1890 witnessed the publication of some important works of which the following are most noteworthy. Anton Scholz: Die alexandrinische Uebersetzung des Buches Jesaias, Wurzburg, 1880; H. Kriiger: Essai sur la théologie d'Esute, xl-lxvt, Paris, 1881; W. H. Cobb: “Two Isaiahs or One?” in Bibliotheca Sacra, 1881, pp. 230 ff., 1882, pp. 104 ff.; W. Robertson Smith: The Prophets of Israel and their Place in History to the Close of the Eighth Century B. C., New York, 1882 (Dr. Smith's welt written book presents a discussion of the teaching of the early chapters of Isaiah, It is interesting, but offers a rather low view of the prophecy. A thorough review was written by William Henry Green: Moses and the Prophets, New York, 1883, pp. 255-353); S. M. Schiller-Szinessy: An Exposition of Isaiah lii, 13, 14, 15, and ii, Cambridge, 1882; W. H. Cobb: “The Integrity of the Book of Isaiah” in Bibliotheca Sacra, 1882, pp. 519 ff.; Vilmar: Collegium Biblicum, Part 4, 1883; E. H. Plumptre: “An Ideal Biography of Isaiah” in The Expositor, 1883; A. Sérensen: Juda und die assyrische Weltmacht, 1885; J. Barth: Beitrage zur Erklarung des Jesaia, Karlsruhe, 1885 (the date of publication is incorrectly given in the English 35STUDIES IN ISAIAH An important step in the interpretation of Isaiah was taken with the publication of Stade’s Geschichte des Volkes Israel. Stade was one of the first to strike a blow at the figure of the “second” Isaiah. He directed attention to Isaiah 59, which he thought possibly exhibited the work of later hands, and particularly to chapters 60-63, in which he was sure that the work of later hands was apparent. On the whole, however, critical opinion held to the theory translation of Delitzsch as 1855); H. Guthe: Das Zukunftsbild des Jesata, Akademische Antrittsvorlesung, Leipzig, 1885; C. J. Bredenkamp: Der Prophet Jesaia erklart, Drei Lieferungen, Erlangen, 1886-87 (Bredenkamp had previously published Vaticinium quod de Immanuele edidit Jesaias, Erlangen, 1880); C. Von Orelli: Die Propheten Jesaja und Jeremia ausgelegt, Nordlingen, 1887 (An English translation of the comments on Isaiah appeared, Edinburgh, 1889. Orelli adopts the dua! authorship of Isaiah, but he is a firm believer in the supernatural, His comments, although somewhat meagre, are to the point and of genuine exegetical help); J. Knabenbauer: Commentarius in Isaiam Prophetam, 1887 (The English translation of Delitzsch mentions a work by A. Knabenbauer: Erkldrung des Propheten Jesaia, Freiburg i. B., 1881. This latter I have not been able to trace. Evidently the reference is confused, and the intention is to refer to the work of J. Knabenbauer); S. R. Driver: Isaiah: His Life and Times, London, 1888; A. H. Sayce: The Life and Times of Isaiah, London, 1889; Dillman: Der Prophet Jesaia, Leipzig, 1890 (This is in reality the fifth edition of Knobel’s commentary. However, this commentary is a great improvement upon Knobel, and is in every sense Dillman’s work. Dillman expressly repudiates what he calls Knobel's “Rationalismus” (p. V). His work is philologically remarkable and exegetically valuable. He accepts the dual authorship of the prophecy, although he is a firm believer in the supernatural. This volume is, in the present writer's opinion, one of the most important commentaries to appear since the time of Alexander); Giesebrecht: Betirdge sur Jesaiakritik, 1890; Cornill: Einlettung in das Alte Testament, Freiburg, i. B., 1891 (2nd edition, 1892; English translation, from the 5th edition, London and New York, 1907). ‘s Berlin, J, 1887, I], 1888. Torrey gives the date as 1887, but the second volume, which contains the relevant material, appeared in 1888, Stade believes that it is most satisfactory to explain Isaiah 40-66 as the work of a man who exercised his ministry at the close of the exile and who wrote in Babylonia. However, there are certain passages which do not well fit into such a picture. These are 56:9-57:13a; 58:13-59:21; 62; 63-66, and the Messianic passages 55:3b, 4 and 61:5, 6. With regard to chapter 59, Stade says, ‘Die Herleitung dieses Capitels von Deuterojesaja bereitet jedoch erhebliche Schwierigkeiten” (p. 81}, and “Das ganze Capitel passt weit besser in die Stimmung der nachexilischen Zeit” (idem). 36THE STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE ALEXANDER of the unity of chapters 40-66. It was in 1888 and 1890 that the first edition of George Adam Smith's lectures appeared.® It is difficult to appraise this work with dispassion, for, in some respects, it is a mixture of good and evil. Essentially, as new editions have appeared, it has not changed. Through- out, the style of writing is most pleasing and convincing, and the presentation of the historical background is introduced in an interesting manner. Nevertheless, one cannot but feel that the author has missed the meaning of the prophet in a very serious fashion. For example, he does not behold a Divine Person in the famous passage, Isaiah 9:5, and part of his argument is found in the following statements, ‘‘Even if we allowed that the four names contain among them the predicate of Divinity, we should not overlook the fact that the Prince is only called by them. It is not that He zs, but that he shall be called, Wonderful-Counsellor, God-Hero, Father-Everlasting, Prince-of-Peace. Nowhere is there a dog- matic statement that He is Divine.’”’*7 But this is to quibble with words and to betray a profound lack of exegetical ability.6 Happily, when the author is dealing with less con- troversial questions, he exhibits a better exegetical sense. The lectures, however, must be used with caution. It is extremely regrettable that for many ministers these lectures apparently constitute the principal help in their study of Isaiah. This work, probably more than any other, has given currency in English-speaking lands to the idea that the second section of Isaiah is the product of the exile. It has been the salesman par excellence of the second Isaiah. % The Book of Isaiah, vol. 1, 1888, vol. II, 1890. The work has passed through several editions, and has exerted an extremely wide influence. 67 Vol. I, New York, New and Revised Edition, p. 137. 68 Another statement of this type is the utterance concening the Isaianic authorship of chapters 40-66, ‘‘We have seen that there is no evidence in the Book of Isaiah to prove that it was all by himself, but much testimony which points to a plurality of authors; that chaps. xl-Ixvi nowhere assert themselves to be by Isaiah; and that there is no other well-grounded claim of Scripture or of doctrine on behalf of his authorship” (op. cit., vol. II, p. 16). Has Dr. Smith never read what the New Testament says about Isaianic authorship? 37STUDIES IN ISAIAH Summary In the years between the publication of Alexander’s Com- mentary and 1892 (the year in which Duhm’s work appeared), a vast amount of scholarly endeavor in the study of Isaiah was expended. Alexander easily ranks as one of the leaders in the defence of the unity of authorship of the prophecy. Dur- ing this period those who regarded the entire book as the pro- duct of the eighth-century prophet made a good case for their position. But these men were fighting against a rising tide of opinion. The times were ripe for the vigorous challenge of traditional views, and an evolutionary philosophy of life was gaining the ascendancy. Consequently, there was much sympathy for the position that the exalted views of God found in Isaiah 40-66 were the result of a process of development and that the climax of this development was to be found in the Babylonian exile. The spirit of the times almost demanded the creation of a “prophet of the exile’ into whose mouth these sublime ideas might be placed. Consequently, the de- fenders of the “second” Isaiah were growing in number and in influence. With the appearance of George Adam Smith’s lectures, this view seemed to have conquered the scholarly world, and by the help of these lectures it would now go for- ward to conquer most of the religious world. Had men like Alexander, Drechsler, Stier and Delitzsch written in vain? Was the “‘prophet of the exile’ so securely upon the throne, that he could never be removed? Even in this period of the ‘‘second”’ Isaiah’s heyday, the handwriting upon the wall appeared. Stade had begun to advance new views concerning the authorship of certain chap- ters in the latter part of Isaiah. Such was the situation when the really strong blow against the ‘‘second” Isaiah was struck. In the year 1892 there was published the commentary of Bernhard Duhm, and from that time on the throne of the “great Unknown” of the exile became less and less secure. The strange course of events that followed are, in the writer’s opinion, one of the strongest evidences that Alexander had not written in vain. 382 THE STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE THE TIME OF JOSEPH ADDISON ALEXANDER (Continued) IV. THE Work or BERNHARD DuUHM NEW stage in the study of Isaiah was reached with the appearance in 1892 of the commentary of Bernhard Duhm. Born in 1847, Duhm became in 1888 professor in Basel.2, He was a friend of Julius Wellhausen and in many respects the writings of the two men served to complement one another. Wellhausen, however, expended his labor in an endeavor to indicate the position of the prophets in Israel’s history, whereas Duhm was more concerned to disclose what he considered the true meaning of the prophetical message.3 Above all, Duhm was an interpreter and more theologically inclined than Wellhausen. Previous to the appearance of his commentary on Isaiah, Duhm had written his Theology of the Prophets and Aim and t Bernh. Duhm: Das Buch Jesaia, Gdttingen, 1892. The work appeared as Die prophetischen Bticher, 111. Abtheilung, 1. Band, in the Handkom- mentar zum Alten Testament, which was edited by W. Nowack. Subsequent editions appeared in 1901, 1914, and 1922. In the present article all quotations will be made from the 4th edition, since it is most easily acces- sible. * A brief sketch of Duhm’s life is given by Gunkel in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Tiibingen, 1927, Erster Band, columns 2043 f.; of. Vergilius Ferm, An Encyclopedia of Religion, New York, 1945, p. 236. 3 Duhm’s principal works are: Die Theologie der Propheten, 1875; Ziel und Methode der theologischen Wissenschaft, 1889; Kosmologte und Religion, 1892; Das Buch Jesaia, 1892; Hiob, 1896; Das Geheimnis in der Religion, 1896; Entstehung des Alten Testaments, 1897; a translation of Job according to the verse-measures of the original, 1897, (similar translations were made of the Psalms, 1899; Jeremiah, 1903; the Minor Prophets, 1910); Psalmen, 1898; Jeremia, 1901; Die Gottgeweihten in der at.lichen Religion, 1905; Habakuk, 1906; Das kommende Reich Gottes, 1910; Israels Propheten, 1916. 39STUDIES IN ISAIAH Method of Theological Science. The commentary on Isaiah is of particular importance, and one may readily understand why it assumed such an influential position in Biblical study.s After a few introductory remarks concerning the canon Duhm declares that to determine the various individual col- lections which are contained in the present book of Isaiah we are for the most part dependent upon internal criticism.‘ However, it may be noted, he points out, that the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus, while it does mention the Law and Prophets, says not a word as to the form in which they existed. Like- wise, the passage in II Maccabees which speaks of the sacred library (4. ¢., 2:13 ff.) may indicate that the canon of that time appeared in a different form from that which we have at present. More important, however, is II Chronicles 36:22 ff. (=Ezra 1:1-4), which clearly attributes the Cyrus prophecy of Isaiah 44:28 to Jeremiah. From this it follows that at this time Isaiah 40-66 was not reckoned as being Isaianic. The real book of Isaiah concludes with chapter 39,7 4 See note 3. s Even today this influence has not completely waned, particularly with respect to Duhm’s theory of a third Isaiah. Cf. C. H. Dodd, The Authority of the Bible, London, 1938, pp. 77, 173, 174, 175, etc.; W. Vischer: ‘Der Gottesknecht” in Jahrbuch der Theologischen Schule Bethel, Bethel, 1930, p. 61, ‘‘Unseres Erachtens redet die Wissenschaft mit Recht von Jesaja, Deuterojesaja und Tritojesaja.” 6 op. cit., p. 8, “Zur Festellung der einzelnen kleineren und grésseren Sammlungen, aus denen schliesslich unser Buch Jesaia erwuchs, sind wir fast allein auf die Ergebnisse der inneren Kritik angewiesen, denn die wenigen zufalligen Notizen in anderen Schriften liefern nur geringe Ausbeute.” 7 idem, “Im 3. Jahr. v. Chr. zitiert der Chroniker (II. Chr 36 22 f. =Esra 11-3) die deuterojesaianische Verheissung, dass Cyrus den Tempel bauen lassen werde (Jes 44 28), als ein Wort des Jeremia, halt also c. 40-66 oder einen Teil davon fiir jeremianisch.”” This statement is nothing less than, amazing, as it represents a gross misunderstanding of the passage in Chronicles, which merely relates that in accordance with the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus. The prophecy in question is found in Jeremiah 25:11-14 and 29:10. It declares that after an exile at Babylon of seventy years’ duration, the Lord will visit His people and cause them to return to their land. In accordance with this definite promise, therefore, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus 40THE STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE ALEXANDER However, not even the entirety of chapters 1-39, asserts Duhn, is from Isaiah. We should note that II Chronicles 32:32 quotes Isaiah 36-39 as coming from the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel. Now the author of Chronicles was not fond of referring to Samuel and Kings, and when he could appeal to secondary sources, he did so.? Here, however, he does not do this. Hence, we are led to think that at this time chapters 36-39 were not found within the book of Isaiah. Since in all probability, they were inserted into Isaiah by the same one who collected chapters 1-35, we may also conclude that at that time not even chapters 1-35 were in their present form.?° When, he continues, we examine chapters 1-35, we note that 13-23 form a distinct section in that these prophecies bear the heading NY, a title which appears nowhere else in the book. They must therefore have existed independently for a long time. Probably 30:6 ff. also belonged to this group, since it, too, bears this title. to issue the decree which permitted the people to return. Such is the plain meaning of the declaration in Chronicles. The writer of Chronicles is not citing Isaiah 44:28, although it is probably true that in stating the fulfilment of the prophecy in Jeremiah, he does base his phraseology upon the passage in Isaiah. This, however, is entirely different from attributing the authorship of this phraseology to Jeremiah. This conclusion of Duhm is untenable, and, as far as I know, has found practically no acceptance. 8 op. cit., p. 9, “Aber auch Jes 1-39 war damals noch nicht in der jetzigen Verfassung.” * idem, “Unfehlbar wiirde er ein Jesaiabuch als Quelle genannt haben, wenn er gekonnt hatte, denn er empfindet seine Abhangigkeit von den Bb. Samuelis und Kénige offenbar als lastig, statt deren er, so oft er kann, sekundire Quellenschriften zitiert.” 10 idem, ‘‘Standen aber zu seiner Zeit Jes 36-39 noch nicht in einem Buch Jesaia, so haben auch c. 1-35 damals noch nicht ihre jetzige Form und Vollstandigkeit gehabt, denn aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach sind c. 36-39 von demselben Manne ins B. Jes. heriibergenommen, der auch c. 1-35 aus Alteren Sammlungen zusammenstellte.” 1 idem, “Diese Kapital zerfallen von selbst in drei Gruppen infolge der Erscheinung, dass c. 13-23 nicht bloss zu Anfang eine eigene Uberschrift mit dem Namen und Vatersnamen des Propheten besitzen, sondern auch die einzelnen Stiicke mit dem Worte 8@? iiberschreiben, was sich sonst (mit Ausnahme von c. 30 4) nirgends im B. Jes. findet. Diese Kapitel 41STUDIES IN ISAIAH Chapters 1-12 have a special heading (1:1) and a con- clusion. They constitute a particular book of Isaiah’s and their collection had its own history.” Chapters 24-35 are without particular heading or epilogue and have a less clearly defined character than the other sections. They were probably gathered and inserted into the book when the entire collection was made.¥ It thus appears that there is a basic, three-fold division. Chapters 1-12 deal with Judah and Jerusalem; 13-23 have to do with foreign nations and 24-35 are eschatological. How is this arrangement to be explained? We note that it appears also in the LXX of Jeremiah and in Ezekiel. Ezekiel, there- fore, was the originator of this scheme, and it was imitated by the one who gave to Isaiah 1-35 its present form." In the compilation of the book of Isaiah, therefore, we note three important steps. 1. The collection of a.) 1-12; b.) 13-23. 2. The uniting of the groups 1-12; 13-23; 24-35 and their completion through the addition of 36-39. 3. The addition of 40-66. Each one of these steps is not necessarily to be regarded as the work of one man. Instead each may in itself have had a long history.5 Such, in brief, is a general summary of Duhm’s argument for the compilation of the book of Isaiah. miissen also fiir sich gesammelt sein und haben sehr wahrscheinlich eine Zeitlang als selbstandiges Buch existiert, zu dem vermutlich auch c. 30 6 f. gehorte.” 1 idem, ‘‘Ebenso haben c. 1-12 eine besondere, nur fiir sie bestimmte Uberschrift in c. 1 und einen Epilog in c. 12, sind daher gleichfalls einmal ein besonderes Jesaiabuch gewesen, haben aber jedenfalls als Sammlung ihre eigene Entstehungsgeschichte.”’ 13 idem, ‘‘Nur die dritte Gruppe, c. 24-35, hat ohne Uberschrift und Schluss einen weniger abgeschlossenen Charakter; die kleineren Schriften, die sie umfasst, scheinen zunachst ein Sonderdasein gefiihrt zu haben und erst in dem Augenblick zusammengestellt zu sein, als die ganze Sammlung c. 1-35 oder 1-39 oder 1-66 geschaffen wurde.” 14 idem, ‘‘Der Urheber dieser Dreiteilung ist Hesekiel, ihm hat der Mann nachgeahmt, dem wir die jetzige Gestalt von c. 1-35 verdanken.” 38 op. cit., p. 10, ‘‘Selbstverstindlich kénnen mehrere Akte auf ein und denselben Urheber zuriickgehen, aber auch das Umgekehrte ist méglich, dass namlich jeder einzelne Akt eine weitlaufige Geschichte fiir sich hat. Es ist sogar wahrscheinlich, dass die Entstehungsgeschichte des Buches 42THE STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE ALEXANDER It will be profitable to study in somewhat detailed fashion how, according to Duhm, one of these sections came into existence. As an example we may consider chapters 1-12 of the prophecy, which Duhm himself entitles, The Book of Isaiah (Das Jesaiabuch). The person who made this compilation, so runs the argu- ment, was not at liberty to arrange his material in chrono- logical or logical order as he thought best. Rather, he had to leave untouched the small but very old collections which lay before him. It was necessary for him to respect their disposi- tion of the material. That this was the case appears from the fact that he did not unite 5:25-30 with 9:7-10:4 or 5:15 ff. with chapter 2 and place it at the beginning of chapter 6.* Chapters 2-4 (with the exception of 2:2~4), we may regard, thinks Duhm, as an old, independent book which comes from Isaiah himself.17 It begins with a title, and since in the title the father of Isaiah is mentioned, it was obviously the first of his prophecies. The conclusion (4:2-6) was the work of the compiler. The relative antiquity of the text is also seen from the fact that it is in poor condition and has many glosses. 2:2-4, as may be seen from the fact that its text is in a different condition from the remainder of chapters 2-4, and also since it belongs at the close, did not originally belong to this section."® A certain arrangement of material appears viel komplizierter war, als sich bis jetzt zeigte, denn auch die bisher erwahnten Sammlungen haben jede ihre eigene Vorgeschichte.” %6 idem, ‘‘Der Sammler von c. 1-12 hat keine freie Verfiigung mehr tiber die einzelnen kleinen Stiicke seines Buches gehabt, sodass er sie nach eigenem Gutdiinken, etwa nach chronologischen oder sachlichen Gesichts- punkten oder nach Stichworten hatte anordnen kénnen, vielmehr fand er schon 4ltere kleine Sammlungen vor, deren selbstandige Dispositionen er respektierte und die er auch in unbedeutenden Einzelheiten unangetastet liess. Denn sonst hatte er z. B. c. 5 25-30 mit c. 9 7-104, ferner c. 5 16f. mit c. 2 5 ff. verbunden, er hatte die Uberschrift c. 21 weggelassen und c. 6 an den Anfang seiner Sammlung gestellt.’” 11 idem, ‘‘Am deutlichsten gibt sich c. 2-4, von dem vorlaufig c. 2 2-4 bei Seite zu lassen ist, als ein alteres selbstandiges Jesaiabiichlein zu erkennen.” 38 idem, ‘Die kleine Dichtung c. 2 2-4 gehdrt namlich diesem Biichlein urspriinglich nicht an, weil sie an verkehrter Stelle steht, am Anfang statt am Schluss, und daher mit ihrer Fortsetzung so hart zusammenstésst, dass sich beide gar nicht in einem Atem lesen lassen; sie muss also erst spater am jetzigen Ort eingesetzt sein.’’ The subjective nature of this comment 43STUDIES IN ISAIAH evident. First there is a threat. This is followed by a declara- tion of the reason for that threat and a preparation for promise, and lastly there follows the promise of future blessing. This same arrangement appears, we are told, in chapters 6:1-9:6.° Instead of a title to head the section, however, the prophet has substituted a date. In this section there is a certain unified stamp which is due to the prominence of the narrative form. At its basis probably lay an old work which Isaiah himself had revised and which now lay before the compiler in a form partly mutilated and partly enlarged. The compiler, a poor stylist, cannot have lived at an early period. The same arrangement of material is said by Duhm to appear in 9:7-11:16. The redactor of this section, since he expresses the hope that a united Israel will subdue Philistia and Moab, cannot have lived before the Maccabean age.?° The final redactor of these sections evidently intended to arrange them in chronological order, beginning with the nearer future and concluding with more remote eschatological sub- jects. This explains why chapters 2-4, which say nothing about a Messiah, are placed first, then comes chapter 9 with its account of the birth of the Messiah and lastly chapter 11 must surely be apparent. Duhm desires to find a certain arrangement of material in these sections (see note 19), and because 2:2-4 in its present position does not fit into this arrangement, he regards it as out of place. He thus misses the deep, underlying message of the prophet, a message which is to be discovered only by a faithful endeavor to allow the prophet to speak for himself. 19 op. cit., p. 11, “...zuerst die Drohung, zuletzt die Verheissung, in der Mitte die Motivierung der ersteren und die Vorbereitung der letzteren.” in order to obtain such an arrangement, however, too great a price must be paid in the way of removal of “glosses,” etc. As the text stands, this threefold arrangement of Duhm's is somewhat difficult to discover. Rather, promise and threat appear to be mingled together, both in chapters 2-4 and 6-9. 2° idem, ‘Endlich enthdlt auch die Sammlung c. 9, 7-11, 16 zuerst die motivierte Drohung, dann die ausfiihrlich vorbereitete Verheissung; c. 9 7 bildet mit dem ‘Senden des Wortes’ einen passenden Eingang, und fiir den Abschluss hat der Sammler in eigenen Zusitzen c. 11 9-16 gesorgt."” Again, this division is obtained only at the expense of proper exegesis. A careful interpretation of the text will reveal that 9:7 ff. should not be severed from the immediately preceding verses. See Alexander: The Earlier Prophecies, in loc. 44TIIE STUDY OF ISATAH SINCE ALEXANDER with its eschatological picture. The redactor himself probably labored about the first century B. C.7* The above brief sketch will give a rough idea of the manner in which Duhm thinks the material in Isaiah 1-12 was gathered. Of particular interest are his comments on the work of the so-called Deutero-Isaiah. Duhm restricts the compass of Deutero-Isaiah to include merely chapters 40-55. In fact not even all of these chapters are his. For one thing the famous Servant passages are later, although not so late as chapters 56-66. This Deutero-Isaiah is thought by Duhm to have written about 540 B.C. and to have lived, not in Babylon, but probably in the Lebanon or in northern Phoenicia. Chap- ters 55-56 were composed by someone who probably lived in Jerusalem just before the time of Nehemiah’s activity. This unknown author Duhm would designate as Trito-Isaiah. This author had probably read the Servant songs. Furthermore, for the most part, he imitated Deutero-Isaiah and agreed with him in some of the promises which speak of the building up and the future glory of Jerusalem.” * The best answer to this process of splitting up the text is to work carefully through the Hebrew text of these twelve chapters with a deter- mination to permit the prophet to speak for himself. The prophet may not present his message as we think he should, but this is no reason for denying that one man could have produced these prophecies. Duhm’'s procedure can lead only to chaos, and subsequent study of Isaiah has shown that this is precisely what it has done. 2 op. cit., pp. 14 f., ‘‘wir haben in c. 40-66 drei Schriftsteller zu unter- scheiden. “Der Alteste von ihnen ist der sog. Deuterojesaia, der Vf. von c. 40-55 exkl. die spiteren Einsatze. Er schreibt um rund 540 y. Chr., wahrschein- lich in einem am Libanon, etwa in Phénizien gelegenen Ort. Jiinger und jedenfalls nachexilisch sind die Ebed = Jahwe =Lieder c. 42, 1-4. 49, 1~6. 50, 4-9. 52, 13-53, 12, die ohne Zweifel von Einem Dichter abstammen und wohl nur einen Teil seiner Gedichte bilden, mégen die nicht aufgenom- menen friih verloren gegangen sein oder sich wegen zu persénlicher Haltung nicht zur Aufnahme in die Prophetenschrift geeignet haben. Wahrschein- lich sind diese Lieder Alter als die dritte Schrift c. 56-66, die sich nach Form und Inhalt als Erzeugnis eines einzigen Schriftstellers ausweisst, den wir der Kiirze halber Tritojesaia nennen. Die beiden Hialften dieser Schrift, c. 56-60 und c. 61-66, sind vielleicht durch den Redaktor von c. 40-66 umgestellt. Geschrieben ist sie kurz vor der Wirksamkeit des Nehemia und zwar in Jerusalem.’ Thus, in a section characterized by dogmatic statement, the Third Isaiah is born. 45STUDIES IN ISAIAH The task of Deutero-Isaiah is said to be to proclaim that Yahweh will return through the wilderness to Palestine at the head of freed Israel. For this return men are to prepare the way. Hence the prophet keeps his own person in the back- ground, so that today one does not know where he really lived, whether in Palestine, Egypt, Babylon or somewhere else. He is the lyric among the prophets, and while his speeches may have psychological pauses and changes of theme, they have no logical arrangement. Trito-Isaiah wrote at a time when the land was inhabited and the city built, but all was in tragic shape. There was no human instrument such as Cyrus to improve conditions. Furthermore, there were enemies, the false brethren of the Jerusalem community who even wished to build a rival temple. The day of revenge, however, was to come, and Jerusalem’s walls would be rebuilt. Duhm thinks that Trito-Isaiah, in matters of style, is below Deutero-Isaiah. Furthermore, Trito-Isaiah speaks often of himself. He considers it his duty to point the people to its sins, to bring the Gospel to the poor and to announce the day of vengeance. All these tasks are foreign to Deutero-Isaiah.”3 The four Servant passages might be removed from their present context and leave no blank space. They are not entirely divorced from their context, however, for their principal idea, that of the Servant, is not foreign to Deutero- Isaiah. However, he handles the subject in a different way. The Servant of the Four Passages is quite different from that of Deutero-Isaiah, He is not a prophet, but a teacher of the 43 op. cit., p. 419, “Als Schriftsteller unterscheidet sich Tritojesaia von Deuterojes. so stark wie méglich. Haufig zwar nimmt er im Anfang eines Gedichts einen héheren Flug und erinnert dann ab und an an seinen Vorganger, aber meist sinkt er in versifizierte Prosa herab. Wortliche Entlehnungen aus Jesaia, Jeremia, Deuterojesaia, Hiob usw, finden sich in grosser Zahl, besonders sticht auch der Einfluss Hesekiels hervor, den Dtjes. gar nicht kennt. Deuterojesaianische Zitate werden gern ins Geist- liche umgebogen (s. zu 57 14 58 8 62 10f.). “Im Gegensatz zu Dtjes. redet Tritojes. dfter von sich selber. Als seine Aufgabe bezeichnet er, dem Volk seine Siinden anzuzeigen (58 15=Mch 3 8b), den Elenden das Evangelium zu bringen, das Jahr des Heils und den Tag der Rache anzukiindigen (61 1 ff.), Aufgaben, die simtlich dem Dtjes. fremd sind.” 46SINCE ALEXANDER Law.™% The author of these poems appears to have lived after the book of Job was written and before the book of Malachi, but probably not during the exile. Quite likely these poems belonged to an original work, and were written in the margins or in blank spaces in Deutero-Isaiah’s prophecy. In the Fourth Poem, the individual traits of the Servant appear most clearly, and it is completely impossible to speak of the actual or true Israel as being intended. Like the other poems, this one attributes to the Servant the work which Deutero-Isaiah expected to be accomplished through the Lord’s immediate activity.75 By way of summary, it may be said, therefore, that Duhm’s principal contributions are to be found in his introduction of the ‘‘Third” Isaiah, his reducing the compass of ‘‘Second’’ Isaiah by one-half, his unique views of the four great Servant passages and his attributing the authorship of chapters 40-66 to persons who lived in Palestine or Syria. These views were so novel and startling that their widespread influence is easily understandable. V. EXAMINATION OF A SPECIMEN OF DuuM’s EXEGESIS The first impression which one receives from reading Duhm’s work is that the author has been engaging in mere intellectual pastime. It is difficult to believe that the noble 4 op. cit., p. 311, “Sie (i. e., the Servant passages) beriihren sich in Wort und Gedanken sehr nahe mit Deuterojes.s Schrift, haben aber zu ihrer Umgebung nur zum Teil einige Beziehung und wirden durch ihre Ent- fernung keine Liicke hinterlassen, was freilich auch von manchen anderen Stiicken gesagt werden kénnte. Ihr Hauptgedanke, die Idee des Got- tesknechtes, ist auch dem Dtjes. nicht fremd, wird aber von ihm ganz anders behandelt.” “Er (i. e., the Servant) ist nicht eigentlich ein Prophet, sondern ein Prophetenjiinger, ein Thoralehrer, darum, wie es scheint, vom Verf. des B. Maleachi (2 6 f.) als das Ideal ‘Levis’ verwertet.” 38 op. cit., p. 393, “Der Knecht Jahwes wird hier noch individueller behandelt als in den iibrigen Liedern, und die Deutung seiner Person auf das wirkliche oder das ‘wahre’ Israel ist hier vollends absurd.” In the first edition Duhm had employed the word “unméglich” in place of “absurd.” * Other features, such as the basic principles which guided Duhm in his exegesis, will receive attention in the subsequent discussion. 47STUDIES IN ISAIAH prophecy of Isaiah was actually composed in the manner which Duhm suggests. Great masterpieces of literature — and surely Isaiah is such — do not thus come into being. It is necessary, however, to examine with some care a specimen of Duhm’s exegesis. Such an examination will clearly reveal the principles which have guided him in his work and will indicate the extent of the validity of these principles. There are many passages which would lend themselves admi- rably to such an examination, but there is one in particular which will prove fruitful, namely, the introductory verses of the so-called ‘‘third” Isaiah. The devout and careful reader of the Bible will probably not discover any hiatus between Isaiah 55 and 56. In chapter 55 he will have read of the life-giving waters, available to all who thirst. The Messiah has been set forth as a witness of the truth and a commander of the nations. Hence, many nations which previously had not known the truth will ac- knowledge him. Indeed, they are encouraged to come, while the Lord is near. The mercy of the Lord and His transcend- ence should also encourage the sinner, for the word that the Lord has spoken will not return to Him void. The righteous- ness of God, continues chapter 56, is to be fully revealed, and the distinctions of the old dispensation are to be done away. Alf those, whoever they may be, who exhibit faithfulness to that which God has required, will be received and blessed of Him. With Duhm, however, the plain meaning of the text is not to be accepted. With chapter 56 we find ourselves in the presence of a post-exilic author. The Temple has long been built and Jerusalem is inhabited. Nevertheless, a tragic situation prevails. The leaders of the people do nothing; the rich oppress the poor and the truly pious ones are dying out. The Lord is ready to help. He has no human instrument (like the Cyrus of “‘second”’ Isaiah), but will Himself intervene against the enemy, the schismatic heretics of Jerusalem. According to Duhm, 56:1-8 is a doctrine (Thora) relating to the admission into the cultus of the foreigners and eunuchs. It has a superficia] connection with ‘‘second”’ Isaiah, but no connection with what follows. This fact, however, should 48SINCE ALEXANDER cause no surprise, since it is a common characteristic of the “third” Isaiah,?? Even in verse 1, the difference between the ‘‘second” and “third” Isaiahs is said to be apparent. This difference comes to light in the command, ‘‘Keep ye justice and do righteous- ness”. According to Duhm, this is work-righteousness, and not the dikavoobvy rot Oéo0 of which the “‘second” Isaiah speaks. In verse 1b, indeed, the word righteousness (7P71¥) is used more in accordance with “second” Isaiah, and hence with a different connotation from that which it bears in la. Nevertheless, even in 1b what the author intends primarily to set forth is the condition in which the cult comes to honor, the unworthy ones and heretics are driven out and punished, and the Jews who are true to the Law come into their own, dedicate themselves wholly to the priestly functions and so fulfill all righteousness. In that they are now exercising righteousness, they are preparing themselves for the time of God’s righteousness.?8 This interpretation is quite interesting, but is it correct? In discussing the verse, Duhm makes practically no effort to justify his exposition but proceeds with the calm majesty of dogmatism and assurance that characterizes so much of his writing. The only answer to his fancies is to be found in a sober exegesis of the text. From the merely formal aspect alone, 56:1 bears resem- blance, not only to chapters 40-55, but also to 1-39. The introductory phrase 717” 18 7D occurs only 5 times in “third” Isaiah, but it appears (with variations) at least 14 7 op. cit., p. 419, “Der Abschnitt kniipit oberflachlich an Dtjes.s Schrift an, hat dagegen keinen Anschluss an die Fortsetzung. Indessen ist das gerade, bei Tritojes. nicht weiter auffallig, da dergleichen bei ihm éfter vorkommt.” 28 idem, “‘Allerdings wird aber auch in v. 1b der Verf. mit der Gerechtig- keit Gottes den Zustand meinen, wo der Kultus ganz zu Ehren gekommen, die Unwiirdigen und Haretiker ausgeschieden und bestraft und die gesetz- treuen Juden in Stand gesetzt sind, sich ganz den priesterlichen Funktionen zu widmen und dadurch alle Gerechtigkeit zu erfiillen. Dadurch, dass sie schon jetzt Gerechtigkeit tben, bereiten sie sich auf die Zeit der Gerechtig- keit Gottes vor.” 490\ STUDIES IN ISAIAH times in “second” Isaiah, and several times in 1-39.79 Like- wise, the linking together of 08¥ and MPN is characteristic of the entire prophecy of Isaiah, and also of other portions of the Old Testament.3° The phrase “my salvation (NY1¥?) also appears in each portion of Isaiah, and the words ‘‘my right- eousness” (*PT¥) in both the “second” and “‘third’’ Isaiah.3? The thought ‘‘my salvation is near to come and my righteous- ness to be revealed”, appears in almost identical words (in the masculine, however), in Isaiah 51:5 C2@? N¥2°P7T¥ BiNpP).3 From the purely formal standpoint, therefore, all that Duhm can adduce is the observation that ‘‘second’’ Isaiah merely desires justice and righteousness, whereas ‘‘third” Isaiah commands men to practice them. Surely, in itself, this is not a criterion of sufficient weight to indicate diversity of author- ship. Is it not evident that in 56:1 the author is resuming the theme already introduced in 55:6, 7? In the latter passage he has commanded men to seek the Lord. It is precisely this thought which he reintroduces in 56:1. How are men to seek the Lord? By keeping judgment and doing righteousness. Furthermore, they are to do this at the appropriate time. In 55:6 they were to seek the Lord when He might be found and to call upon Him while He was near. So in 56:1 they are to keep justice and do righteousness, because (°3) His salvation is near to come and His righteousness to be revealed. Thus, both in 55:6 and in 56:1 conversion is described in positive terms. That which the Lord demands is worship of the true God and obedience to His law. The word 030 seems to be an equivalent of JIN as in 51:4. It is used similarly in 42:1-4. Thus, the one who keeps judgment is the one who seeks zealously to obey the revealed will of God, to worship Him in truth. Jeremiah expresses the meaning when he equates 29 Isaiah 56:1, 4; 65:8; 66:1, 12 (ef. also 57:15 NWN OY WORD °D); 42:5; 43:1, 14; 44:2, 6, 24; 45:1, 11, 18; 48:17; 49:7, 25; 51:22; 52:3 and, e. g., 29:22. » Cf., e. g., Isaiah 9:6; 33:5, etc. * E. g., Isaiah 12:2; 49:6; 51:6, 8; 56:1. # E. g., Isaiah 46:13; 51:6, 8; 56:1. 8 Cf. also 46:13, TON ND *OYWwM pr YN Nb NPIS ‘ADP. 50THE STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE ALEXANDER the one who does judgment with the one who seeks truth (Jeremiah 5:1). The one who thus worships God will also do righteousness, z.¢., he will act righteously by rendering obedience to God's righteous commands. When Duhm asserts that the author of 56:1 is speaking of a work-righteousness, he has completely missed the point of the verse. The prophet does not intend to say, “Obey my commands, and if your obedience proves to be meritorious, then I shall save you”. The idea of salvation by works of human righteousness is utterly foreign to every part of the Old Testament. What the prophet means to say is, ‘‘Now is the accepted time, now is the day of salvation; therefore, seek the Lord”. If he were writing in terms of the New Testament, he might say that the manner in which men are to seek the Lord is by believing in Christ. He writes, however, in common with the other authors of the Old Testament, ‘‘Obey the voice of the Lord. Give ear to His revelation and act in accord therewith”. The thought is in complete harmony with the utterance of Isaiah elsewhere, ‘Learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow’’.3s In other words, the true follower of the Lord must manifest the sincerity of his profession by his manner of life. The Lord requires righteousness upon the part of those who are His. It may be that the command is addressed to those who will feel the weight of Babylonian oppression. However, the meaning is much deeper, and cannot be thus restricted to the exiles. The prophet is enunciating general principles which are to regulate not only the people of Israel but the church in general. And, as Alexander has aptly pointed out, “The doctrine of the passage is simply this, that they who enjoy extraordinary privileges, or expect extraordinary favours, are under corresponding obligations to do the will of God; and moreover that the nearer the manifestation of God's mercy, whether in time or in eternitv. the louder the call to righteous- ness of life’’.3 The second verse, according to Duhm, serves to explain the concepts judgment and righteousness of la, and has no parallel 4 Tsaiah 1:17. 38 The Later Prophecies, p. 311. SISTUDIES IN ISAIAH with “second” Isaiah or with any of the pre-exilic prophets either in form or in content.3° It does, however, remind one of the legal writers and of several Psalms. Thus, the words WIN and OTN 72, as employed in verse 2, are used in the sense of man’s relationship to God as in Psalm 8:5 and not, as in Isaiah 51:12, of the heathen who fear Israel. Apparently the verse is too negative for Duhm, since he would rather see positive instructions given as to what is ethical.37 With regard to the formal construction of this verse, there is no reason whatsoever why it may not have been composed by the author of chapters 40-55. The introductory word, °"WR, occurs also in Isaiah 30:18 immediately after a state- ment that the Lord is a God of judgment. Its use here, there- fore, will not come as a shock to one who has read the previous chapters of the prophecy. Furthermore, the combination WiI8 and OTN] is employed in this passage just as in 51:12. Duhm’s assertion that in the latter passage the words refer to the heathen is arbitrary.3* As verse one in positive fashion had set forth that which God requires, so this verse gives the negative aspect. Such a procedure is strikingly similar, not only to the “second’’ Isaiah, but also to the ‘‘first’”’. Just as in 55:6 Isaiah had presented the positive requirements of the Lord, so in 55:7 he states the case negatively, ‘‘Let the wicked man forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts”’. And, as in Isaiah 1:17, we meet the positive side, in verse 16 we are presented with the negative, ‘‘Wash you, be you clean, % op. cit., p. 419, “2 erklart die Begriffe Recht und Gerechtigkeit in v. la und hat weder in der Form noch im Inhalt eine Parallele im Dtjes. oder in den vorexilischen Propheten.” 37 op. cit., p. 420, ‘Wir wiirden lieber positive Angaben tiber das, was sittlich ist, sehen.” 38 op. cit., p. 419, ‘WIN und OIN}3 sind bei Dtjes. (51 12) die Heiden, vor denen sich Israel fiirchtet, hier wie z. B. Ps 8 5 der Mensch in seinem Verhaltnis zu Gott.” The point of 51:12 is to contrast man with God. There is no need to fear man, reasons the prophet in this passage, for man dies, nor the son of man, for he is as grass. On the other hand the Lord is man’s maker and the creator of heaven and earth besides (51:13). If, there- fore, the Lord is with His people, it is foolish to fear man. In both 51:12 and 56:2 the reference is to mankind generally. In 51:12 it cannot be restricted to the heathen, but to mankind as such in the role of an oppressor of God's people. 52THE STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE ALEXANDER turn aside the evil of your doings from before mine eyes, cease to do evil”. By thus stating the case both positively and negatively, the prophet is enabled to make abundantly clear the nature of the Lord’s requirements. This literary device must have been very effective, since it is found in each portion of the prophecy of Isaiah. Not only does 56:2 set forth the requirements of the Lord negatively but it also presents concrete particulars. The right- eous man, it teaches, will observe the Sabbath in such a way that he will not profane it and he will also keep his hand from doing any evil. This, says Duhm, is a strange combination and certainly a paltry ideal for the religious man.3% The mention of the Sabbath apparently is due to the fact that people were beginning to neglect or to give up the Sabbath and circumcision. The use of 9 n, thinks Duhm, isa characteristic of the author’s legal tendency. The thought is that the man who does not profane the Sabbath, a cult ordinance, is just; it is therefore necessary to ‘‘keep” (a favorite word of the Deuteronomist, which probably stems from priestly usage) this ordinance.*° At this point there begins to appear one of the principles which has guided Duhm in his work. It is, in effect, to test the writing by its theology. In other words, the religious thoughts and sentiments and the phraseology in which they find expression may all serve as reliable criteria for determining the age to which the passage belongs. In the present verse, therefore, the express mention of the Sabbath must point to a time when there was much concern about the cult, namely, the post-exilic period. This method of study, as employed by Duhm and others, is fraught with great danger, for it proceeds upon the un- founded assumption that the religion of Israel passed through a long process of evolutionary development. Hence, a passage 39 op. cit., p. 420, “Fromm ist nach v. 2b, wer den Sabbath nicht entheiligt und nichts Béses tut, eine seltsame Zusammenstellung, vor allem ein diirftiges Ideal des religidsen Menschen.” 4” idem, “bbn ist bezeichnend fiir die gesetzliche Richtung des Verf.s: der Sabbath ist eine kultische Einrichtung, wer ihn heiligt oder, vorsichtiger ausgedriickt, nicht entheiligt, ist gerecht; man muss aber gut Acht geben, 7v, dass man ihn nicht durch irgend etwas entweiht.” 53STUDIES IN ISAIAH which places stress upon the Sabbath, as does 56:2, must reflect a period of time when, according to a certain philosophy of Israel’s religious history, much attention was supposed to have been devoted to the Sabbath. It is necessary, therefore, to ask what the purpose of the writer was in mentioning the Sabbath. Isaiah has just pro- claimed the blessings of the one who keeps judgment and does righteousness (MNf refers to verse one, not to 2b). This expression of the true religion is manifest in the keeping of the Sabbath, which constituted a regular remembrance and recog- nition of the truth as well as a constant profession of the Faith. For the weekly observance of the Sabbath would be tantamount to an acknowledgment that the Lord was indeed the Creator of heaven and earth and that He had delivered His people from the bondage of Egypt and had set them apart unto Himself as a peculiar nation. In other words, the man who kept the Sabbath in sincerity and truth was the man who was devoted to the religion of Israel. No doubt, Isaiah might have used other phrases which would fitly characterize the devout Israelite. But the Sabbath was a weekly remembrance, and its mention is surely an appropriate designation of the faithful worshipper of the Lord. Hence, the use of the word “sabbath” in itself throws absolutely no light upon the period in which this passage was composed. The religion of the Old Testament, however, is never a religion of mere form. Hence, the man who zealously seeks to observe the requirements of the cult must also keep his hand from doing any evil. If Duhm thinks that this is a paltry ideal, we can only explain his sentiments as being colored by the influence of the easy-going optimism which characterized the religious ideas of his day. Who among the sons of men has been able to keep his hand from doing evil? The ideal is not paltry; it is nothing short of absolute perfection which God here demands. Furthermore, a man, to be blessed, must persevere (PIT?) in the keeping of judgment and the doing of righteousness, “He that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.” It is a life of constant, consistent perseverance and devotion # Matt. 24:13, 54THE STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE ALEXANDER to Himself as He has revealed Himself that God requires. Yet, in characteristically superficial fashion, Duhm passes over the deeper meaning of the verse. Duhm has adopted as one of his principles the legitimacy of emending the text if the supposed laws of Hebrew meter should require it. It is this process which permits him so freely and almost capriciously to make alterations and emendations. Hence, verse 3 is introduced with the general statement that from this point on the meter is uncertain. If ‘third’ Isaiah was the author, thinks Duhm, there must have been later alterations made and glosses inserted. The phrase ‘“‘that hath joined himself unto the Lord, saying” is thought to be prob- ably a gloss. It appears from this verse, reasons Duhm, that, as far as salvation is to be obtained through the keeping of the law, “third” Isaiah is an extreme particularist. The law, however, has now become more than popular custom. It has become a theological-legal system and has assumed a more generally abstract character, so that if men generally will observe Sabbath and circumcision, they may become its subjects. These words must have been written at a time when those of. foreign birth were really concerned lest they be shut out from the community, and in this consideration we have a proof that the verse cannot have come from the time of the exile but only from the period when the Jews were again a people, and foreigners would consider it of importance to be tolerated as fellow citizens.6 The author must at least have experienced the beginnings of the struggles to separate Israel from the heathen which occurred under Ezra and Nehemiah. Appar- ently he was in agreement with Ezra save that he was willing to make an exception of such foreigners as he describes in verse 6. # op. cit., p. 420, “Von jetzt an wird das Metrum unsicher; hat aber Tritojes. diesen Abschnitt geschrieben, so miissen spatere Alterationen des Textes, besonders auch Zusatze daran schuld sein.”” 43 idem, “Die Sorge, ausgeschlossen zu werden, miissen zu der Zeit, wo dies geschrieben wurde, die Fremdgebornen wirklich gehabt haben; neben- bei bemerkt, ist dies ein Beweis, dass v. 3 nicht aus der exilischen Zeit stammen kann, sondern nur aus der Zeit, wo die Juden wieder ein oY waren und Fremde darauf Wert legen konnten, in ihrer Mitte als Mitbiirger geduldet-zu werden.” 55STUDIES IN ISAIAH The eunuch, so the argument continues, is not complaining because he is not accepted. The law which would exclude eunuchs (Deuteronomy 23:2-9) was later, probably the fruit of the movements which took place under Ezra. The eunuch merely complains because he will have no descendants, and exhibits no trace of that hope which would be found in thoughts of immortality. Here again Duhm tests the text by its theology and arrives at conclusions which are wholly unwarranted. The mention of the “foreigner” is in itself no indication of the age of the document. Why, however, it may be asked, is the “foreigner’’ introduced in this verse? Is it not obvious that the prophet is merely reverting to the thought which he has already introduced in 44:5? In this latter passage Isaiah has predicted the accession of the gentile people who publicly profess their allegiance to the Lord. ‘This one shall say, I belong to the Lord; and this one shall call in the name of Jacob; and this one shall write (with) his hand, To the Lord, and by the name of Israel shall he entitle himself.” It is to this subject that the prophet now returns. Since the Lord’s salvation is near, all personal and national distinctions and disabilities are to be abolished. It is incorrect to assume upon the basis of this passage that the law in Deuteronomy had not yet been written. The prophet is not ignorant of the law, nor is he willfully seek- ing to disqualify it. But here is an instance where prophecy, as it points forward to the Messianic age, transcends the restrictions which the civil law of the Israelites has imposed. The expression “foreigner” and ‘“‘eunuch’’ are intended, as Alexander has pointed out, to represent more particulars than they express. This prophecy has its roots in the past. Will the foreigner be accepted in the Kingdom of God? Is there no hope for the eunuch? These questions must have raised themselves in Israel's history, and they find their answer here. They do not in reality find a full answer within the compass of Duhm’s op. cit., p. 421, “Er klagt nur dariiber, dass er keine Nachkommen habe; sein Name wird mit seinem Tode erléschen, sein Grab nicht von einem Sohne gepflegt und beschiitzt werden. Keine Spur von dem Trost, der im Unsterblichkeitsgedanken liegen wiirde.”’ 56THE STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE ALEXANDER “second” Isaiah.4* The answer which this verse gives, there- fore, constitutes evidence that in thought it belongs with what has preceded. The prophet now proceeds to discuss the eunuch, and then the foreigner. He strengthens the Lord’s word by the intro- ductory formula, ‘for thus saith the Lord”. Three things are said of the eunuchs who will receive blessing. 1) They will keep the Lord's Sabbaths, 2) they choose that in which the Lord delights, and 3) they abide firm in His covenant. In this language there is nothing whatever which demands a post- exilic background. The phrase ‘‘my Sabbaths” appears, it is true, in Ezekiel, but it also occurs in Leviticus. Duhm lays stress upon “72 (to choose), when used of man, as a favorite expression of ‘‘third’’ Isaiah, which never appears in ‘“‘second”’ Isaiah. However, Duhm is slightly in error. In 41:24 there is an example of human choice in an evil sense (‘an abomination is he that chooseth you’). In verse five Duhm regards °NDiM33 as a probable gloss. The promise uttered in this verse, he continues, has regard to the eunuch, who must have been a prominent person. Whereas the name of others is to live on through their children, that of the eunuch will not die since a memorial to him will be erected in the Temple. This will be more valuable, since it will be a spiritual remembrance in the Lord’s community. On account of Deuteronomy 23, however, this law was probably never carried out. The conclusion of the verse is so similar to that of 55:13 that both passages cannot have been written by the same hand. If chapter 56 had appeared in another book no one would ever have thought of attributing it to ‘‘second” Isaiah.47 48 It is perfectly true that in 40-55 the thought is expressed that Gentiles will be gathered into the fold. But this is always done in a general way and not with reference to individuals as such, as in 56:3. 4 op, cit, p. 421, “IMA von Menschen im guten und schlechten Sinn ausgesagt, ist ein Lieblingsausdriick Tritojes.s, kommt dagegen bei Dtjes. gar nicht vor; es ist das aipetoOa: des NT.s (Heb. 11 25).”" M3 is used of man in Isaiah 1:29; 7:15, 16 (of the Messiah); 40:20; 41:24; 56:4; 65:12; 66:3, 4; of God, 14:1; 41:8, 9; 43:10; 44:1, 2; 48:10; 49:7; 58:5, 6; 66:4. 47 op. cit., p. 422, “Wahrscheinlich war der Verschnittene, zu dessen Gunsten diese Thora gegeben wird, ein hervorragender Mann, aber erfiillt 57STUDIES IN ISAIAH In reply to this exposition of Duhm, we would remark in the first place that this verse does bear a certain formal resem- blance, at least in its concluding words, to the last verse of chapter 55. This latter passage had contained the words, a “name, a sign of eternity, it will not be cut off’. In similar fashion 56:5 speaks of “a name of eternity will I give to him which will not be cut off”. The resemblance here, however, is far more than a merely formal one. In chapter 55 the prophet has spoken of the word of the Lord which goes forth and accomplishes its purposes. The wondrous results brought about through the going forth of the word are to abide as an eternal name to the Lord. So, in 56:5 the eunuch, who cannot enjoy the blessings which sons and daughters bring, will nevertheless receive a blessing so great, that it can be likened to the results which the word of God produces. It is a name that will not be cut off. Is it not obvious that this language was deliberately chosen by Isaiah in order to call to mind the glorious promise of 55:13? It matters comparatively little what the precise signification of 001 7? may be. Probably it is to be taken, as Kénig sug- gests, in the sense of ‘‘a glorious sign” (riihmendes Zeichen).‘# Its importance is that it sets forth the fact that distinction is to be given to the eunuch. We cannot, however, rest satisfied with any interpretation of the verse which regards it as teaching nothing more than that there is to be in the Kingdom a recognition given to eunuchs. The eunuch is mentioned, merely as a representative of a particular class, namely, those who are weak and have no claim to righteousness. These, as the passage teaches, shall receive great blessing from God. Let no one, therefore, because he is so great a sinner and so unworthy, say, ‘‘I am a dry tree”, for even those who are so unworthy as to be “‘dry trees’’ shall receive a name that will not be cut off. They shall dwell in God’s house for ever. ist das Versprechen wegen Dtn 23 2 wohl nicht. Der Schluss von v. 5 klingt so deutlich an 55 13 an, dass schon deshalb beide Stellen nicht von derselben Hand geschrieben sein kénnten; dass von Dtjes. und unter seinen Umstinden diese Thora gegeben sei, wiirde kein Mensch geglaubt haben, wenn c. 56 in einem anderen Buch stande.” 48 Eduard Konig: Das Buch Jesaja, Giitersloh, 1926, p. 491. 58THE STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE ALEXANDER One wonders, as he reads Duhm’s exposition, what warrant “third” Isaiah might have had for declaring that eunuchs would have monuments erected to them in the Temple compound (doch im Tempelbezirk).49 This would certainly have been an innovation! What would have permitted the prophet to think that he could teach such a thing? And how earthly and materialistic this entire conception is! Is the glorious salvation of the Lord and His coming righteousness to mean no more to the eunuch than that he shall have a tablet erected to his memory in the yard of the Temple? Is it not obvious that a man who can see no more in the verse than this barren thought can never appreciate the basic, underlying unity that does connect this section with what precedes? The same type of exegesis continues in verse six. Those of foreign birth are to serve the Lord by presenting sacrifices, not offering them, since “third” Isaiah knew the prescriptions of Ezekiel (44:6 ff.).5° The proselytes are those who later came to be known as proselytes of righteousness and are to manifest their love for the Lord in the service of the cult. The verse is indeed a promise of universalism. It includes those of the prophet’s time who were foreign born, but it includes more than them. It is an announcement of the truth that racial distinctions will not sever any from the blessings of the Messiah’s kingdom. The words obviously refer to verse three, and in this fact it becomes apparent that Duhm was entirely unwarranted in regarding the words of that verse, ‘‘that hath joined himself unto the Lord, saying”, as a gloss. For the purpose of the present passage is to answer the query introduced in verse three. That query was not, ‘Will the Lord cut off the stran- ger?” It was, rather, ‘‘Will the Lord cut off the stranger that has joined himself unto the Lord?”’ And the answer to this latter question is made clear and explicit by the present pas- 49 op. cit., p. 422, ‘‘Danach sollen die Verschnittenen und offenbar sie allein, nicht die, die Kinder haben, Denkmiler innerhalb der Tempel- mauern erhalten, doch sollen sie sicher dort nicht begraben werden.” s° idem, “Sie sollen Jahwe kultisch dienen, mit Opfern u. dgl., die sie selbstverstandlich nur liefern, nicht selber darbringen, denn das letztere sollen nach Hesekiel (44 6 ff.), den Tritojes. kennt, ja nicht einmal die Leviten mehr tun.”” 59STUDIES IN ISAIAH sage. Duhm’s proposed emendation, therefore, simply takes the meaning out of the verse. A further point should be noted. It is said (56:6) that the stranger has joined himself unto the Lord to serve (NW) Him. This word, in itself, is generic, but in this particular instance it appears to apply to the service of priest and Levite (cf. 61:6). It reveals the fact that they of foreign birth will serve the Lord as do His regularly appointed servants. They will be truly His, and their service of Him will thus be accept- able. In interpreting verse seven Duhm enters a caveat. These words, particularly the basic sentence, ‘for my house’’ etc., should not, he thinks, be divorced from their context. There is no talk of spiritual joy here. Rather, the meaning of the verse is simply that those of foreign birth who submit them- selves completely to Judaism, including circumcision, may be permitted to pray in the Temple of Jerusalem. It does not mean that the Temple is to be opened to everyone. Hence, Judaism remained for a long while far behind most other religions.** Verse eight merely adds the thought that just as the Lord will gather dispersed Isracl, so will He also gather to Israel those that are not Jews. Every unprejudiced reader will see, thinks Duhm, that this thought presupposes the situation of the post-exilic community; otherwise how could one explain the last words ‘‘those that are gathered unto him”? Duhm is, however, willing to regard verse 8 as a later gloss, but insists that verses 1-7 are post-exilic.s? A mere reading of verses seven and eight reveals the fact that Duhm has completely missed their meaning. For one S' op. cil., p. 423, “Der begriindende Satz: denn mein Haus wird ein Bethaus genannt werden, als solches proklamiert werden, fiir alle Valker, darf nicht aus seinem Zusammenhange gelést werden; es handelt sich keineswegs um die liberate Offnung des Tempels fiir jedermann, sondern um die Méglichkeit der Zulassung von Fremden genen Erfiillung der vorher genannten Bedingungen, d. h. des vollstaindigen Ubertritts zum Judentum, der Beschneidung usw. Damit bleibt das Judentum hinter den meisten Religionen noch weit zuriick.” 82 idem, “Indessen wiirde ich mich nicht sehr widersetzen, wenn jemand v. 8 fiir einen spateren Zusatz erklarte; nachexilisch bleibt darum v. 1-7 doch.” 60THE STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE ALEXANDER thing, it should be noticed that, in this passage, the Lord Himself is speaking. It is He who brings the foreigners unto His holy mountain and causes them to rejoice in His house of prayer. Just what can this mean if not a true conversion to the Lord and a rejoicing in Him? The offerings and sacrifices mentioned may indeed be actual sacrifices but the reference is certainly not exhausted by such. Rather the thought apparently is that those who come will come in a manner that the Lord delights in; they will approach Him in humble prayer. The thought of verse eight has its roots in 49:6. There is no need for assuming that it must have been written at a time when the Israelites had been dispersed and were being regath- ered. It should rather be taken as a strengthening of the universalistic emphasis already given. The above sketch has been somewhat brief, nevertheless it has sought to bring to the fore and to render conspicuous the principles which underlie the exegetical method of Bernhard Duhm. By the adoption of these principles Duhm has not been successful in demonstrating that there is a clear break at the end of chapter 55, and that chapter 56 must be entirely severed from what precedes. And because throughout his work he employs the same method of procedure, it may with confidence be asserted that he has not succeeded in proving any of his peculiar tenets. In other words, we may conclude that chapters 55-66 should not be severed from 40-55 nor should the great ‘‘Servant” passages be divorced from the context in which they are found, nor is the canonical book of Isaiah an aggregation and accumulation and agglutination of material. Consequently, the divisive, ‘‘‘atomistic” exegesis which pervades the pages of Duhm’s commentary cannot be accepted as a safe guide to the correct understanding of the prophecy. VI. Tae Periop Fottowinc Dunm It may be well to begin the survey of the period which followed the appearance of Duhm’s commentary by calling attention to a series of articles by A. B. Davidson, entitled “The Theology of Isaiah”, and published in The Expository 61STUDIES IN ISAIAH Times.ss These articles almost serve as a popular commentary on certain portions of the prophecy. They contain many helpful thoughts, but the standpoint from which they are written is clearly exemplified in the following sentences. ‘‘Ch. vi. is the record of a vision — i. e. an intuition or a series of intuitions in a condition of mind more or less ecstatic. The vision was not something objective shown either to his (7. e., the prophet’s) outward or inward eye. It was the creation of his own mind. Whatever higher influence bore on him it operated on his mind, and his mind projected the vision. But in such visions there is usually no element new or unfamiliar to the mind. What is new is the disposing of the elements. The mind operates on old materials, and gives them a new form and a connected unity.’ A position such as this, since it seems to leave no room for true revelation, cannot begin to do adequate justice to the prophet’s conception that he was a spokesman who had received his message from the Lord. _In 1896 and 1898 respectively two volumes on Isaiah in the series known as The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges were published.’s These were the work of J. Skinner who for the most part adopted the principles of Duhm, and doubtless has been largely responsible for making these views widespread among English-speaking people. Whereas Duhm had main- tained that chapters 56-66 were largely the work of one individual, Skinner, doubtless influenced by some of the criticisms of Duhm’s position which had appeared, did not wish to commit himself on that point. Nevertheless, in his desire to separate 56-66 from 40-55, Skinner shows that he has come largely under Duhm’s spell. In the introduction to the second volume (pp. xxix-xxx) Skinner argues, for example, that a passage such as 56:7 clearly presupposes the existence of the Temple, and 56:8 33 Vol. V, 1893-1894, pp. 296-298, 369-374, 391-396, 438-442, 488-492, Vol. VI, 1894-1895, pp. 9-13. Attention should also be directed to a series of seven essays by Dr. Davidson which appeared in The Expositor under the title ‘The Book of Isaiah: Chapters xl.Ixvi.”, Second Series, Vol. VI, pp. 81-98, 186-203, Vol. VII, pp. 81-103, 251-267, Vol. VIII, pp. 250-269, 350-369, 430-451. 4 The Expository Times, Vol. V, p. 297. 88 | have used the revised editions, Cambridge, first volume, reprinted 1930, second volume, reprinted 1940. 62THE STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE. ALEXANDER “implies that a partial gathering of exiled Israclites has taken place, and promises that others shall yet be gathered (cf. Ivii. 19)”. To this it may be replied that the presence of the Temple may point to a pre-exilic as well as a post-exilic date, and 56:8 may be regarded as predictive prophecy and not at all as necessarily implying that even a partial restoration has already taken place. Again, Skinner more or less follows Duhm in appealing to the social conditions which he believes are reflected in chapters 56-66. These social conditions are thought to be 1) oppres- sion of the poor, 2) worthless leaders of the community, 3) worldly-minded priests, 4) traces of cleavage into two parties, 5) a section of the population addicted to idola- trous practices. In reply it may be pointed out that these conditions were in no sense unique in the post-exilic period, but may be said to have characterized almost every period of, Israel's history as a nation.s Of considerable importance was the study of Fiillkrug on the problem of the Servant of the Lord.s? The importance of A thorough reply to the arguments generally adduced to show that the social conditions which form the background of chapters 56-66 are those of the period after the exile has been made by Edward J. Kissane: The Book of Isaiah, Vol. I1, Dublin, 1943, pp. xlvi-lv. 37 Gerhard Fiillkrug: Der Gottesknecht des Deuterojesaja, Géttingen, 1899. In 1893 appeared the second edition of Driver’s work, Isaiah: His Life and Times, London; J. Ley: Historische Erkldrung des II. Tetls des Jesaja; and Hackmann: Die Zukunftserwartung des Jesaja. In 1898 the sixth edition of the commentary of Knobel-Dillmann made its appearance, edited by Kittel. The work clearly reveals the influence of Duhm. Instead of ascribing 56-66 to one author however, Kittel remarks, ‘‘Vielmehr handelt es es (sic!) sich wohl um Nachtrage zu DtJes, die einer ganzen Schule von Mannern aus der Zeit nach 538 angehdren” (p. 473). The work maintains the same standards of scholarship which characterized the previous editions, and must always be consulted in any serious study of Isaiah. Attention should also be directed to T. K. Cheyne: The Book of the Prophet Isaiah in Paul Haupt, ed.: The Sacred Books of the Old and New Testaments, New York, 1898, In this work the text is printed in colors, according to the supposed author. Critical notes are also provided, but the whole book is very disappointing. This volume probably exhibits as clearly as can be done the utter futility of chopping the book of Isaiah into fragments. An historical study of Isaiah 36-39 by J. Meinhold was published under the title, Die Jesajaerzahlungen Jesaja 36-39. Eine historischkritische Unter- suchung, Gottingen, 1898. 6STUDIES IN ISAIAH the work lies in the fact that the author studies the problem in the light of Duhm’s comments. As far as this particular problem is concerned, it may be said that Fiillkrug has con- clusively demonstrated the untenableness of Duhm’s position. Fullkrug concludes that although none of the four famous “Servant’’ passages sustains a necessarily organic relation to its context, nevertheless there is no sufficient reason for divorcing any of the passages from that context. All these sections were composed by ‘‘second” Isaiah, and in each of them the Servant is an individual. The positive interpretation of the passages is disappointing, for Fillkrug thinks that the prophecies of the Servant were not fulfilled at the time nor under the circumstance which “second” Isaiah had expected. They were finally fulfilled, however, and that in the Person of Jesus Christ.5* Some of Duhm’s basic principles were reasserted in the commentary of Karl Martis® who spoke of the prophecy as “a little library of prophetical literature (‘Das Buch Jesaja ist — eine kleine Bibliothek prophetischer Schriften; aber diese sind, schon nur literarisch betrachtet, sehr verschieden"’ (op. cit., p. xvii)). Marti has carried out his work with caution and judiciousness; nevertheless we must regard it as basically mistaken. It is basically mistaken, for example, when it regards the Servant of the Lord as everywhere being the people of Israel and it is also basically mistaken in its view of the composition of the prophecy. Around the turn of the century great interest appeared in the question of the identity of the Servant who is mentioned 58 Fiillkrug: op. cit., ‘Die Weissagungen vom Gottesknechte haben sich also in der Zeit und unter den Bedingungen, unter welchen sie Deutero- jesaja erwartete, nicht erfiillt”’ (p. 118). ‘So wie der Profet ihn sich gedacht hat, ist der Soter niemals gekommen, aber ein halbes Jahrtausend spater ist er erschienen als Retter und Heiland der ganzen Welt" (p. 119). 89 Karl Marti: Des Buch Jesaja, Tiibingen, 1900. For a fairly detailed review see John Taylor: ‘‘Marti’s ‘Das Buch Jesaia’"” in The Expository Times, Vol. XII, pp. 65-68. It should be noted that in adopting the collectivistic interpretation of the Servant of the Lord, Marti did not follow Duhm, who held to the individualistic viewpoint. The collectivistic inter- pretation also appeared in the monograph of Karl Budde: Die Sogenannten Ebed-Jahwe-Lieder und die Bedeutung des Knechtes Jahwes in Jes. 40-55: Ein Minoritatsvotum, Giessen, 1900. 64THE STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE ALEXANDER in the second portion of Isaiah. Numerous monographs were written, of which we shall mention but a few, Ernst Sellin espoused the individualistic interpretation in 1899 in a book entitled Serubbabel. In this work he expounded the theory that the Servant of whom the book of Isaiah speaks was none other than the great leader Zerubbabel. Two years later, how- ever, Sellin was just as sure that the Servant was Jehoiachin.© The book in which this theory was set forth is characterized by a too superficial consideration of the problems involved. There is, however, one merit in this work which should be noticed. Sellin calls attention to an article by Kittel (‘Cyrus und Deuterojesaja” in the Zeitschrift fur alitestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1898, pp. 149-162) in which a comparison was made between the language of the Cyrus passages in Isaiah and the language of the Cyrus Cylinder. Sellin points out that this question has not received the attention it deserves and himself enters into a worthwhile discussion of the subject. In the light of the criticism which his thesis evoked and also of subsequent publications Sellin once again (1908) uttered his convictions that the Servant was Jehoiachin.* For his staunch advocacy of the individualistic interpre- tation of the Servant passages Sellin is deserving of credit. He clearly exposes the fallacies of the collectivistic view. It is in his positive identification of the Servant that, to the present writer, he fails to do adequate justice to the require- ments of the text. A champion of the individualistic interpretation also ap- peared in Franz Feldmann, the Roman Catholic professor of 6 Ernst Sellin: Studien 2ur Entstehungsgeschichte der jiidischen Gemeinde nach dem babylonischen Exil, 1. Der Knecht Gottes bei Deuter ojesaja, Leipzig, 1901. The discussion of the relation between the language of the Cyrus prophecies and the Babylonian parallels is found on pp. 131-135. 6 Ernst Sellin: Das Ratsel des deuterojesajanischen Buches, Leipzig, 1908. Sellin mentions among others the following discussions of the Servant problem which were published since the appearance of his earlier work: Giesebrecht: Der Knecht Jahwes des Deuterojesaja, 1902; Roy: Israel und die Welt in Jesaja 40-55, 1903; Zillessen: “Israel in der Darstellung und Beurteilung Deuterojesajas” in the Zeitschrift fur alttestamentliche Wissen- schaft, 1904, pp. 251 ff.; Laue: “Nochmals die E.-J.-Lieder im Deutero- jesaja’’ in Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1904, pp. 320 ff. and Gress- mann: Der Ursprung der isroelitisch-jtidischen Eschatologie, 1905, pp. 301-333. Sellin gives a brief characterization of each of these discussions, 65STUDIES IN ISAIAH theology at Bonn.” Feldmann reveals a wide acquaintance with the literature of Protestant scholars upon the problem of the Servant of the Lord and introduces his work with an important historical survey of various interpretations. His writing is throughout characterized by thoroughness and exegetical ability. Feldmann boldly presents the thesis — the only tenable one, it would seem — that the Servant of the Lord of whom the Prophet speaks is the coming Messiah. In Protestant circles this important book has unfortunately not received the consideration which it deserves. The collectivistic view reasserted itself in the work of Kennett who maintained that the Servant represented not all the people, but the pious ones, the Hasidim, who were mar- tyred in the Maccabean age. However, he would not restrict the reference of the prophecies. ‘‘But since they contain, as I also believe, a divinely inspired interpretation of history, we cannot limit their application to the martyrdom of the Hasidim under Antiochus Epiphanes, and the subsequent triumph of the cause for which they suffered, but we must recognize that their teaching possesses a far wider scope. We learn from them that the sufferings of those who, in a wicked or apostate age, endure persecution for their adherence to the right are not in vain” (pp. 114f.). Kennett insists that this prophetic interpretation of history must be applicable ‘‘to Him ® Franz Feldmann: Der Knecht Gottes in Isatas Kap. 40-55, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1907. The title of the book shows that it was written with a consciousness of the theory of Duhm. Feldmann apparently believed that Isaiah 40-55 was a product of the exile. ‘‘Der Ktirze wegen nenne ich den Verfasser des exilischen Teiles des Jesajabuches Deuterojesaja=DJ” (p. 1, n. 1). Conrad von Orelli: Der Knecht Jahve's im Jesajabuche, Berlin, 1908, advanced the thesis that the Servant was the idea! Israelite, a man who would unite in himself all the perfections of Israel (‘Wie sollte es nicht Einer sein, der diese Missionen schliesslich in sich vereinigt und sie nur in viel hdherer, geistigerer Weise ausfiihrt, indem er durch sein Lehren und Leiden das Volk erlést und Jahve zur Anerkennung bringt in der ganzen Welt?” (p. 29)). 6 Robert H. Kennett: The ‘Servant of the Lord,’ London, 1911. The Messianic interpretation was again advanced by Feldmann: Die Wetssa- gungen tiber den Gottesknecht im Buche Jesaias, Miinster in Westfalen, 1913. This little work is popular in nature and, because of its non-technical language, well adapted to introduce the ordinary reader to the problem which it discusses. goTHE STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE ALEXANDER who not only suffered for the truth, but is Himself the truth of God” (p. 116). Of unusual interest was the monograph of Staerk, who insisted that the Servant of 52:13-53:12 was a different figure from that of the three preceding Servant passages. Staerk arrives at this conclusion by listing the characteristics of the Servant as given in the first three passages and comparing them with those given in the fourth. He concludes that the two Servants are entirely different, as to their character, pro- fession and history. The first is a hero but the second is a true martyr. Staerk’s work is thorough, but it cannot be said that he has made any real contribution to the understanding of the problem. He does at least recognize, however, that the Servant in each instance is intended to represent an individual, and that is decided gain. In the years following the appearance of Duhm’s commen- tary not all students of Isaiah limited their studies to the ‘problem of the Servant of the Lord. Some commentaries were produced as well as studies on various portions of the proph- ecy.® Attention may be called to Kennett’s Schweich Lectures 6 W. Staerk: Die Ebed Jahwe-Lieder in Jesaja 40 f., Leipzig, 1913. A rather unprofitable discussion of this work was carried on by Budde and Staerk in the Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1913, pp. 611-614, 702-703, 734. 6s In 1895 Cheyne had published his Introduction to the Book of Isaiah. Attention may also be called to a defence of the Isaianic authorship of the entire prophecy by D. S. Margoliouth: Lines of Defence of the Biblical Revelation, New York, 1903, pp. 72-138. This work is written along some- what novel lines. Margoliouth seeks to point out that the geography of Isaiah 40-66 is earlier than that either of Jeremiah or Ezekiel, that the idolatrous practices mentioned in these chapters are pre-exilic, and that these latter chapters of Isaiah show connection with the earlier chapters. In 1905 appeared the commentary of A. Condamin: Le Livre d'Isaie, Paris. In 1906 a voice was raised in protest against the ‘‘moderne Text- zersplitterung’’ which characterized the writings of Marti and Volz. In his book Die messianische Erwartung der vorexilischen Propheten (Giitersloh) Wilhelm Méller (pp. 151-232) sought to defend the traditional interpre- tation of the Messianic prophecies in Isaiah 1-39. His work consists of a careful examination of the assertions of Marti and Volz and an endeavor to refute their viewpoint and to establish the traditional one. In this he was, we believe, successful, but his labors have remained almost unnoticed. The earnest student, however, will find in the writings of Méller much that is of genuine aid for the understanding of Isaiah. An attempt to set before the English reader a translation of Isaiah which would exhibit the results 67STUDIES IN ISAIAH in which he discusses the composition of Isaiah. Kennett pays high tribute to Duhm. ‘Among the foreign scholars”, he says, ‘who contributed to the elucidation of Isaiah the foremost place must unquestionably be assigned to Bernhard Duhm” (p. 2). So completely has Kennett accepted Duhm’s divisive principles of operation that he can write, ‘To argue at length that the book of Isaiah is not all the work of Isaiah the son of Amoz, but a composite document, would be but to slay the slain” (idem). And he goes on to say, ‘‘As a result of this new literary equipment it is now pretty generally recog- nized that the analysis of the book of Isaiah is a work of the utmost complexity, each of the main divisions of the book consisting of documents of different provenance and date” (idem). And again, ‘...it is necessary to inquire with reference to each section or fragment which literary criticism declares to be homogeneous, at what period every one of its phrases would have a clear meaning” (p. 4). When an expositor begins with assumptions such as these, it may be expected that he will cut up the prophecy into confetti, and that is precisely what he does. Kennett assigns very little to Isaiah. He even assigns very little to the sixth century B. C, Asa matter of fact, only those passages which have some reference to Babylon and Cyrus will he regard as exilic. The greater portion of the book is thought to have come from the age of the Maccabees. It has been well remarked that these lectures “. .. marked, perhaps, an extreme point in the disintegration of cc. xl-Iv in authorship and date’’.* of recent criticism was made by G. H. Box: The Book of Isaiah: Translated From a Text Revised in Accordance with the Results of Recent Criticism, London, 1908. The influence of Duhm and Cheyne is found throughout. Box writes, “In every respect the commentary of BERNHARD DUHM — the 1st edition of which was published in 1892 — is epoch-making. The insight displayed in this splendid work into textual and critical problems amounts to genius. Duhm’s commentary has profoundly influenced all subsequent critical work on Isaiah, notably that of Cheyne and Marti” (p. 8). 6 Robert H. Kennett: The Composition of the Book of Isaiah in the Light of History and Archaeology, London, 1910. 67 Sidney Smith: Isaiah Chapters XL-LV: Literary Criticism and History, London, 1944, p. 2. A series of popular studies was issued by George L. Robinson: The Book of Isaiah: In Fifteen Studies, New York, 1910. Robin- 68THE STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE ALEXANDER Kennett’s basic assumptions cannot be allowed. For one thing there are passages in Isaiah which, even when the limits of a vigorous historical test are applied, may have a clear meaning in more than one period of Israel's history. But the basic flaw in Kennett’s work, as in the work of so many, is that the writings of the prophets are regarded as similar in nature to other writings of antiquity and are to be studied apart from the basic question of the special inspiration of the prophet and his place in the history of God’s redemptive revelation. In the commentary of Wade the same divisive processes appear, although not to the same extent as in Kennett’s lectures.®* Nevertheless, in some respects Wade’s work is little more than Duhm in English dress. The commentary proper is divided into three basic sections, that on Proto-Isaiah and appended prophecies, that on Deutero-Isaiah and that on Trito-Isaiah. There is much helpful information in the work, but it suffers from the defects of the principles upon which it is based. Of great value is the commentary of G. Buchanan Gray on the first twenty-seven chapters of Isaiah.°? From the point of view of philology the work is excellent, and the discussion of the versions is very valuable. The book will long remain a standard work of reference. The underlying foundation upon which Gray has carried out his work may be discovered in the following words: “The proof that Isaiah is, nevertheless, not the author of the Book of Isaiah, lies in the fact that a large part of the Book was written at the least two centuries after his time, and some of it later still. How large a part is subse- quent to the age of Isaiah it may be difficult to determine; son has produced a truly helpful book. It shows an acquaintance with the thought of negative criticism, but presents in constructive fashion the message of the prophet. It is written upon the assumption that Isaiah was the author of the entire prophecy. 6G. W. Wade: The Book of the Prophet Isaiah With Introduction and Notes, London. The first edition appeared in 1911; a second, revised edition was issued in 1929, 69 George Buchanan Gray: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I-XXXIX (The International Critical Commentary), New York, 1912. 69STUDIES IN ISAIAH but even a superficial critical survey of the Book must discern that so much is subsequent to his age that it is incorrect and misleading to speak or think of the Book as the work of Isaiah; it is, on the other hand, a compilation of the post-exilic period, containing, it is true, prophecies of Isaiah which were already ancient when the Book was compiled, but containing also, and in larger quantity, prophecies and narratives of much more recent date” (pp. Xxx-xxxi). In conclusion we may mention two more works, Cheyne again turned his attention to Isaiah.7* He seems now to have become sornewhat enamored with the idea of being new and original.? The result is a volume which is almost fantastic in its thesis, namely, that the background of Isaiah 40-55 is not Babylon but North Arabia, and the one who freed the Jews was not the Persian Cyrus but a North Arabian adventurer, Koresh by name. As an example of cleverness and fertility of imagination, this book may have some claim to merit; as an aid to the understanding of Isaiah, it is practically worthless. It is refreshing to turn from such volumes as we have been considering to an article which strives to take exegesis more seriously. In 1912 Oswald T. Allis sought to point out that the prophecy of Cyrus (Isaiah 44:24-28) is based upon a scheme that is “fundamentally chronological and climactic and that the argument and the metrical form are in as perfect agreement as possible, the whole arrangement being intended to produce an especial climax in the closing line of the third, or future, strophe”’ (p. 625).7 After an exhaustive study of tT. K. Cheyne: The Mines of Isaiah Re-Explored, London, 1912. ™ The work is dedicated to R. H. Charles, ‘an indefatigable explorer of new paths’. The preface begins, ‘‘This is an original contribution to the study of the ‘Later Isaiah’ (or Isaiahs)” (p. vii). Cheyne speaks of Ken- nett’s “clever contributions” (p. viii), and of himself, “I willingly grant that there are real pioneering elements in my first adventures on unfre- quented paths. But even in these, and much more in later adventures, I hold myself bound to-claim to be something more than a pioneer, for I have solved thus early, either wholly or in part, many problems which have long baffled my friends on the other side, as well as many others which were none the less real because they were ignored” (pp. 3 f.). 7” Oswald Thompson Allis; “The Transcendence of Jehovah God of Israel: Isaiah XLIV:24-28" in Biblical and Theological Studies by the Members of the Faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary, New York, MCMXII, pp. 579-634. Attention may also be directed to the philological 7OTHE STUDY OF ISATAH SINCE ALEXANDER the passage the author writes, “Thus we conclude that the most striking and significant features of the poem favor the view that while this utterance was significant in and of itself, it was chiefly significant in view of the exceptional circum- stance under which it was spoken, i. e. in view of its early date. The chronological arrangement of the poem assigns the Resto- ration and Cyrus to the future. The perspective of the poem, together with the abrupt change of person in the second strophe argues that this future is a remote future. And finally the carefully constructed double climax attaches a significance to the definiteness of the utterance which is most easily accounted for if this future was so remote that a definite disclosure concerning it would be of extraordinary importance” (p. 628). Dr. Allis has brought forth arguments which must be answered by those who posit an exilic or post-exilic date for these prophecies. He has, indeed, made a major contribu- tion toward the solution of the problem of the authorship of Isaiah 40-66. Summary From the foregoing it must be apparent that since the year 1892 the study of Isaiah has been carried on under the shadow of Bernhard Duhm’s influence. One positive result of this influence has been an increased interest in the question of the identity of the Servant of the Lord. Several very fruitful monographs upon this subject were written, the most valuable of which, according to the present writer, since they appear to do most justice to all aspects of the question, being those of Franz Feldmann. An unfortunate result of this influence of Duhm, considered from the standpoint of those who take seriously the witness of the New Testament upon the question of the authorship of Isaiah, was the widespread acceptance of the theory of a “third” Isaiah and of Duhm’s divisive principles of textual criticism. The commentaries which were written during the comments of Arnold B. Ehrlich: Randglossen zur Hebrdischen Bibel: Text- kritisches, Sprachliches und Sachliches, Vierter Band, Jesaia, Jeremia, Leipzig, 1912. 71STUDIES IN ISAIAH early years of this century often betrayed this influence. Since 1900 no truly great commentaries upon Isaiah have been written. Now and then, a few champions of the New Testament view have spoken, Méller, Robinson and Allis. On the whole, how- ever, the influence of Duhm has been supreme. As a result, in the present writer’s opinion, true exegesis has suffered. Meanwhile, if they would rightly expound Isaiah, faithful ministers of the Word of God had to turn away from the barren fields of German negative criticism to the works of the great masters of the nineteenth century, Alexander, Drechsler, Hahn, Stier and Delitzsch. If the twentieth century is to produce a truly great commentary upon Isaiah, it must, once and for all, break itself loose from the influence of Bernhard Duhm.3 THE STUDY OF ISAIAH SINCE THE TIME OF JOSEPH ADDISON ALEXANDER (Continued) VII. THE ScHoor oF ForM-CRITICISM CHOOLS of Biblical Criticism come upon the scene, have their day and then pass away. The commentary of Bernhard Duhm had introduced a new viewpoint in the interpretation of Isaiah, a viewpoint which was destined to supplant the reigning interpretations of his day. Yet Duhm’s work was in itself not an isolated phenomenon. For he occupies his place in that school of Biblical criticism and interpretation which is generally regarded, even at the pres- ent, as in the position of dominance. And this school of criticism and interpretation, commonly associated with the names of Graf, Kuenen and Julius Wellhausen, whether it be considered from the standpoint of the religious or of the secular history of Israel, is itself but a manifestation of a particular movement in the history of thought, represented also by the theology of Ritschl and the philosophy of Hegel. That there have already been strong reactions to the reconstruction of Israel’s history proposed by this school is well known. In what respect, however, we may ask, did these reactions make themselves known in the study of Isaiah? This question is of particular interest because the basis for these reactions and indeed their very roots are to be found (so the present writer believes), at least to an extent, in the work of Duhm itself. The leading development in the field of the literary criticism of Isaiah was the appearance of the school of Gattungsforschung or form-criticism. As far as it applies to the Old Testament, 73STUDIES IN ISAIAH this school of interpretation will always be connected with the names of the brilliant scholars Hermann Gunkel and Hugo Gressmann,' men who have been successful in producing a coterie of capable students that have applied their principles to the study of the entire Old Testament.” Basic to this school of thought is the assumption that the literature of the Hebrews fell into types and that these are clearly distinguished by certain characteristics.3 Each Gattung, to employ Gunkel’s terminology, exhibited certain intro- ductory and concluding formulae, characteristic thoughts, and also some function in the life of the people. Hermann Gunkel was born in 1862 near Hannover and served as pro- fessor at various German universities. In his commentaries he took a lead in advancing the tents of the religious-historical school and the principles of Gattungsforschung. His best known works are: Schépfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit, 1895; Genesis, 1901; Die Sagen der Genesis, 1901; Die Psalmen iibersetzt und erkldrt, 1925; Einleitung in die Psalmen, 1, 1927. Hugo Gressmann (1877-1927) was a professor in Berlin, who had left the school of Wellhausen and devoted his talents to the religious-historical school. He is best known for his works: Uber die in Jesaja 56-66 voraus- gesetzten zeitgeschichtlichen Verhdlinisse, 1898; Ursprung der israelitisch- jiidischen Eschatologie, 1905; Altorientalische Texte und Bilder, I, II, 1909; Mose und seine Zeit, 1913. 2 Concerning this school and its attitude toward classical Wellhausen- ism, J. Coppens remarks (The Old Testament And The Critics, 1942, p. 71), “A new generation of exegetes has arisen. Under the leadership of Gress- mann and Gunkel, they have spoken rather harsh words about their predecessors, calling them armchair philologists, bureaucrats of erudition, bookworms, Barnums of book-learning; accusing them of lack of vision and of disregarding the archaeological and psychological discoveries, which alone make it possible to keep close to historic reality, to penetrate into the spirit of civilizations, and to grasp the sense of ancient liter- atures.” 3 A good exposition of the principles of form-criticism or Gattungsfor- schung may be found in Sidney Smith: Isaiah Chapters XL-LV: Literary Criticism and History, London, 1944, pp. 6-23. This discussion is certainly the most valuable part of Smith’s survey of recent criticism of Isaiah. Apart from these remarks about form-criticism, the survey is rather meagre and leaves unnoticed much recent literature of importance. I am inclined to agree with the criticism of James D. Smart (Theology Today, vol. IV, no. 2 (July 1947), p. 290), “The first lecture, which is intended to show the results of recent scholarship in the study of Isaiah 40-55, is sketchy in the extreme, passing over many major questions round which debate has centered”, 74