[1] See further Jebb's _Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeus_, (ii.
264).
[2] Plut. _De glor. Athen._ p. 350 c, where he mentions [Greek: tous
Isokrateis kai Antiphontas kai Isaious] among [Greek: tous en tais
scholais ta meirakia prodidaskontas].
[3] Here he was probably influenced by the teaching of Isocrates. The
forensic speech of Isocrates known as the _Aegineticus_ (Or. xix.),
which belongs to the peculiar province of Isaeus, as dealing with a
claim to property ([Greek: epidikasia]), affords perhaps the earliest
example of narrative and proof thus interwoven. Earlier forensic
writers had kept the [Greek: diegesis] and [Greek: pisteis] distinct,
as Lysias does.
[4] This is what Dionysius means when he says (_Isaeus_, 61) that
Isaeus differs from Lysias--[Greek: to me kat' enthymema ti legein
alla kat' epicheirema]. Here the "enthymeme" means a rhetorical
syllogism with one premiss suppressed (_curtum_, Juv. vi. 449);
"epicheireme," such a syllogism stated in full. Cf. R. Volkmann,
_Rhetorik der Griechen und Romer_, 1872, pp. 153 f.
[5] Cleon's speech in Thuc. iii. 37, 38, works out this image with
remarkable force; within a short space we have [Greek: xyneseos
agon--ton toionde agonon--agonistes--agonizesthai--antagonizesthai--
agonothetein]. See _Attic Orators_, vol. i. 39; ii. 304.
[6] For the words of Photius (cod. 263), [Greek: touton de oi to
gnesion martyrethentes n' kataleipontai monon], might be so rendered
as to imply that, besides these fifty, others also were extant. See
_Att. Orat._ ii. 311, note 2.
[7] Forty-four are given in Thalheim's ed.
[8] The second of our speeches (the Meneclean) was discovered in the
Laurentian Library in 1785, and was edited in that year by Tyrwhitt.
In editions previous to that date, Oration i. is made to conclude
with a few lines which really belong to the end of Orat. ii. (S 47,
[Greek: all' epeide to pragma ... psethisasthe]), and this
arrangement is followed in the translation of Isaeus by Sir William
Jones, to whom our second oration, was, of course, then (1779)
unknown. In Oration i. all that follows the words [Greek: me
poiesantes] in S 22 was first published in 1815 by Mai, from a MS. in
the Ambrosian Library at Milan.
[9] Cf. Maine's _Ancient Law_, ch. vi., and the _Tagore Law Lectures_
(1870) by Herbert Cowell, lect. ix., "On the Rite of Adoption," pp.
208 f.
[10] The date of L and Z is given as the end of the 15th century in
the introduction to Wyse's edition.
ISAIAH. I. _Life and Period._--Isaiah is the name of the greatest, and
both in life and in death the most influential of the Old Testament
prophets. We do not forget Jeremiah, but Jeremiah's literary and
religious influence is secondary compared with that of Isaiah.
Unfortunately we are reduced to inference and conjecture with regard
both to his life and to the extent of his literary activity. In the
heading (i. 1) of what we may call the occasional prophecies of Isaiah
(i.e. those which were called forth by passing events), the author is
called "the son of Amoz" and Rabbinical legend identifies this Amoz with
a brother of Amaziah, king of Judah; but this is evidently based on a
mere etymological fancy. We know from his works that (unlike Jeremiah)
he was married (viii. 3), and that he had at least two sons, whose
names he regarded as, together with his own, symbolic by divine
appointment of certain decisive events or religious truths--Isaiah
(Yesha'-yahu), meaning "Salvation--Yahweh"; Shear-Yashub, "a remnant
shall return"; and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, "swift (swiftly cometh) spoil,
speedy (speedily cometh) prey" (vii. 3, viii. 3, 4, 18). He lived at
Jerusalem, perhaps in the "middle" or "lower city" (2 Kings xx. 4),
exercised at one time great influence at court (chap. xxxvii.), and
could venture to address a king unbidden (vii. 4), and utter the most
unpleasant truths, unassailed, in the plainest fashion. Presumably
therefore his social rank was far above that of Amos and Micah;
certainly the high degree of rhetorical skill displayed in his
discourses implies a long course of literary discipline, not improbably
in the school of some older prophet (Amos vii. 14 suggests that
"schools" or companies "of the prophets" existed in the southern
kingdom). We know but little of Isaiah's predecessors and models in the
prophetic art (it were fanaticism to exclude the element of human
preparation); but certainly even the acknowledged prophecies of Isaiah
(and much more the disputed ones) could no more have come into existence
suddenly and without warning than the masterpieces of Shakespeare. In
the more recent commentaries (e.g. Cheyne's _Prophecies of Isaiah_, ii.
218) lists are generally given of the points of contact both in
phraseology and in ideas between Isaiah and the prophets nearly
contemporary with him. For Isaiah cannot be studied by himself.
The same heading already referred to gives us our only traditional
information as to the period during which Isaiah prophesied; it refers
to Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah as the contemporary kings. It is,
however, to say the least, doubtful whether any of the extant prophecies
are as early as the reign of Uzziah. Exegesis, the only safe basis of
criticism for the prophetic literature, is unfavourable to the view that
even chap. i. belongs to the reign of this king, and we must therefore
regard it as most probable that the heading in i. 1 is (like those of
the Psalms) the work of one or more of the Sopherim (or students and
editors of Scripture) in post-exilic times, apparently the same writer
(or company of writers) who prefixed the headings of Hosea and Micah,
and perhaps of some of the other books. Chronological study had already
begun in his time. But he would be a bold man who would profess to give
trustworthy dates either for the kings of Israel or for the prophetic
writers. (See BIBLE, _Old Testament_, Chronology; the article
"Chronology" in the _Encyclopaedia Biblica_; and cf. H. P. Smith, _Old
Testament History_, Edin., 1903, p. 202, note 2.)
II. _Chronological Arrangement, how far possible._--Let us now briefly
sketch the progress of Isaiah's prophesying on the basis of philological
exegesis, and a comparison of the sound results of the study of the
inscriptions. If our results are imperfect and liable to correction,
that is only to be expected in the present position of the historical
study of the Bible. Chap. vi., which describes a vision of Isaiah "in
the death-year of King Uzziah" (740 or 734 B.C.?) may possibly have
arisen out of notes put down in the reign of Jotham; but for several
reasons it is not an acceptable view that, in its present form, this
striking chapter is earlier than the reign of Ahaz. It seems, in short,
to have originally formed the preface to the small group of prophecies
which now follows it, viz. vii. i.-ix. 7. The portions which may
represent discourses of Jotham's reign are chap. ii. and chap. ix. 8-x.
4--stern denunciations which remind us somewhat of Amos. But the
allusions in the greater part of chaps. ii.-v. correspond to no period
so closely as the reign of Ahaz, and the same remark applies still more
self-evidently to vii. 1-ix. 7.[1] Chap. xvii. 1-11 ought undoubtedly to
be read in immediate connexion with chap. vii.; it presupposes the
alliance of Syria and northern Israel, whose destruction it predicts,
though opening a door of hope for a remnant of Israel. The fatal siege
of Samaria (724-722 B.C.) seems to have given occasion to chap. xxviii.;
but the following prophecies (chaps. xxix.-xxxiii.) point in the main
to Sennacherib's invasion, 701 B.C., which evidently stirred Isaiah's
deepest feelings and was the occasion of some of his greatest
prophecies. It is, however, the vengeance taken by Sargon upon Ashdod
(711) which seems to be preserved in chap. xx., and the striking little
prophecy in xxi. 1-10, sometimes referred of late to a supposed invasion
of Judah by Sargon, rather belongs to some one of the many prophetic
personages who wrote, but did not speak like the greater prophets,
during and after the Exile. It is also an opinion largely held that the
prophetic epilogue in xvi. 13, 14, was attached by Isaiah to an oracle
on archaic style by another prophet (Isaiah's hand has, however, been
traced by some in xvi. 4b, 5). In fact no progress can be expected in
the accurate study of the prophets until the editorial activity both of
the great prophets themselves and of their more reflective and studious
successors is fully recognized.
Thus there were two great political events (the Syro-Israelitish
invasion under Ahaz, and the great Assyrian invasion of Sennacherib)
which called forth the spiritual and oratorical faculties of our
prophet, and quickened his faculty of insight into the future. The
Sennacherib prophecies must be taken in connexion with the historical
appendix, chaps, xxxvi.-xxxix. The beauty and incisiveness of the poetic
prophecy in xxxvii. 21-32 have, by some critics, been regarded as
evidence for its authenticity. This, however, is, on critical grounds,
most questionable.
A special reference seems needed at this point to the oracle on Egypt,
chap. xix. The comparative feebleness of the style has led to the
conjecture that, even if the basis of the prophecy be Isaianic, yet in
its present form it must have undergone the manipulation of a scribe.
More probably, however, it belongs to the early Persian period. It
should be added that the Isaianic origin of the appendix in xix. 18-24
is, if possible, even more doubtful, because of the precise,
circumstantial details of the prophecy which are not like Isaiah's work.
It is plausible to regard v. 18 as a fictitious prophecy in the
interests of Onias, the founder of the rival Egyptian temple to Yahweh
at Leontopolis in the name of Heliopolis (Josephus, _Ant._ xii. 9, 7).
III. _Disintegration Theories._--We must now enter more fully into the
question whether the whole of the so-called Book of Isaiah was really
written by that prophet. The question relates, at any rate, to
xiii.-xiv. 23, xxi. 1-10, xxiv.-xxvii., xxxiv., xxxv. and xl.-lxvi. The
father of the controversy may be said to be the Jewish rabbi, Aben Ezra,
who died A.D. 1167. We need not, however, spend much time on the
well-worn but inconclusive arguments of the older critics. The existence
of a tradition in the last three centuries before Christ as to the
authorship of any book is (to those acquainted with the habits of
thought of that age) of but little critical moment; the _Sopherim_, i.e.
students of Scripture, in those times were simply anxious for the
authority of the Scriptures, not for the ascertainment of their precise
historical origin. It was of the utmost importance to declare that
(especially) Isaiah xl.-lxvi. was a prophetic work of the highest order;
this was reason sufficient (apart from any presumed phraseological
affinities in xl.-lxvi.) for ascribing them to the royal prophet Isaiah.
When the view had once obtained currency, it would naturally become a
tradition. The question of the Isaianic or non-Isaianic origin of the
disputed prophecies (especially xl.-lxvi.) must be decided on grounds of
exegesis alone. It matters little, therefore, when the older critics
appeal to Ezra i. 2 (interpreted by Josephus, _Ant._ xi. 1, 1-2), to the
Septuagint version of the book (produced between 260 and 130 B.C.), in
which the disputed prophecies are already found, and to the Greek
translation of the Wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach, which distinctly
refers to Isaiah as the comforter of those that mourned in Zion (Eccles.
xlviii. 24, 25).
The fault of the controversialists on both sides has been that each
party has only seen "one side of the shield." It will be admitted by
philological students that the exegetical data supplied by (at any rate)
Isa. xl.-lxvi. are conflicting, and therefore susceptible of no simple
solution. This remark applies, it is true, chiefly to the portion which
begins at lii. 13. The earlier part of Isa. xl.-lxvi. admits of a
perfectly consistent interpretation from first to last. There is
nothing in it to indicate that the author's standing-point is earlier
than the Babylonian captivity. His object is (as most scholars,
probably, believe) to warn, stimulate or console the captive Jews, some
full believers, some semi-believers, some unbelievers or idolaters. The
development of the prophet's message is full of contrasts and surprises:
the vanity of the idol-gods and the omnipotence of Israel's helper, the
sinfulness and infirmity of Israel and her high spiritual destiny, and
the selection (so offensive to patriotic Jews, xlv. 9, 10) of the
heathen Cyrus as the instrument of Yahweh's purposes, as in fact his
Messiah or Anointed One (xlv. 1), are brought successively before us.
Hence the semi-dramatic character of the style. Already in the opening
passage mysterious voices are heard crying, "Comfort ye, comfort ye my
people"; the plural indicates that there were other prophets among the
exiles besides the author of Isa. xl.-xlviii. Then the Jews and the
Asiatic nations in general are introduced trembling at the imminent
downfall of the Babylonian empire. The former are reasoned with and
exhorted to believe; the latter are contemptuously silenced by an
exhibition of the futility of their religion. Then another mysterious
form appears on the scene, bearing the honourable title of "Servant of
Yahweh," through whom God's gracious purposes for Israel and the world
are to be realized. The cycle of poetic passages on the character and
work of this "Servant," or commissioned agent of the Most High, may have
formed originally a separate collation which was somewhat later inserted
in the Prophecy of Restoration (i.e. chaps. xl.-xlviii., and its
appendix chaps. xlix.-lv.).
The new section which begins at chap. xlix. is written in much the same
delightfully flowing style. We are still among the exiles at the close
of the captivity, or, as others think, amidst a poor community in
Jerusalem, whose members have now been dispersed among the Gentiles. The
latter view is not so strange as it may at first appear, for the new
book has this peculiarity, that Babylon and Cyrus are not mentioned in
it at all. [True, there was not so much said about Babylon as we should
have expected even in the first book; the paucity of references to the
local characteristics of Babylonia is in fact one of the negative
arguments urged by older scholars in favour of the Isaianic origin of
the prophecy.] Israel himself, with all his inconsistent qualities,
becomes the absorbing subject of the prophet's meditations. The section
opens with a soliloquy of the "Servant of Yahweh," which leads on to a
glorious comforting discourse, "Can a woman forget her sucking child,"
&c. (xlix. 1, comp. li. 12, 13). Then his tone rises, Jerusalem can and
must be redeemed; he even seems to see the great divine act in process
of accomplishment. Is it possible, one cannot help asking, that the
abrupt description of the strange fortunes of the "Servant"--by this
time entirely personalized--was written to follow chap. lii. 1-12?
The whole difficulty seems to arise from the long prevalent assumption
that chaps. xl.-lxvi. form a whole in themselves. Natural as the feeling
against disintegration may be, the difficulties in the way of admitting
the unity of chaps. xl.-lxvi. are insurmountable. Even if, by a bold
assumption, we grant the unity of authorship, it is plain upon the face
of it that the chapters in question cannot have been composed at the
same time or under the same circumstances; literary and artistic unity
is wholly wanting. But once admit (as it is only reasonable to do) the
extension of Jewish editorial activity to the prophetic books and all
becomes clear. The record before us gives no information as to its
origin. It is without a heading, and by its abrupt transitions, and
honestly preserved variations of style, invites us to such a theory as
we are now indicating. It is only the inveterate habit of reading Isa.
xlix.-lxvi. as a part of a work relating to the close of the Exile that
prevents us from seeing how inconsistent are the tone and details with
this presupposition.
The present article in its original form introduced here a survey of
the portions of Isa. xl.-lxvi. which were plainly of Palestinian
origin. It is needless to reproduce this here, because the information
is now readily accessible elsewhere; in 1881 there was an originality
in this survey, which gave promise of a still more radical treatment
such as that of Bernhard Duhm, a fascinating commentary published in
1892. See also Cheyne, _Jewish Quarterly Review_, July and October
1891; _Introd. to Book of Isaiah_ (1895), which also point forward,
like Stade's _Geschichte_ in Germany, to a bolder criticism of Isaiah.
IV. _Non-Isaianic Elements in Chaps. i.-xxxix._--We have said nothing
hitherto, except by way of allusion, of the disputed prophecies
scattered up and down the first half of the book of Isaiah. There is
only one of these prophecies which may, with any degree of apparent
plausibility, be referred to the age of Isaiah, and that is chaps.
xxiv.-xxvii. The grounds are (1) that according to xxv. 6 the author
dwells on Mount Zion; (2) that Moab is referred to as an enemy (xxv.
10); and (3) that at the close of the prophecy, Assyria and Egypt are
apparently mentioned as the principal foes of Israel (xxvii. 12, 13). A
careful and thorough exegesis will show the hollowness of this
justification. The tone and spirit of the prophecy as a whole point to
the same late apocalyptic period to which chap. xxxiv. and the book of
Joel; and also the last chapter (especially) of the book of Zechariah,
may unhesitatingly be referred.
A word or two may perhaps be expected on Isa. xiii., xiv. and xxxiv.,
xxxv. These two oracles agree in the elaborateness of their description
of the fearful fate of the enemies of Yahweh (Babylon and Edom are
merely representatives of a class), and also in their view of the
deliverance and restoration of Israel as an epoch for the whole human
race. There is also an unrelieved sternness, which pains us by its
contrast with Isa. xl.-lxvi. (except those passages of this portion
which are probably not homogeneous with the bulk of the prophecy). They
have also affinities with Jer. l. li., a prophecy (as most now agree) of
post-exilic origin.
There is only one passage which seems in some degree to make up for the
aesthetic drawbacks of the greater part of these late compositions. It
is the ode on the fall of the king of Babylon in chap. xiv. 4-21, which
is as brilliant with the glow of lyric enthusiasm as the stern prophecy
which precedes it is, from the same point of view, dull and uninspiring.
It is in fact worthy to be put by the side of the finest passages of
chaps. xl.-lxvi.--of those passages which irresistibly rise in the
memory when we think of "Isaiah."
V. _Prophetic Contrasts in Isaiah._--From a religious point of view
there is a wide difference, not only between the acknowledged and the
disputed prophecies of the book of Isaiah, but also between those of the
latter which occur in chaps. i.-xxxix., on the one hand, and the greater
and more striking part of chaps. xl.-lxvi. on the other. We may say,
upon the whole, with Duhm, that Isaiah represents a synthesis of Amos
and Hosea, though not without important additions of his own. And if we
cannot without much hesitation admit that Isaiah was really the first
preacher of a personal Messiah whose record has come down to us, yet his
editors certainly had good reason for thinking him capable of such a
lofty height of prophecy. It is not because Isaiah could not have
conceived of a personal Messiah, but because the Messiah-passages are
not plainly Isaiah's either in style or in thought. If Isaiah had had
those bright visions, they would have affected him more.
Perhaps the most characteristic religious peculiarities of the various
disputed prophecies are--(1) the emphasis laid on the uniqueness,
eternity, creatorship and predictive power of Yahweh (xl. 18, 25, xli.
4, xliv. 6, xlviii. 12, xlv. 5, 6, 18, 22, xlvi. 9, xlii. 5, xlv. 18,
xli. 26, xliii. 9, xliv. 7, xlv. 21, xlviii. 14); (2) the conception of
the "Servant of Yahweh"; (3) the ironical descriptions of idolatry
(Isaiah in the acknowledged prophecies only refers incidentally to
idolatry) xl. 19, 20, xli. 7, xliv. 9-17, xlvi. 6; (4) the personality
of the Spirit of Yahweh (mentioned no less than seven times, see
especially xl. 3, xlviii. 16, lxiii. 10, 14); (5) the influence of the
angelic powers (xxiv. 21); (6) the resurrection of the body (xxvi. 19);
(7) the everlasting punishment of the wicked (lxvi. 24); (8) vicarious
atonement (chap. liii.).
We cannot here do more than chronicle the attempts of a Jewish scholar,
the late Dr Kohut, in the _Z.D.M.G._ for 1876 to prove a Zoroastrian
influence on chaps. xl.-lxvi. The idea is not in itself inadmissible,
at least for post-exilic portions, for Zoroastrian ideas were in the
intellectual atmosphere of Jewish writers in the Persian age.
There is an equally striking difference among the disputed prophecies
themselves, and one of no small moment as a subsidiary indication of
their origin. We have already spoken of the difference of tone between
parts of the latter half of the book; and, when we compare the disputed
prophecies of the former half with the Prophecy of Israel's Restoration,
how inferior (with all reverence be it said) do they appear! Truly "in
many parts and many manners did God speak" in this composite book of
Isaiah! To the Prophecy of Restoration we may fitly apply the words, too
gracious and too subtly chosen to be translated, of Renan, "ce second
Isaie, dont l'ame lumineuse semble comme impregnee, six cent ans
d'avance, de toutes les rosees, de tous les parfums de l'avenir"
(_L'Antechrist_, p. 464); though, indeed, the common verdict of
sympathetic readers sums up the sentence in a single phrase--"the
Evangelical Prophet." The freedom and the inexhaustibleness of the
undeserved grace of God is a subject to which this gifted son constantly
returns with "a monotony which is never monotonous." The defect of the
disputed prophecies in the former part of the book (a defect, as long as
we regard them in isolation, and not as supplemented by those which come
after) is that they emphasize too much for the Christian sentiment the
stern, destructive side of the series of divine interpositions in the
latter days.
VI. _The Cyrus Inscriptions._--Perhaps one of the most important
contributions to the study of II. Isaiah has been the discovery of two
cuneiform texts relative to the fall of Babylon and the religious policy
of Cyrus. The results are not favourable to a mechanical view of
prophecy as involving absolute accuracy of statement. Cyrus appears in
the unassailably authentic cylinder inscription "as a complete religious
indifferentist, willing to go through any amount of ceremonies to soothe
the prejudices of a susceptible population." He preserves a strange and
significant silence with regard to Ahura-mazda, the supreme God of
Zoroastrianism, and in fact can hardly have been a Zoroastrian believer
at all. On the historical and religious bearings of these two
inscriptions the reader may be referred to the article "Cyrus" in the
_Encyclopaedia Biblica_ and the essay on "II. Isaiah and the
Inscriptions" in Cheyne's _Prophecies of Isaiah_, vol. ii. It may, with
all reverence, be added that our estimate of prophecy must be brought
into harmony with facts, not facts with our preconceived theory of
inspiration.
AUTHORITIES.--Lowth, _Isaiah: a new translation, with a preliminary
dissertation and notes_ (1778); Gesenius, _Der Proph. Jes._ (1821);
Hitzig, _Der Proph. Jes._ (1833); Delitzsch, _Der Pr. Jes._ (4th ed.,
1889); Dillmann-Kittel, _Isaiah_ (1898); Duhm (1892; 2nd ed., 1902);
Marti (1900); Cheyne, _The Prophecies of Isaiah_ (2 vols., 1880-1881);
_Introd. to Book of Isaiah_ (1898); "The Book of the Prophet Isaiah,"
in Paul Haupt's _Polychrome Bible_ (1898); S. R. Driver, _Isaiah, his
life and times_ (1888); J. Skinner, "The Book of Isaiah," in
_Cambridge Bible_ (2 vols., 1896, 1898); G. A. Smith, in _Expositor's
Bible_ (2 vols., 1888, 1890); Condamin (Rom. Cath.) (1905); G. H. Box
(1908); Article on Isaiah in _Ency. Bib._ by Cheyne; in Hastings'
_Dict. of the Bible_ by Prof. G. A. Smith. R. H. Kennett's Schweich
Lecture (1909), _The Composition of the Book of Isaiah in the Light of
Archaeology and History_, an interesting attempt at a synthesis of
results, is a brightly written but scholarly sketch of the growth of
the book of Isaiah, which went on till the great success of the Jews
under Judas Maccabaeus. The outbursts of triumph (e.g. Isa. ix. 2-7)
are assigned to this period. The most original statement is perhaps
the view that the words of Isaiah were preserved orally by his
disciples, and did not see the light (in a revised form) till a
considerable time after the crystallization of the reforms of Josiah
into laws. (T. K. C.)