SECT. II. § 3.] -- judgments which were to fall, and accordingly have fallen upon the two distinct kingdoms of Israel and Judah, typified by Lo-ruhamah and Lo-ammi."2 III. The prophecy of Hosea contains fourteen chapters, which may be divided into five sections or discourses, exclusive of the title in ch. i. 1.; viz. principal subject of all the prophets, viz. "the guilt of the Jewish nation in general, their disobedient refractory spirit, the heavy judgments that awaited them, their final conversion The SCOPE of this prophet's prediction is, 1. Partly to to God, their re-establishment in the land of promise, and their restoration to God's favour, and to a condition of the detect, reprove, and convince the Jewish nation generally, greatest national prosperity, and of high pre-eminence among and the Israelites in particular, of their many and heinous the nations of the earth, under the immediate protection of sins, especially of their gross idolatry; the corrupt state of the Messiah, in the latter ages of the world. He confines the kingdom is also incidentally noticed;-2. Partly to dehimself more closely to this single subject than any other nounce the imminent and utter rejection, final captivity, and prophet. He seems, indeed, of all the prophets, if I may so destruction of the Israelites by the Assyrians (if the former express my conception of his peculiar character, to have been persisted in their wicked career), notwithstanding all their the most of a Jew. Comparatively, he seems to care but vain confidence in the assistance to be afforded them by little about other people. He wanders not, like Isaiah, Jere- Egypt;-and, 3. Partly to invite them to repentance with miah, and Ezekiel, into the collateral history of the sur-promises of mercy, and evangelical predictions of the future rounding heathen nations. He meddles not, like Daniel, restoration of the Israelites and Jews, and their ultimate conwith the revolutions of the great empires of the world. His version to Christianity.3 own country seems to engross his whole attention; her privileges, her crimes, her punishment, her pardon. He predicts, indeed, in the strongest and clearest terms, the ingrafting of the Gentiles into the church of God. But he mentions it only generally: he enters not, like Isaiah, into a minute detail of the progress of the business. Nor does he describe, in any detail, the previous contest with the apostate faction in the latter ages. He makes no explicit mention of the share which the converted Gentiles are to have in the reestablishment of the natural Israel in their ancient seats: subjects which make so striking a part of the prophecies of Isaíah, Daniel, Zechariah, Haggai, and, occasionally, of the other prophets. He alludes to the calling of our Lord from Egypt: to the resurrection on the third day: he touches, but only in general terms, upon the final overthrow of the Antichristian army in Palestine, by the immediate interposition of Jehovah; and he celebrates, in the loftiest strains of triumph and exultation, the Saviour's final victory over death and hell. But yet, of all the prophets, he certainly enters the least into the detail of the mysteries of redemption. We have nothing in him descriptive of the events of the interval between the two advents of our Lord. Nothing diffuse and circumstantial, upon the great and interesting mysteries of His country and his the incarnation and the atonement. kindred is the subject next his heart. Their crimes excite his indignation; their sufferings interest his pity; their future exaltation is the object on which his imagination fixes with delight. It is a remarkable dispensation of Providence, that clear notices, though in general terms, of the universal redemption, should be found in a writer so strongly possessed with national partialities. This Judaism seems to make the particular character of Hosea as a prophet. Not that the ten tribes are exclusively his subject. His country is indeed his particular and constant subject; but his country generally, in both its branches, not in either taken by itself."i DISCOURSE 1. Under the figure of the supposed1 infidelity of the prophet's wife is represented the spiritual infidelity of the Israelites, a remnant of whom, it is promised, shall be saved (i. 2 -11.), and they are exhorted to forsake idolatry. (ii. 1—11.) Promises are then introduced, on the general conversion of the twelve tribes to Christianity; and the gracious purposes of Jehovah towards the ten tribes, or the kingdom of Israel in particular, are represented under the figure of the prophet taking back his wife on her amendment. (ii. 11-23. iii.) DISCOURSE 2. The prophet, in direct terms, inveighs against the bloodshed and idolatry of the Israelites (iv. 1—14. 17—19.), against which the inhabitants of Judah are exhorted to take warning. (15, 16.) In chap. v. 1-14. the divine judgments are denounced against the priests, the people, and the princes of Israel, to whom are held out promises of pardon in v. 15. which are continued through verses 1-3. of chap. vi. The metaphors used by the prophet on this occasion are remarkably strong and beautiful. The resurrection, the morning, and the refreshing showers, in their season, supply them; in a more immediate sense they denote a speedy and gracious deliverance, but in a remote sense they refer to the resurrection of Christ (compare Hosea vi. 2. with Cor. xv. 4.) and the blessings of the Gospel. DiscoURSE 3. The prophet's exhortations to repentance proving ineffectual, God complains by him of their obstinate iniquity and idolatry (vi. 4—11. vii. 1—10.), and denounces that Israel will be carried into captivity into Assyria by Sennacherib, notwithstanding their reliance on Egypt for assistance. (vii. 11— 16. viii.) DISCOURSE 4. The captivity and dispersion of Israel is further threatened (ix. x.); the Israelites are reproved for their idolatry, yet they shall not be utterly destroyed, and their return to their own country is foretold. (xi.)5 Renewed denunciations are made on account of their idolatry. (xii. xiii. 1—8.) DISCOURSE 5. After a terrible denunciation of divine punishment, intermixed with promises of restoration from captivity (xiii. 9-16.), the prophet exhorts the Israelites to repentance, and furnishes them with a beautiful form of prayer adapted to their situation (xiv. 1-3.); and foretells their reformation from idolatry, together with the subsequent restoration of all the tribes from their dispersed state, and their conversion to the Gospel. (4-9.) According to this view of the subject, the general argument of Hosea's prophecy "appears to be the fortunes of the whole Jewish nation in its two great branches; not the particular concerns (and least of all the particular temporal concerns) of either branch exclusively. And to this grand opening the whole sequel of the prophecy corresponds. In setting forth the vices of the people, the picture is chiefly taken, as might naturally be expected, from the manners of the prophet's own times; in part of which the corruption, in either kingdom, was at the greatest height; after the death of Jeroboam, in the kingdom of Israel; in the reign of Ahaz, in the kingdom of Judah. And there is occasionIV. The style of Hosea, Bishop Lowth remarks, exhibits ally much allusion, sometimes predictive allusion, to the principal events of the prophet's times. And much more to the appearance of very remote antiquity; it is pointed, enerthe events in the kingdom of Israel, than to those in Judah.getic, and concise. It bears a distinguished mark of poetical Perhaps, because the danger being more immediately immi- composition, in that pristine brevity and condensation which nent in the former kingdom, the state of things in that was is observable in the sentences, and which later writers have more alarming, and the occurrences, for that reason, more in some measure neglected. This peculiarity has not escaped interesting. Still the history of his own times in detail in the observation of Jerome, who remarks that this prophet is either kingdom is not the prophet's subject. It furnishes similes and allusions, but it makes no considerable part, indeed it makes no part at all, of the action (if I may so call it) of the poem. The action lies in events beyond the prophet's times; the commencement, indeed, within them; but the termination, in times yet future; and although we may hope the contrary, for aught we know with certainty, remote. The deposition of Jehu's family, by the murder of Zedekiah, the son and successor of Jeroboam, was the commencement:ites to their own country, was partly fulfilled in consequence of Cyrus's the termination will be the restoration of the whole Jewish nation under one head, in the latter days, in the great day of Jezräel; and the intermediate parts of the action are the Bishop Horsley's Hosea, Preface, pp. vii. viii. 2 Bishop Horsley's Hosea, Preface, p. xxvii. Bishop Horsley contends at great length, contrary to most interpreters, that the prophet's marriage was a real transaction, and a type of the whole See the Preface to his version of The prediction in Hosea xi. 10, 11., respecting the return of the Israeldecree (2 Chron. xxxvi. 22, 23. Ezra i. 1--4.); but, in its fullest extent, it remains to be accomplished in the future restoration of the Jews to their own land. This is one instance, among many, in which the language of the We have the authority of an prophets is adapted to two or more events. inspired writer to extend this remark to another part of the same chapter, (Compare xi. 1. with Matt. ii. 15.) Smith's Summary View of the Prophets, p. 177. recorded in the Scriptures concerning the wife of Isaiah, we find two of his sons mentioned in his prophecy, who were types or figurative pledges of God's assurance; and their names and actions were intended to awaken a religious attention in the persons whom they were commissioned to address and to instruct. Thus, Shearjashub (vii. 3.) signifies "a remnant shall return," and showed that the captives, who should be carried to Babylon, should return thence after a certain time; and Maher-shalal-hashbaz (viii. 1. 3.), which denotes "make speed (or, run swiftly) to the spoil," implied that the kingdoms of Israel and Syria would in a short time be ravaged. altogether laconic and sententious.' "But this very circum- quality of their husbands. Although nothing further is stance, which anciently was supposed to impart uncommon force and elegance, in the present state of Hebrew literature, is productive of so much obscurity, that although the general subject of this writer is sufficiently obvious, he is the most difficult and perplexed of all the prophets. There is, however, another reason for the obscurity of his style. Hosea, we have seen, prophesied during the reigns of the four kings of Judah, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah: the duration of his ministry, therefore, in whatever manner we calculate it, must include a very considerable space of time. We have now only a small volume of his remaining, which, it seems, contains his principal prophecies; and these are extant in a continued series, with no marks of distinction as to the times when they were published, or of which they treat. It is, therefore, no wonder if, in perusing the prophecies of Hosea, we sometimes find ourselves in a similar predicament with those who consulted the scattered leaves of the sybil."2 § 4. ON THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET ISAIAH. I. Author and date.—II. Genuineness of Isaiah's prophecies.— III. Scope.-IV. Analysis of the contents of this book. was universally regarded both by Jews and Christians as the V. Observations on its style. BEFORE CHRIST, 810-698. THOUGH fifth in the order of time, the writings of the prophet Isaiah are placed first in order of the prophetical books, principally on account of the sublimity and importance of his predictions, and partly also because the book, which bears his name, is larger than all the twelve minor prophets put together. I. Concerning his family and descent nothing certain has been recorded, except what he himself tells us (i. 1.), viz. that he was the son of Amotz, and discharged the prophetic office in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, who successively flourished between A. M. 3194 and 3305. There is a current tradition that he was of the blood-royal; and some writers have affirmed that his father Amotz or Amos was the son of Joash, and, consequently, brother of Uzziah king of Judah. Jerome, on the authority of some rabbinical writers, says, that the prophet gave his daughter in marriage to Manasseh king of Judah; but this opinion is scarcely credible, because Manasseh did not commence his reign until about sixty years after Isaiah had begun to discharge his prophetic functions. He must, indeed, have exercised the office of a prophet during a long period of time, if he lived in the reign of Manasseh; for the lowest computation, beginning from the year in which Uzziah died, when he is by some supposed to have received his first appointment to that office, brings it to sixty-one years. But the tradition of the Jews, which has been adopted by most Christian commentators, that he was put to death by Manasseh, is very uncertain; and Aben Ezra, one of the most celebrated Jewish writers, is rather of opinion that he died before Hezekiah; which Bishop Lowth thinks most probable. It is, however, certain, that he lived at least to the fifteenth or sixteenth year of Hezekiah; which makes the least possible term of the duration of his prophetic office to be about forty-eight years. Besides the volume of prophecies, which we are now to consider, it appears from 2 Chron. xxvi. 22. that Isaiah wrote an account of the Acts of Uzziah king of Judah: this has perished with some other writings of the prophets, which, as probably not written by inspiration, were never admitted into the canon of Scripture. There are also two apocryphal books ascribed to him, viz. "The Ascension of Isaiah," and "The Apocalypse of Isaiah;" but these are evidently forgeries of a later date; and the Apocalypse has long since perished.5 II. Until the latter part of the eighteenth century, Isaiah sole author of the book which bears his name. Koppe was the earliest writer who intimated that Ezekiel, or some other prophet who lived during the exile, might have been the author; as Doederlein was the first of the German commentators and critics who expressed a definite suspicion against the genuineness of those predictions which were delivered against the Gentiles, but especially the last twenty-seven chapters. Justi, Eichhorn, Bauer, Paulus, Rosenmüller, Bertholdt, De Wette, and others, have adopted the notions of Doederlein; and by various arguments have endeavoured to prove that the chapters in question first originated during the Babylonian captivity. These arguments have been copi ously examined and refuted by Professor Jahn, whose observations may be arranged under the following heads:-viz. 1. Proofs that all the prophecies ascribed to Isaiah are really his productions;-2. An examination and refutation, in detail, of objections against particular predictions;-and, 3. An exa mination of the questions whether Isaiah was the author of chapters xxxvi.-xxxix. 1. PROOFS THAt all the Predictions ascribeD TO ISAIAH ARE REALLY HIS PRODUCTIONS. i. "The STYLE differs scarcely any in the different prophe cies. We find every where the same descriptions of particular objects, and the same images, taken from trees, especially cedars, firs, and oaks; from the pains of childbirth, from history, and from the golden age. The beginning of the prophecy constantly enters into the midst of the subject, and every where poetical passages are inserted; as v. 1-6. xii. 1-6. xiv. 4-20. xxv. 1-5.; so, exactly in the same manner, xlii. 10-13. lii. 9. s. lxi. 10. lxiii. 7. lxiv. 11. Every where the same clearness and obscurity, the same repetitions, and the same euphony of language, are observable. The visions are similar; comp. ch. xxi. and ch. xl. with ch. vi. Even the same phrases occur repeatedly: e. g. 2, 0177 occurs in the first part seventeen times, in the second twelve times., which occurs in all the rest of the Bible only nine times, is found in the first part of Isaiah four times, in the second six. DNYNs, which is elsewhere only to be met with four times in the book of Job, is found here twice in the first part, and five times in the second. is used in Ixv. 10. just as in xxxiii. 9. xxv. 2. m, in xl. 1. xli. 7. 21, lxvi. 9. just as in i. 11. 18. xxxiii. 10., instead of which the other prophets say, or . The expressions applied to the Sabæans, no stretched out, or tall, xviii. 2. 7., Isaiah is uniformly spoken of in the Scriptures as a pro-and, men of measure, or tall men, are peculiar to our phet of the highest dignity: Bishop Lowth calls him the prophet, as well as many others, which we have not room prince of all the prophets, and pronounces the whole of his Gray's Key, p. 365. p. 372. book to be poetical, with the exception of a few detached Ascensio enim Isaia et Apocalypsis Isaia hoc habent testimonium. passages. It is remarkable, that his wife is styled a prophet- Jerom. Comment. on Isaiah, ch. Ixiv. (Op tom. iii. p. 473.) See also tom. ess in viii. 3., whence the rabbinical writers have concluded V. p. 341. The anabaticon or ascension of Isaiah is mentioned by Epiphanius, among the books received by Hierax, founder of the sect of that she possessed the spirit of prophecy: but it is very pro- the Hieracites, in the fourth century. Hæres. 67. Dr. Lardner's Works. bable that the prophets' wives were called prophetesses, as vol. iii. p. 402. the priests' wives were termed priestesses, only from the The name of Isaiah, as Vitringa has remarked after several preceding commentators, is in some measure descriptive of his high character, since it signifies the Salvation-of-Jehovah; and was given with singular propriety to him who foretold the advent of the Messiah, through whom all flesh shall see the salvation of God. (Compare Isa. xl. 5. with Luke iii. 6. and Acts iv. 12.) Isaiah was contemporary with the prophets Amos, Hosea, Joel, and Micah. 1 Præf. in xii. Proph. Lowth's Prælect. xxi. vol. ii. p. 96. Bishop Horsley differs in opinion from Bishop Lowth, as to the cause of the obscurity which is observable in the prophecies of Hosea. Bishop Horsley ascribes it, not to the great antiquity of the composition, nor to any thing peculiar to the language of the author's age, but to his peculiar idioms, frequent changes of person, his use of the nominative case absolute, his anomalies of number and gender, and the ambiguity of pronouns. See the Preface to his version of Hosea, pp. xxix.-xliii 4 Ibid. ness of Isaiah's predictions, and especially those of Professor Gesonius, The arguments of the various neologian objectors against the genuine. are also very fully and ably renewed and refuted, first, by Professor Lee, in his Sermons and Dissertations on the Study of the Holy Scriptures, pp. 157-208.; and, secondly, by Dr. Hengstenberg in his "Christologie des Alten Testaments." (Christology of the Old Testament.) That part of Dr. H.'s treatise, which relates to the genuineness of Isaiah's predictions, has been translated into English by Professor Robinson of Andover (Massa chusetts), and will be found in the Biblical Repository for the year 1831. (vol. i. pp. 700—733.) As the arguments of these learned writers do not admit of abridgment, the reader is necessarily referred to their publications. here to specify.-The sublimity of the style does not vary more throughout all the prophecies, than is usual in poems which are written by the same author at different times, as for example, the different Psalms of David; and the style in all is such as could by no means be expected from writers of the age of the Babylonian captivity. It is granted that style does not depend entirely upon the age, but in some measure upon the cultivated genius of the writer; yet it does not, therefore, become probable that such poems should be composed in the age of the Babylonian captivity, so that we may assert this without any historical testimony or tradition: more especially as we find nothing similar in the writings of Jeremiah or Ezekiel, who wanted neither genius nor polish.-The language itself is not the same as that observable in Jeremiah and Ezekiel it is not probable that any one could have cultivated the knowledge of the Hebrew during the captivity more thoroughly than they, nor is such a state of the language discernible in Zechariah, who is usually cited as an instance of it.-Lastly, the arrangement and method of treating the subject are the same in all these prophecies. Chap. vii. contains a prophecy interwoven with a history, which is followed, ch. viii.-xii. by prophecies without titles; so also in ch. xxxix. the prophecy is woven into the history, and prophecies without a title follow. As in the first part there are several prophecies concerning Sennacherib; so also in the second, there are several concerning the overthrow of the Chaldæan monarchy, and the return of the Hebrews from captivity. As in the vision in ch. vi. we read, that the prophet's efforts should not be accompanied by a happy result; so the prophet, ch. xlii. 16. 23. xliii. 8. xlv. 4., and especially xlix. 4. lix. 6., complains that his endeavours had been unsuccessful. ii. "What is said in ch. lxvi. 1-6. of the temple, does not suit the latter part of the period of exile, in which Haggai and Zechariah speak altogether differently on the same subject. Much less could any one during the captivity write, as in xlviii. 4-8., that the ruin and utter destruction of the city of Babylon had not yet been foretold, when Jeremiah 1. li. had plainly predicted it; or speak, as in lii. 4., of the Egyptians and Assyrians as the only enemies of the Hebrews, and pass over the Chaldæans.-The severe reproofs, Ivi. 9.—lix. 20. lxv. 11-16., especially those denounced against the shepherds, i. e. the kings, lvi. 11, &c.; the reproaches not only on account of idolatry, but also of the immolation of children, lvii. 1-13., and of enormous corruption of morals, lviii. 6-9. lix. 1-8., are entirely at variance with the times of the captivity. Then, we might rather expect mention to be made of the prophecies of Jeremiah, as in Dan. ix. 2. and that more should be said respecting the Magians or worshippers of Ormuzd, than that one allusion to the two principles of things, xlv. 7., which certainly were maintained by very many in an age older than that of the captivity. iii."Jeremiah shows that he had read these prophecies, seven years before the destruction of Jerusalem, Jer. li. 4964.; for the connection of the prophecy of Jeremiah contained in Jer. 1. li. with the predictions of Isaiah is evident: nor can it be said, that the author of the controverted prophecies of Isaiah, living toward the end of the captivity, had read the book of Jeremiah; for he is an original and independent author, drawing entirely from his own resources, and never imitating others; while, on the contrary, it is well known that Jeremiah had read the older prophets, and borrowed much from them, especially in his prophecies against foreign nations. Some passages have been observed in other prophets also, which have been taken from the controverted prophecies of Isaiah: as Zeph. ii. 14, &c. from Isa. xiii. 21, &c.; Ezek. xxxiv. from Isa. lvii. 10, &c.; Ezek. xxvi. 20. xxxi. 14-17. xxxii. 18-33. from Isa. xiv. 8-28.; Ezek. xxvi. 13. from Isa. xxiii. 25.; Ezek. xxxviii. xxxix. from Isa. lxvi. 6—9. 24. That Habakkuk is indebted to Isaiah, has been long since observed: compare Hab. i. 6. with Isa. xxiii. 13. iv. "Cyrus, in his written proclamation (Ezra i. 2.), says, that the God of heaven had given him all kingdoms of the earth, and had charged him to build to Him a temple at Jerusalem. These words, as well as the acts of Cyrus, namely, his dismission of the Jews to their own country, his grant of a sum of money for the building of the temple, and his restitution of the valuable holy vessels, can only be explained on the supposition that he had seen the prophecies of Isaiah concerning him, as Josephus states, and was nduced, by their manifestly divine origin, to confer such 66 great benefits upon the Jews. Nor was Cyrus the man to suffer recent prophecies scarcely yet published to be palmed upon him for ancient; not to mention that there were many who would have been glad to discover to him the fraud, if any had existed. Neither would Cyrus the Magian, who built nothing but pyres to Ormuzd, have been so easily led to construct a magnificent temple to the God of the Jews. It may, indeed, seem strange that the prophet should say so much concerning the return from Babylon, and yet make no express mention of the carrying away. But he certainly does say something concerning this subject, as xxxix. 4-7. vi. 11-13. v. 5—9. xi. 11—16.; and Micah, the contemporary of Isaiah, speaks clearly of this carrying away, and of the overthrow of Jerusalem; so that it would seem probable that Isaiah had said more on this subject, which has not been preserved to us. If this were the case, the prophet who sings the glad return would no more con tradict himself by predicting the carrying away, than Jeremiah does, who has predicted both events. To all this, analogy is said to be opposed, according to which, it is thought, prophets do not foretell such remote events as those concerning the Chaldæans, the Medes and Persians, Cyrus, and the return of the Hebrews, which Isaiah has predicted. But this analogy is by no means universal. Besides, in this objection it is supposed that the Chaldæans, Medes, and Persians, were in the age of Isaiah obscure nations, or entirely unknown; whereas, in fact, the Medes, almost 100 years before Isaiah and Hezekiah (826 before Christ, 149 after the division), had, under their king Arbaces, joined an alliance with Belesis the governor of Babylon, and overthrown the first Assyrian monarchy. It is true that the Median anarchy of seventy-nine years followed, but in the tenth of Hezekiah (728 before Christ, 257 after the division), they elected Dejoces king, who founded Ecbatana, and whose son Phraortes (665-643 before Christ, 310332 after the division), attacking the new kingdom of the Assyrians, was slain while besieging Nineveh; and under Cyaxares I., Zoroaster found the kingdom of the Medes again flourishing.2-Elam was a celebrated kingdom even in the most ancient times, Gen. ch. xiv., and it is always by the ancient name by, Gen. x. 22. xiv. 1. that Isaiah mentions it, and never by the modern appellation on, which is given it, Dan vi. 28. Ezra i. 1, 2. iv. 5. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22. s. The Elamites are mentioned as a part of the army of the Assyrians, Isa. xxii. 6., which prophecy is certainly Isaiah's, as appears from v. 8-11. compared with 2 Chron. xxxii. 2-5. Esarhaddon sent some Elamites among his other colonists to Samaria. (Ezra iv. 9. s.) At a later period Jeremiah, chap. xxv. 25. xlix. 24, &c. mentions Elam among the powerful kingdoms which should be conquered by the Chaldæans, and Ezekiel, ch. xxxii. 24. beholds Elam overthrown. It is only by a long succession of time and victories, that nations are enabled to conquer the surrounding people, and spread themselves so widely as to obtain sufficient celebrity to entitle them to an eminent place in history. It was not, therefore, in a short space of time that the Chaldæans, Medes, and Elamites or Persians, emerged from their obscurity into so great a light as to become conspicuous to the world when before they had been utterly unknown. If, then, Isaiah foretells the overthrow of the Chaldæans by the Medes and Elamites, his prophecy in that age would have been neither more nor less obscure than Zechariah's (ix. 13.) concerning the wars of the Jews against the Greeks in Syria. Isaiah might easily have used the name Cyrus, w (or Koresh), xliv. 28. xlv. 1., since it means nothing more than king; for in the language of the Parsees KHOR means the sun, and SCHID splendour, whence is compounded KORSchid, the splendour of the sun, and with the addition of the word PAE or PAI, habitation, KORSCHIDPAI, the habitation of the splendour of the sun, which was a customary appellation of the kings of Persia. This appellation corrupted into 1 (Koresh), might become known to the Hebrews by means of merchants travelling between Judæa and Persia; and Isaiah, who did not hesitate to call Cyrus the anointed, op, may have called him by the appellative of the kings of in announcing future events. 1 Prophets are not, like historians, confined to the order of chronology This is plain from their writings, which always give perspective views. Zechariah predicted a kingdom for the high-priest, without noticing the destruction of the Persian monarchy and ites from the Assyrian captivity, without saying any thing of the interven the division of the Greek power. Isaiah foretold the return of the Israeling revolutions by the Chaldæans, Medes, and Persians. In prophecy the more remote events are often introduced, while the intermediate are unnoticed. 2 Comp. Prideaux, Conn. Part I. Book I. Persia, which became afterwards the proper name of that | because the same devastation is predicted by Jeremiah xlix. particular king." 991 2. EXAMINATION and Refutation of Objections AGAINST PARTICULAR PREDICTIONS OF ISAIAH. These may be referred to three heads; viz. i. Prophecies against the Egyptians, Elamites, Idumæans, &c.;-ii. The prophecies against Tyre; and, iii. The prophecy concerning the subversion of the Chaldæo-Babylonian empire, and the return of the Hebrews from captivity. i. Prophecies against the Egyptians, Elamites, Idumæans, &c. (1.) "Some have said that the passage in Isa. ii. 2—4. is inserted by mistake by the person whom they suppose to have collected the several prophecies into this one book, about the end of the Babylonish captivity; but others have already remarked that this passage may have been taken by Isaiah from Micah iv. 1-3., or by Micah from Isaiah, or by both from some more ancient prophecy. (2.) "Chapters xi. and xii. have been supposed not to belong to Isaiah, because in ch. xi. 11-16. the very distant event of the return of the Israelites from Assyria and Egypt and other regions is predicted. But this return was predicted also by Micah, the contemporary of Isaiah, by Hosea, and by Amos. (3.) "The prophecy in chapters xv. xvi. is thought to have been written three years before the devastation of Moab by Nebuchadnezzar, xiv. 13, &c., because Zephaniah, ii. 8, &c. and Jeremiah, ch. xlviii., threaten the Moabites with the same calamity. But who can show that Isaiah did not speak of another calamity to be inflicted upon them by the Assyrians or who would suppose that the Assyrians spared the Moabites? Their country was devastated, therefore, as Isaiah foretold, by the Assyrians, and then again by the Chaldeans, of whom Zephaniah and Jeremiah prophesied. That this prophecy of Isaiah was much older than the time of Jeremiah, is certain; for Jeremiah, ch. xlviii., borrows many ideas from it, as must be evident to every one who compares the two. That it is the production of Isaiah himself is shown by the time of its fulfilment being stated, which is according to Isaiah's usual practice. See vii. 1417. viii. 4. (4.) "No other reason is brought to prove that the passage ch. xix. 18-25. is not Isaiah's, than this, that in the same chapter, ver. 1—15., a prophecy of the calamity of Egypt had preceded, whereas ver. 18-25. predict prosperity. But this is nothing more than is common with the prophets to promise better fortune after predicting calamity. As the Egyptians are called, ver. 25., the people of JEHOVAH, and the Assyrians, the work of the hands of JEHOVAH, the prophecy must necessarily have been the production of a Hebrew, and it is much more probable that Isaiah should have written it, than any more modern author. (5.) “Isa. xxii. 1-14. is rejected as spurious, because the Elamites are mentioned, ver. 6.; but from a comparison of ver. 8-11. with 2 Chron. xxxii. 2-5. and Isa. vii., it appears that the subject is the irruption of Sennacherib: the mention of the Elamites, therefore, must be at least as old as the time of Isaiah: why, then, seek for any other author than Isaiah, who is mentioned in the title of the prophecy? (6.)They who contend that it is not natural that Isaiah should have uttered so many prophecies concerning the irruption of Sennacherib alone, do not consider that this event was one of great importance, and contributed very much to confirm the Hebrews in their religion, so that it well deserved a multitude of prophetic notices. The style and construction, too, confirm the opinion that they are productions of Isaiah, since they do not differ more from each other in this respect, than do the various Conferences of Hariri, or the different Psalms of David. (7.) "The prophecy, Isa. xxiv.-xxvii., is referred to a more recent date, on account of the frequent occurrence of paronomasia. Now we know that these are considered singular beauties in the Oriental style, and that Micah, the contemporary of Isaiah, makes frequent use of them, so that they are no proof of a recent date. Besides, Isaiah himself elsewhere frequently uses paronomasia. See Isa. i. 7. 23. iii. 1. 5. vii. 7, 8. 22. s. xxix. 16.; compare Hos. i. 4. s. v. 1. and Mic. i. 14. s. iii. 12. iv. 10. (8.) "The xxxivth chapter of Isaiah, in which the devastation of Idumæa is predicted, is thought to be of later origin, 1 Prof. Turner's and Mr. Whittingham's translation of Jahn's Introduction, pp. 316-350. 7. ss., and by Ezekiel xxv. 12. ss., and after a long time was first effected by Nebuchadnezzar, which is thought to be too distant from the time of the prophet. But it has not been disproved that Isaiah is speaking, ch. xxxiv., of another calamity, to be inflicted on Idumæa by the Assyrians, of which Amos, ch. i. 11-15., had spoken before him. (9.) "The xxxvth chapter of Isaiah is entirely destitute of any thing which could give countenance to the supposition of a more recent origin, and ver. 8. compared with 2 Kings xvii. 25. proves it to belong to the age of Hezekiah."2 ii. The Prophecy against Tyre. Isa. xxiii. "The prophecy concerning the destruction of Tyre by the Chaldeans, Isa. xxiii., points out its own age in ver. 13., where the Chaldæans are said to be a recent nation, to whon a district of country lying on the Euphrates had been assigned by the Assyrians, who must, consequently, have been at that time the prevailing power. For as Habakkuk also, who lived under Manasseh, asserts (i. 6.) that the Chaldeans were a late people, who were endeavouring to possess themselves of the territories of others, it is plain that the time of the delivery of the prophecy in Isa. xxiii. could not have been far distant from that of Habakkuk. It is, indeed. uncertain whether Isaiah lived till the reign of Manasseh; but as the Chaldæans made frequent irruptions out of their own settlements in the eastern and northern parts of Armenia into the more southern territories, during a long period of time, without doubt these incursions had begun as early as the latter years of the reign of Hezekiah, since the kingdom of Assyria was at that time so much weakened by the assassination of Sennacherib and the intestine tumults which followed that event, as to afford a sufficient inducement for such expeditions. Without sufficient reason also is it asserted that the 70 years mentioned Isa. xxiii. 10. are a prophetic number taken from Jeremiah xxv. 11, 12. xxix. 10., and that therefore the whole prophecy must be later than the time of Jeremiah. If either of the prophets borrowed this number from the other, it is certainly more reasonable to conclude that Jeremiah, who, we know, has borrowed from prophets more ancient than himself, took it from the prophecy of Isaiah, than that the author of this prophecy, who every where else appears to rely solely upon his own resources was indebted for it to Jeremiah. What confirms this conclusion is, that particular specifications of time are altogether in character with Isaiah's manner. The distance of the event predicted is no objection; for Amos had before the time of Isaiah, denounced the destruction of Tyre. The Chaldaisms, Isa. xxiii. 11. muy e, will disappear, if we TIT point the words y, to destroy her weakened or expelled ones."3 iii. Prophecies concerning the Subversion of the Chaldæo Babylonian Empire, and the return of the Hebrews from Captivity. (Isa. xiii. 1-14. 23. xxi. and xl.-lxvi.) These predictions, it has been affirmed, must have been written in the time of the Babylonish captivity, for the following reasons; viz. (1.) "The difference of style: for in the last twenty-seven chapters, the better part of the people is distinguished as the servant or worshipper of JEHOVAH, xli. 8, 9. xlii. 1, &c. xliv. 1. xlviii. 12. 20. xlix. 7. lii. 13., which is not the case in the former part of the book.-Idolatry is exposed to derision and contempt, xl. 19, 20. xliv. 9-17. xlvi. 5-7., an exhibition not to be found in those passages of the former part; e. g. ii. 19., wherein idolatry is reprehended.-The accomplishment of former prophecies is frequently noticed, xli. 21—24. 26–29. xliv. 6. s. xlv. 21. xlviii. 5., which argues a modern author, and is not to be found in the first part.-Lastly, words and phrases of frequent occurrence in the first part are not dis coverable in the second." To this objection Professor Jahn replies, that "the language, style, and composition are certainly not such as must necessarily be referred to the time of the captivity, and could not have been produced by Isaiah. On the contrary, the purity of the language, the sublimity of the style, and the elegance of the composition, are such as could not be expected from the leaden age of Hebrew literature; but show their origin to have been in the silver age. The difference of style in the two parts is not greater than the difference of Micah i.-v. from vi. vii., and is less than that which may be observed in Hosea i. iii. compared with ii. iv.—xiv., or 2 Jahn's Introduction by Prof. Turner and Mr. Whittingham, pp. 352, 353. • Ibid. p. 354. in Amos i,—vi. compared with vii. viii., or in the different part, was itself exceedingly distant from the end of the Baby psalms of David. The concurrence of some words or phrases lonian captivity; so that even allowing, for argument's sake, not to be found in the other writings of the age of Isaiah the hypothesis concerning the recent origin of these propheproves nothing for it is not to be expected that in the small cies to be correct, there will yet remain a prophecy verified remains of Hebrew literature, all the words and phrases of in a remote posterity, the Hebrew people, and more particu any particular age should repeatedly occur. Yet there are larly the better part of that people, being pointed out as the in the writings in question exceedingly few words or phrases instruments of its completion.It is certainly true that the of this kind. —On the contrary, the accustomed vehemence prophet discerns the hostile kingdom of the Chaldæo-Babyof Isaiah, the same dismemberment of objects, and the same lonians, the cities of Judæa overthrown, the ruins of Jerusaantithesis between Jacob and Israel, are observable in both lem, and the downfall of the Chaldæan monarchy, and parts of these prophecies. All the difference is, that the names not only the Medes and Elamites, but even Cyrus prophet, who in the first part was censuring wickedness, in himself. But that Isaiah, receiving such revelations in the the latter endeavours rather to teach and console, as the na- time of Hezekiah or Manasseh, might so totally have lost ture of his subject required: yet even here he sometimes himself in the contemplation of a very distant period, as to inveighs against different vices, lvi. 9.—lvii. 12. lviii. 1–7. forget the present and write only of the future, will not be lix. 1—8. Îxv. 11—14. If Isaiah wrote these prophecies in denied by any one who has observed that Micah, Joel, Hathe latter years of his life, it is easy to conceive that the bakkuk, and Nahum are altogether conversant with far disprophet, now old (in the time of Manasseh, as appears from tant ages. And Isaiah himself warns his reader of this, every part of these prophecies), filled with consolatory pros-ch. xl. 1. xli. 7. 21. lxvi. 9., by the expression, the pects, chose rather to teach than to rebuke: but it was pecu- LORD WILL say. Compare Isa. xliv. 5." liarly proper for a teacher to address the people as the servant of God, to distinguish the better part of the nation, and to illustrate the madness of idolatry; which last, however, he had done in the first part, not only ch. ii. 18. s., but also ii. 8. viii. 19. 21., although with more brevity than in the latter part. The notice of the fulfilment of former prophecies was especially adapted to convey instruction, whether the author refers to the carrying away of the ten tribes, or to the deliverance of the Jews from the Assyrians, or to some other more ancient predictions: this, therefore, is no proof of a modern date. Such remarks do not occur in the first part of the book, because there the prophet neither teaches nor consoles, but reproves.-The occurrence of certain phrases in one part which are not to be found in the other might prove a difference of authors, if the genius of Isaiah were dry and barren; but not otherwise." (3.) "The prophecies of events as far as the time of Cyrus are clear and perspicuous; but those which refer to later times are obscure; hence it may be concluded that the author was contemporary with Cyrus.-For if it had pleased God to grant such very clear prophecies in times so far remote, and even to reveal the name of Cyrus; why is it said, ch. xlv. 14., that the Hebrews, after their return to their country, should participate in the commerce of the Cushites and Sabæans, when, as is evident from Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi, the event was not so? Nor were the great promises made, ch lx. 6-10., ever fulfilled. The contemporaries of Isaiah certainly never could have been able to discern that those things which were prophesied concerning Cyrus should be literally fulfilled, but the others only in part, and figuratively." To this objection Jahn answers, That the prophecies relating to times anterior to Cyrus should be the more perspicuous, but those referring to more distant periods the more obscure, is not to be wondered at; for in visions, as in "In the age of Isaiah there was no Chaldæan monarchy, prospects, the more distant objects appear the more indisnor were the Medes and Elamites, who are predicted to be tinctly marked. That the Cushites and Sabæans formerly the destroyers of the Chaldæan monarchy, nations of any carried on a considerable commerce and brought merchandise celebrity. From the fourteenth year of Hezekiah to the to the Hebrews even after the captivity, cannot be doubted: founding of that monarchy was ninety years: it was one nor were the Hebrews of that time so universally poor as is hundred and fifteen to the birth of Cyrus, who was appoint- pretended; for, Hag. i., they built ceiled houses, and suped general of the Median army in the one hundred and fifty-plied funds for the building of the temple, and, in the time fifth year after Hezekiah, and it was not until the one hun- of Nehemiah, even for the fortifications of Jerusalem. Be dred and seventy-sixth year that he overthrew the Chaldean sides, these passages relate not so much to commercial inmonarchy. Yet our prophet so long before sees Judæa and tercourse with these people, as to their conversion to the Jerusalem devastated by the Chaldæans, xlv. 26-28.; dis- worship of the true God. That not a few of them did emcerns the kingdom which had brought such destruction upon brace Judaism, and visit the temple of Jerusalem, as is preJudæa verging to its ruin, and its enemies already rushing dicted ch. Ix. 6-10., is certain from Acts ii. 10, 11. and from the north, xlii. 14. xli. 2. 25.; and even designates viii. 27.”2 Cyrus twice by his very name as the deliverer of the Hebrews, xliv. 28. xlv. 1.' (2.) "The particularity of the prophecies, and the distance of the events from the time of their prediction. 3. EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTION WHETHER ISAIAH WAS THE AUTHOR OF CHAPTERS xxxvi.-xxxix.? These "chapters agree verbally in most respects with In answer to this objection, it is urged by Jahn, that "the particularity of the predictions to be accomplished at a pe-2 Kings xviii. 13.-xx. 19.; yet in some they differ. Thus riod so distant is indeed extraordinary: but the prophet frequently recommends this very circumstance to the attention of the reader as something remarkable; whence it appears that even in his age it seemed incredible to many, and therefore the fact that the remoteness of the fulfilment is noticed in these prophecies is a proof of the antiquity of their author. It has already been shown that the Chaldæans, Medes and Persians, or Elamites, were not in the time of Isaiah such obscure nations as that the prophet, when speaking of them, could not have been understood as far as was necessary. That the prophets have sometimes spoken of very remote events has been already proved by several examples, some of which were even afforded by Isaiah himself: to these may be added, that in this same second part, Jesus the Messiah is predicted, ch. lii. 13.-liii. 12., a passage so clear that all attempts to explain it of any other are perfectly vain and fruitless. Compare also ch. Iv. 1-5. Indeed, in his very first vision, ch. vi., the prophet foresees the entire devastation of Judea, and the subsequent restoration. Lastly, the propagation of religion, predicted in the same second • In his larger German Introduction, Prof. Jahn "declares that after repeated perusals, he can find only two such words: 3, ch. lvi. 14. lxiii. 1. which occurs elsewhere only in Jer. ii. 20. xxviii. 12. but yet is not Ara mean; and DD, which is found in Isa. xli. 25. and elsewhere only in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, but which cannot be a very modern word, as it was in use among the Assyrians. See Ezek. xxiii. 6. 12. 23.Einlet. S. 485." Notes of Prof. Turner and Mr. Whittingham. 2 L VOL. II. the song of Hezekiah, Isaiah xxxviii. 9—20., is wanting in 2 Kings: on the contrary, the reconciliation of Hezekiah with Sennacherib, 2 Kings xviii. 14-16., is wanting in Isaiah. What we read, 2 Kings xx. 7. s., concerning the lump of figs to be placed upon the boil of Hezekiah, is, in Isa. xxxviii., introduced where it does not belong: its natural place would have been after ver. 6. There are also some other discrepancies of less moment, which it is unnecessary to adduce. From all this it appears that the text of these two passages is so different and yet so similar, that both would seem to have been taken from one common source, namely, from the history of Hezekiah, which Isaiah wrote, Chron. xxxii. 32. The speeches of the ambassadors of Sennacherib, of Hezekiah, and of Isaiah, and the attention paid to minute circumstances, show that the narration was written by a contemporary witness who was himself concerned, as it is certain that Isaiah was, in the transactions which he has recorded. The words nn and , which occur in the narration, are not more recent than the time of Isaiah, and even if nne were of Aramæan origin, that would not be a proof of a modern date, since some exotic words had already been introduced into the Hebrew language, in the time of Isaiah, as may be observed in the writings of Hosea and Amos. The word has not in this place the signification which it acquired after the captivity, but 2 Jahn's Introduction by Prof. Turner and Mr. Whittingham, pp. 355 --353. |