It is still less credible that a Deutero-Isaiah should himself have fraudulently ascribed his prophecies to Isaiah. None of the adversaries of the authenticity of chapters xl-lxvi make such an assertion.
If the compiler lived before the exile, the in scription appears to be of still greater importance. That the collection was made so early is very likely, from the circumstance that Jeremiah and other prophets apparently made use of the prophe cies of Isaiah. This fact indicates that the prophe cies of Isaiah early excited a lively interest, and that the compiler must have lived at a period earlier than that which is ascribed to the Deutero Isaiah himself. From all this we infer that the compiler lived before the exile. The opponents of thc authenticity of chapters xl-lxvi have felt the weight of this argument. They have therefore attempted to remove it by various hypotheses, which have received a semblance of probability from the circumstance that even the considerate Vitringa has in question the authenticity of the heading. Vitringa has conjectured that this head ing originally belonged to the first chapter alone. He has further conjectured that it originally con tained only words, prophecy of Isaiah, the son of Arno:, which he saw concerning Judah and Jeru salem. The following words, he says, were added by the compiler, who enlarged the particular in scription of the first chapter to a general one of the whole collection. According to Vitringa the inscription does not suit the whole book, the con tents of which are not confined to Judah and Jeru salem alone. This had been felt even by Kimchi, who, anticipating the objection, observes, quaecun que contra genies profert, ea omnia propter ludam dicit. "Whatsoever Isaiah utters against the na tions, he says on account of Judah." Judah and Jerusalem are the chief subject, and, in a certain sense, the only subject of prophecy. There is no prophecy concerning other nations without a bear ing upon the covenant-people. If this bearing should be wanting in any portion of the prophecy, that portion would be a piece of divination and soothsaying. No prophet against foreign nations prophesied concerning them with the view of spreading his predictions among them, because the mission of all prophets is to Israel. The predic tions against foreign nations are intended to pre serve the covenant-people from despair, and to strengthen their faith in the omnipotence and justice of their God. These predictions
are intended to annihilate the reliance upon political combinations and human confedera cies. They are intended to lead Israel to the question, 'If they do these things in the green tree, what shall be done in the dry?' If this is the punishment of those who are less in timately allied with God, what shall then become of us to whom He has moie clearly revealed Him self? But they are also intended to indicate the future conversion of the heathen, 'and to open to the view of the faithful the future glory of the kingdom of God, and its final victory over the kingdoms of this world and thus to extirpate all narrow-minded and national particularism. God shall be revealed not only as Jehovah, but also as Elohim. His relation to Israel is misunderstood, if that relation is exclusively kept in view without any regard to the universe. Therefore the whole collection is justly entitled "Prophecies concerning Judah and Jerusalem." No matter whether this in scription originated from Isaiah himself or from an ancient compiler. That the Hebrew word for "vision" means not merely a vision, but also a collection of visions and prophecies, may be learned from 2 Chron. xxxii :32, and Nah. i It means a collection of prophecies and visions united like a picture in an historical frame (comp. Jer. xiv :14), although it may also denote the separate prophecy, as in Obadiah, verse 1. The Hebrew for "vision" has no plural (comp. Hit zig's Commentary on chapter i:i; Ewald, Propheten, p. 59).
(b) It cannot be proved that there ever existed any so-called prophetic anthology as has been sup posed to exist in the book of Isaiah. We find nothing analogous in the whole range of prophetic literature. It is generally granted that the collec tions bearing the names of Jeremiah and Ezekiel contain only productions of those authors whose name they bear. In the book of the Minor Proph ets, the property of each is strictly distinguished from the rest by headings. The authenticity of only the second portion of Zechariah has been at tacked ; and this with very feeble arguments, which have been refuted. De Wette himself has, in the latest editions of the Introduction, confessed that on this point he is vanquished.