But even if it could be proved that the prophe cies of Zechariah belonged to two different au thors, namely (as Bertholdt and Gesenius sup pose), to the two Zechariahs, each of whom hap pened to be the son of a Barachiah, this identity of names might be considered an inducement for uniting the productions of the two authors in one connection ; still this case would not be analogous to what is asserted to be the fact in Isaiah. In Isaiah, it is alleged not only that a series of chap ters belonging to a different author was subjoined, commencing about chapter xxxiv, but it is affirmed that, even in the first thirty-three chapters, the genuine and spurious portions are intermixed. Be fore we admit that the compilers proceeded here in a manner so unreasonable, and so contrary to their usual custom, we must expect some cogent proof to be adduced.
(e) According to the opinion of several crit ics, all spurious portions of Isaiah belong to one and the same author. But it so happens that the portion which is most emphatically declared to be spurious, namely, chapters xiii and xiv, bear an inscription which expressly ascribes them to Isaiah. Now, as the internal arguments against the authenticity of all the portions which are said to be spurious are nearly identical, if the opposition to chapters xiii and xiv is given up, it cannot with consistency be maintained against the other portions. This argument serves also as an answer to those who ascribe the portions which they consider spurious to several authors. The contents of these portions are similar. They con tain predictions of ihe fall of Babylon, and of the redemption of Israel from captivity. Whatever proves the genuineness of one of these portions indirectly proves the others also to be genuine.
(d) According to Josephus (Antiq, xi, c, 1, 2), Cyrus was induced by the prophecies of Isaiah respecting him, to allow the return of the Jews, and to aid them in rebuilding the temple. The credibility of Josephus, who in regard to facts of ancient history is not always to be relied upon, is here supported by two circumstances. First, the favor shown bv Cyrus to the Jews, which remains inexplicable except by the fact mentioned, in combination with the influence of Daniel. In modern times, the favor of Cyrus to the Jews has been called a prudential measure ; but it does not appear what lie could either hope or fear from a people so enfeebled as the Jew::, were at that period. It has been added that Cyrus was. favorable to the Jews on account of the. shmlarity between the Persian and the Jewish religions ; but there is no historical proof that the Persians, on any other occasion, favored the Jews on account of their religion. The favors shown to Nehemiah on behalf of Israel were only personal favors, owing to his position at the Persian court. We allow that all this would be insufficient to prove the correctness of the above statement in Josephus, but it must render us inclined to admit its truth.
The second argument is much stronger; it is that the statement of Josephus is supported by the edict of Cyrus (Ezra i). This edict pre supposes the fact related by Josephus, so that Jahn calls the passage in Josephus a commentary on the first chapter of Ezra, in which we read that Cyrus announces in his edict that he was commanded by Jehovah to build him a temple in Jerusalem, and that he received all the con quered kingdoms of the earth as a gift from Jehovah. This cannot refer to any other predic
tions of the prophet, but only to what are called the spurious portions of Isaiah, in which the Lord grants to Cyrus all his future conquests, and appoints him to be the restorer of his temple (comp. xli :2-4 ; xliv ;24-28 ; xlv :1-13 ; xlvi :t ; xlviii:t3-15). The edict adopts almost the words of these passages (comp. the synopsis in the above-mentioned work of Kleinert, p. 142). In reply to this it is alleged that Cyrus was de ceived by pseudo-prophecies forged in the name of Isaiah; but if Cyrus could be deceived in so clumsy a manner, he was not the man that his tory represents him; and to have committed for gery is so contrary to what was to be expccted from the author of chapters xl-lxvi, that even the feelings of our opponents revolt at the siippo sition that the Deutero-Isaiah should have forged vaticinia post eventum in the name of the proph ets. Had these prophecies been written, as it is alleged, only in sight of the conquest of Baby lon, Cyrus would have been deceived before the eyes of the author, and this could not have been effected without collusion on the part of the au thor. This collusion would be undeniable, since the author again and again repeats that he was proclaiming unheard-of facts, which were be yond all human calculation.
(a) In .the books of the prophets who lived after Isaiah, and before the period of the so called Deutero-Isaiah, we find imitations of those prophecies which have been ascribed to the lattet Since Gesenius has demonstrated that all the portions which have been considered spurious are to bc ascribed to only one author, it can be shown that they were all in existence before the time assigned to the Deutero-Isaiah, although we can produce the imitations of only some of these portions. But even those who ascribe these portions to different authors must grant that their objections are invalidated, if it can be shown that later prophets have referred to these portions, because the arguments employed against them closely resemble each other ; consequently these prophecies stand and fall together. This verbal coincidence between Jeremiah and the so-called Deutero-Isaiali is in this respect most important. Jeremiah frequently makes use of the earlier prophets, and he refers equally, and in the same manner, to the portions of Isaiah whose genuineness has been questioned, as to those which are deemed authentic. The most striking is the coincidence of Jeremiah 1:51 with the predictions against Babylon in Isaiah. Jere miah here gives to God the appellation, The Holy One of Israel, 1.vhich frequently occurs in Isaiah, especially in the portions whose authentic ity is questioned, but is found only three times in the other books of the Old Testament. Isa iah uses this appellation with peculiar predilec tion, because it points out the omnipotent cove nant-fidelity of the Lord; which was to be con sidered, especially as it guarantees the truth of the contents of the prophecies attacked.