(b) Again, the most ancient production of Jew ish literature after the completion of the canon furnishes proof of the integral authenticity of Isaiah. The book of Jesus Ben Sirach, com monly called Ecclesiasticus, was written as early as the third century before Christ, as Hug has clearly demonstrated in opposition to those who place it in the second century before Christ. In Ecclesiasticus xlviii :22-25, Isaiah is thus praised: 'For Hezekiah had done the thing that pleased the Lord, and was strong in the ways of David his father, as Isaiah the prophet, who was great and faithful in his vision, had commanded him. In his time the sun went backward, and he lengthened the king's life. He saw by an ex cellent spirit what should come to pass at the last, and he comforted them that mourned in Zion. He showed what should come to pass forever, and secret. things or ever they came.' This commendation especially refers, as even Gesenius grants, to the disputed portions of the prophet, in which we find predictions of the most distant futurity. The comfort for Zion is found more particularly in the second part of Isaiah, which begins with the words, 'Comfort ye, com fort ye, my people.' The author of this second part himself says (xlviii :3), 'I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I showed them.' Thus we perceive that Jesus Ben Sirach, the learned scribe, confidently attributes the debated passages to Isaiah in such a manner as plainly in dicates that there was no doubt in his days re specting the integral authenticity of that book, which has the testimony of historical tradition in its favor. Jesus Ben Sirach declares his in tention (Ecclus. xliv :I) to praise the most cel ebrated men of his nation. The whole tenor of these chapters shows that he does not confine himself to celebrated authors. We therefore say that the praise which he bestows upon Isaiah is not intended for the book personified. but for the person of the prophet. If Ben Sirach had enter tained doubts respecting the genuineness of those prophecies on which, in particular, he bases his praise, he could not have so lauded the prophet.
In the Jewish synagogue the integral authen ticity of Isaiah has always been recognized. This general recognition cannot be accounted for ex cept by the power of tradition based upon truth; and it is supported as well by the New Testa ment, in which Isaiah is quoted as the author of the whole collection which bears his name, as also by the express testimony of Josephus, es pecially in his Antiquities (N. 2, 2 and xi. 1. I).
(e) After such confirmation it would be super fluous to mention the Talmudists.
It is very remarkable that in the far from scanty historical accounts of this period, con sidering all circumstances. no mention is made of any prophet to whom we could well ascribe these prophecies. This is the more remarkable, because at that period prophctism was on the wane, and the few prophets who still existed excited on that account the greater attention. What Ewald tp. 57) writes concerning the tune about the conclusion of the Babylonian exile, is quite unhistorical. He says, 'ln this highly ex cited period of liberty regained, and of a national church re-established, there were rapidly pro duced a great number of prophecies, circulated in a thousand pamphlets, many of which were of great poetical beauty.' What Ewald states about
a new flood of prophetic writings which then poured forth, is likewise unhistorical. History shows that during the exile prophetism was ozi the wane. What we read in the books of Jere miah and Ezekiel proves that these prophets were isolated; and from the book of Ezra we learn what was the spiritual condition of the new colony. If we compare with their predecessors the prophets who then prophesied, Haggai, Zech ariah, and Malachi, we cannot say much about a revival of the prophetic spirit towards the con clusion of the exile. Everything concurs to show that the efficiency of prophetism was draw ing towards its end. The later the prophets are, the more do they lean upon the earlier prophets; so that we are enabled to trace the gradual transition of prophetism into the learning of scribes. Prophetism dug, as it were, its own grave. The authority which it demands for its earlier productions necessarily caused that the later were dependent upon the earlier, and the more this became the case during the progress of time, the more limited became the field for new productions. It is not only unhistorical, but, according to the condition of the later pro ductions of prophecy, quite impossible, that about the conclusion of the exile there should have sprung up a fresh prophetic literature of great extent. In this period we hear only the echo of prophecy. That one of the later prophets of whom we possess most, namely, Zechariah, leans entirely upon Jeremiah and Ezekiel, as upon his latest predecessors. There is not a ves tige of an intervening prophetic literature. The weakness of our opponents' position is mani fested by their being obliged to have recourse to such unhistorical fictions in order to defend their opinions.
(d) For those who accept the authority of the New Testament a final argument for the unity of Isaiah is based on the uniform usage of the second part by the Christian canon. Through out the New Testament Isaiah is quoted by name as the author not only of those parts of the book bearing his name which are conceded by all to be his, but also of those parts which are said to be by another prophet or other prophets (comp. Matt. iii :3; viii:t7; xii:t7; Mark i Luke iii: 4 : iv :17 ; John i ; xii :38, 4 ; Acts viii :3o; Rom. x:t6. 20). It is evident that the New Tes tament writers either knew or did not know the truth as to the composition of the passages cited. If they did not know. their authority is proved to be defective : if they knew, they told what they knew to be contrary to fact, in case the critical theory is correct. No such difficulty arises, however, if the traditional theory is true.
As against these considerations, the argument of the advocates of the decisive theory must be examined. It is necessary, however, to single out in this class those who accept the authority of Jesus and the New Testament, and state their views on the attitude of the New Testament towards the question of the atithorship of Isaiah.