In general, the apparent citation of a passage under the name of an Old Testament author does not commit the New Testament writer to any view of the authorship of the writing quoted from. If the name of the author be given, it is given simply as a mark of identification, and not neces sarily as a definite ascription of the writing to him. In this sense the whole Psalter is credited to David, including anonymous Psalms (such as the second, cited in Acts iv:25 as David's). In accord ance with this usage also Matthew quotes from Zechariah ascribing the prophecy to Jeremiah (Matt. xxvii :9). As an identification of an old prophecy the citation was adequately introduced, but as a writing it was not assigned to its own author.
Such usage does ncrt diminish the authority of the New Testament on those matters on which it was designed to give light, but leaves such matters to be distinguished from others by a careful examination of each in its setting and separate intent. The New Testament writers were not omniscient, nor was it necessary that they should be. Their lack of special informa tion on such an unessential matter in no way weakens their trustworthiness on matters which came not only within their province as historians of the life of Jesus and the Apostolic age, but also within their own personal observation.
But if difficulty be found with this standpoint, it may be still further reasoned that even the verbal inerrancy of the New Testament writers need not be affected by the discovery, if it shall prove to be such, of the separate authorship of a portion of Isaiah. The name Isaiah is not such as to show that only the son of Amoz contempo rary of Hezekiah, bore it. In its cognates Joshua, Hoshea, etc., it was a favorite one. If there fore another prophet bearing the same name Isaiah lived in the latter part of the period of the exile and uttered the discourses of Is. xl-lxvi it would be very easy for his personality and work to be blended with those of the earlier Isaiah and thus have the books of the two pass under one title and in one volume. In such a case, the evangelists and apos.tles could speak with strictest accuracy of these utterances as writings or words of Isaiah's. This hypothesis which practically reduces the question into one of the lower or textual criticism, leaves the field clear for an unbiased examination of the grounds on which the divisive theory is based. These grounds are the following: (e) The distinguishing features of the literary style of chapters xl-lxvi are so different from that of chapters i-xxxix that if Isaiali the son of Amoz was the author of these chapters he could not have been also the author of the others. These differences touch first of all the choice of words. The author of chapters xl-lxvi uses many char acteristic and important words never found in the discourses of the son of Amoz. Such are the
terms to clzoose, to praise, to spring forth, pleas ure, to break forth, good will, acceptance, to re joice. Besides single words there are character istic phrases peculiar to Is. xl-lxvi. Such are the expressions "thy sons" with a feminine pro noun referring to Zion (xlix :17, 22, 25; li :2o; liv :i3 ; lx :4, 9; lxii:5). When Isaiah speaks of the sonship of Israelites it is as God's sons that he thinks of them (i :2, 4 ; xxx :1, 9). "I am Jehovah and there is none else" (xlv :5, 6, 18, 22). "I am the first and I am the last" (xliv :6) ; "I am he" (xli :4 ; xliii :to, 13; xlvi :4; xlviii :i2), "I am thy God," "thy Savior" (xli :io, 13 ; 3 ; xlviii :i7). These phrases never occur in chapters i-xxxix. Besides these words and phrases a series of others occur in chaps. xl lxvi which, though used in the first part of the collection, are so used very rarely and in other senses than those here attached to them. (See Driver, Introd. to the Lit. of the Old Test., p. 239). More broadly the second Isaiah has some stylistic characteristics, such as the repetition of words (xl :1 ; xliii ; xlviii :1 1, 15 ; :9, 12, 17 , 111:I, II ; 1V11 :I, 14, 19 ; 1X11 :10; lxv:1), the repetition of the same word in successive clauses or verses (x1:12, 13; 1:7, 9, etc.), the omission of the relative particle. The converse of this is true also, i. e., words, phrases, and stylistic pe culiarities found in Isaiah the son of Amoz are never found in the second Isaiah. Such are the words, '` the Lord" (not Jehovah, but the He brew aw-done') "of Hosts" (I:24; iii it ; x :16, 33; xix :4) ; not-gods (ii :8, 18, '20 ; X 11 I ; X1X ; XXX1:7) ; the escaped (iv :2; X :20 ; xv 9 ; xxxvii:3I, 32) ; a trampling down (v :5; vii: 25 ; x:6; xxviii :18) ; and the phrases "In that day," found frequently as shown by examples from two or three chapters (iii :18; iv 2 ; V11: 18, 20, 2 t, 23—in Is. lxi-lxvi only once, lii :6) ; "And it shall come to pass" (iv :3; vii :18, 21, 23 ; X :12 ; X1:10; "head and tail, palm branch and rush" (ix :14; xix :t5) ; "a consummation and that de termined" (x :23; xxviii :22) ; "flying fiery ser pent" (xiv :29; xxx :6) ; and of habits of thought or style the first Isaiah shows the tendency to draw figures from the harvest (ix :3; xvii :5, ; xviii :4) ; the figure of the fat reduced to leanness (x :to; xvii :4) ; the figure of the scourge (x :26; xxviii:15, 18) ; the smearing of the eyes of the blind (vi :to; xxix :18). These lists are .by no means exhaustive. They simply represent in a few examples the relation of the style of the two authors. In addition it should be remarked that there are rhetorical and poetical characteristics in these writings—such as the construction of sentences, the movement and rhythm of periods— which cannot be presented in lists of examples, but must be observed in the reading of the writ ings as units.