These differences cannot be accounted for upon the basis of difference of age in the prophet Isaiah uses the same style in his earliest and his latest writings (comp. ch. vi with xxix-xxxiii and xxxvii). Nor are they to be accounted for on the basis of difference of subject. In i-xxxix the enemies of Judah are the Assyrians, in xl-lxvi, the Babylonians. In the first part the fact of pres ervation from these enemies and the mode of it are the general subjects, in the second part the subject is the liberation from their power and restoration to their own land. Between these two topics no such difference exists as calls for a different phraseology and style. The only rea sonable explanation of these facts is difference of authorship.
(f) The historical setting of chapters xl-lxvi is that of the latter part of the exile period (545 535). The prophecy opens with a general call to be of good cheer (x1:1), and seems to be ad dressed throughout to a people under oppression and away from home. Jerusalem is ruined and deserted (xliv :26; lxiii :18 ; lxiv :to). This con dition of things is not new, but of long standing (lviii :12; lxi :4). The prospect of return is, how ever, very vivid. In fact restoration is alluded to as if imminent (x1:2; xlvi :13; xlviii :20, etc.). There is no reference of the remotest kind to the times of Ahaz and Hezekiah or even of Manas seh. So clear is the situation and so manifest the adaptation of the prophecy to the conditions of the later period, that those who ascribe it to Isaiah the son of Amoz suppose that the prophet's consciousness was projected into the future, sO that while living in thc days of Hezekiali he realized the world of the days of Cyrus. This is a hypothesis so much out of analogy with the Biblical idca of prophecy that it must not bc resorted to except for the strongest possible rea sons. But the chief reason for pressing it sccms to bc the fact that the predictive element would be eliminated if the view were not accepted. It is alleged that the prophet appeals to thc fulfil ment of predictive prophecy (xli :26; xlii :9; xliii: 8-1o; xlviii:3-8) and such an appeal would have no value if the prophecy dates from the period of the exile. But a close examination of these pas sages shows that this way of reasoning has no force. The predictions alluded to are such as would be realized very soon. It was not neces sary that an interval of morc than 15o years should have elapsed in order to give validity to the fulfilment of predictive prophecies. On the other hand, the manner in which these coming events are spoken of indicates that they are in thc ncar future. Cyrus is already "stirred up"
(xli:2 25 ; xlv :i3). He is on the horizon not only of the prophetic vision, but also of the his torical situation. Upon the whole the prophet speaks as a man in contact with those whom he addrcsscs and if he lived at the time of Hue kiah, his discourses must have remained a sealed and meaningless book for a century and a half.
(g) The content of thought or theology of chapters xl-lxvi is of a different type from that of chapters i-xxxix. The two parts do not con tradict each other ; neither is it impossible to con ceive of the same man's entertaining and express ing the ideas respectively characteristic of each. And yet as a matter of experience differences as marked as are here shown at once produce the im pression of difference in personality. The basal thoughts of the two Isaiahs are of course those of the religion of Israel in general. All the writers of the Old Testament hold and teach these thoughts. But the characteristic features of the first Isaiah are absent from the second and vice versa those of the second do not appear in the first. Isaiah the son of Amoz is distinctively a statesman and a reformer. He appears before the kings of his day with a message from Je hovah as to what they should do in view of the political and social situations in which they are implicated. The second Isaiah is an evangelical preacher. His idea of God is that Ile is the Creator of the Universe, the Life-giver and sus taincr of all, the Author of history, the First and the Last, the Incomparable one. The central idea in the conception is his infinitude. Isaiah the son of Amoz dwells rather on the majesty of God and his special care over Israel. The first Isaiah presents the doctrine of the remnant or preservation of a nucleus of Israel through all catastrophes that may be visited on the nation as a result of judgment for their sins. In the second Isaiah this doctrine appears only by im plication (lix :2o; lxv :8) ; but in place of it there emerges the doctrine of the call of Israel to a high function and a glorious ultimate destiny. Finally, as regards the Messiah, the two parts of the book differ radically. In the first the Mes siah is a glorious King of the line of David, whose reign is marked by peace and prosperity. In the second, thc Messiah is the Servant of Je hovah, the hcad of the people of God (never al luded to by the title of King) whose mission and function are blended with those of the people. He redeems the people by suffering.