We attach no importance to the collections of isolated words and expressions which some critics have gleaned from the disputed parts of Isaiah, and which are not found in other portions that are deemed genuine. We might here well apply what Kriiger wrote on a similar question in pro fane history (De authentia et integritate Ana& Xenophontis, Halle 1824, p. 27) ; Hoe argu mentancli genus perquam labricum est. Si quid numerus valeret, urgeri passel, quad in his libris amplius quadraginta vocabula leguntur, qua in reliquis Xenaphontis operibus frustra quarantur. Si yids proper vacabula alibi ab hoe scriptare vc1 al i a potestate, vel prorsus 72011 usurpata, Anabasin ab ea profecta»4 neget, hac ration( achnissa quaa' vis aliud ejus opus injuria ei trihui, ostendi patest ; that is, This is a very slippeiy mode of reasoning. If number were of importance, it might be urged that in these books occur more than forty words for which one searches in vain in the other works of Xenophon. But if it should be denied on account of those words which this author has either employed in a dif ferent sense, or has not made use of at all, that the Anabasis was written by him, it could, by the same reasoning, be shewn, that every other work was falsely attributed to him.' 7. We find a number of characteristic peculi arities of style which occur both in what is ac counted genuine and what is styled spurious in Isaiah, and which indicate the identity of the author. Certain very peculiar idioms occur again and again in all parts of the book. Two of them are particularly striking. The appellation of God, the Holy One of Israel,' occurs with equal frequency in what has been ascribed to Isaiah and in what has been attributed to a pseudo Isaiah ; it is found besides in two passages in which Jeremiah iinitates Isaiah, and only three times in the whole of the remainder of the O. T. Another peculiar idiom is that to be called ' stands constantly for to be.' These are pheno. mena of language which even our opponents do not consider casual ; but they say that the later poet imitated Isaiah, or that they originated from the hand of a uniformising editor, who took an active part in modelling the whole. But there cannot be shewn any motive for such inter ference ; and we find nothing analogous to it in the whole of the O. T. Such a supposi tion cuts away the linguistic ground from under the feet of higher criticism, and deprives it of all power of demonstration. In this manner every linguistic phenomenon may easily be re moved, when it is contrary to preconceived opi nions. But everything in Isaiah appears so natural, bears so much the impress of originality, is so free from every vestige of patch-work, that no one can conscientiously maintain this hypothesis.
We have still to consider the other conjecture of our opponents. If we had before us a prophet strongly leaning, like Jeremiah and Zechariah, upon preceding prophets, that conjecture might be deemed admissible, in case there were other arguments affording a proba.bility for denying that Isaiah was the author of these portions—a supposition which can here have no place. But here we have a prophet whose independence and originality are acknowledged even by our op ponents. In him we cannot think of imitation, especially if we consider his peculiarities in con nection with the other peculiar characteristics of Isaiah, and of what has been said to belong to a pseudo-Isaiah ; we refer here to the above-men tioned works of Mceller and of Kleinert (p. 231, sq.) In both portions of Isaiah there occur a number of words which are scarcely to be found in, other places ; also a frequent repetition of the same word in the parallel members of a verse. This
repetition very seldom occurs in other writers (com pare the examples collected by Kleinert, p. 239). Other writers usually employ synonyms in the parallel members of verses. It further belongs to the characteristics of Isaiah, to employ words in extraordinary acceptations ; for instance. Ira is used contemptuously for brood ; 01N, for rabble ; MD% for a shoot. Isaiah also employs extra ordinary constructions, and has the peculiar custom of explaining his figurative expressions by directly subjoining the prosaical equivalent. This custom has induced many interpreters to suppose that explanatory glosses have been inserted in Isaiah. Another peculiarity of Isaiah is that he inter sperses his prophetic orations with hymns ; that he seldom relates visions, strictly so called, and seldom performs symbolic actions ; and that he employs figurative expressions quite peculiar to himself, as, for example, pasted-up tyes, for spiri tual darkness ; morning-red, for approaching hap piness ; the remnant of olive trees, vineyards, and orchards, for the remnant of the people which have been spared during the judgments of God ; re Peted tendrils or branches, for enemies who have been slain.
In addition to this we find an almost verbal harmony between entire passages ; for instance, the Messianic description commencing xi. 6, cons pared with lxv. 25.
IV. The origin of the present Collection, and its arrangement.—No definite account respecting the method pursued in collecting into books the utterances of the Prophets has been handed down to us. Concerning Isaiah, as well as the rest, these accounts are wanting. We do not even know svhether he collected his prophecies himself. But we have no decisive argument against this opinion. The arg-ument of Kleinert, in his above-mentioned work (p. t2), is of slight importance. He says, If Isaiah himself had collected his prophecies, there would not be wanting some which are not to be found in the existing book. To this we reply, that it can by no means be proved with any degree of probability that a single prophecy of Isaiah has been lost, the preservation of which would have been of importance to posterity, and which Isaiah himself would have deemed it neces sary to preserve. Kleinert appeals to the fact, that there is no prophecy in our collection which can with certainty be ascribed to the days of Jotham ; and he thinks it incredible that the pro phet, soon after having been consecrated to his office, should have passed full sixteen years with. out any revelation from God. This, certainly, is unlikely ; but it is by no means unlikely that during this time he uttered no prophecy which he thought proper to preserve. Nay, it appears very probable, if we compare the rather general charaeter of chaps. i.-v., the contents of which would apply to the days of Jotham also, since during his reign no considerable changes took place ; consequently the prophetic utterances moved in the same sphere with those preserved to us from the reign of Uzziah. Hence it was na tural that Isaiah should confine himself to the communication of some important prophetic ad dresses, which might as well represent the days of Jotham as those of the preceding reign. We must not too closely identify the utterances of the prophets with their writings. Many prophets have spoken much and written nothing. The minor prophets were generally content to write down the quintessence alone of their numerous utterances. Jeremiah likewise, of his numerous addresses under Josiah, gives us only what was most essential.