Divines, who were not linked to these critics by the same dogmatical interest, undertook to defend the integrity of Isaiah, as Hensler, .7esaias nem iibersetzt, 17SS ; Piper, Integritas 1793 ; Beckhaus, Lieber. die IntegriNt der Prophetischen Schrifien, 1796 ; Jahn, in his Ehdeitung, who was the most able among the earlier advocates ; Dereser, in his Bearbeitung des 7esaias iv. ; Greve, Vati cinia 7esaia-, Amsterdam ISro. All these works have at present only an historical value, because they have been surpassed by two recent mono graphies. The first is by Jo. Ulr. Mceller, De Authentia °rat-a:n-21m 9esaix, ch. xl.-lxvi., Copen hagen 1S25. Although this work professedly de fends only the latter portion of the book of Isaiah, there occur in it many arguments applicable also to the first portion. The standard work on this subject is that of Kleinert, Die Aechtheit des yesaias, vol. i., Berlin 1S29. It is, however, very diffuse, and contains too many hypotheses. The compre hensive work of Schleier, IlTurdigung der Einwiirje geg-en die Alnestamentlichen Weissagungen im ye saias, chaps. xiii. and xiv., of course refers more especially to these chapters, but indirectly refers also to all the other portions whose authenticity has been attacked. Since the objections against the various parts of Isaiah are all of the same character, it is very inconsistent in Koster, in his work Die Pro pheten des alien Testamentes, to defend, in page 1029 the genuineness of chaps. xiv., and xxi. ; but nevertheless, in pages 117 and 297, to ascribe chaps. xl.-lxvi. to a pseudo-Isaiah.
After this survey of the present state of the in quiry, we proceed to furnish, first, the external arguments for the integral genuineness of Isaiah.
1. The most ancient testimony in favour of Isaiah's being the author of all the portions of the collection which bears his name, is contained in the heading of the whole (i. r), The vision of Isaiah, the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem, in the days of Uzziah, Jothain, Ahaz, Hezekiah, kings of Judah.' It is here clearly stated that Isaiah was the author of the following prophecies, uttered during the reign of four suc cessive kings. This inscription is of great import ance, even if it originated not from Isaiah, but from a later compiler. If we adopt the latest date at which this compilation could have been made, we must fix it at the time of its reception into the canon in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. Con sequently the compiler could not be separated by many years from the pseudo-Isaiah, who is said to have prophesied just before Babylon was conquered, or who, according to most critics, wrote even after the fall of Babylon. It is not credible that a com piler living so near the times of the author, should have erroneously ascribed these prophecies to Isaiah, who lived so much earlier, especially if we bear in mind that this so-called pseudo-Isaiah must have been a very remarkable person in an age so devoid of the prophetic spirit as that in which he is said to have lived.
It is still less credible that a pseudo-Isaiah should himself have fraudulently ascribed his prophecies to Isaiah. None of the adversaries of the genuine ness of the book make such an assertion.
If the compiler lived before the exile, the in scription appears to be of still greater importance. That the collection was made so early is very likely, from the circumstance that Jeremiah and other prophets apparently made use of the pro phecies of Isaiah. This fact indicates that the
prophecies of Isaiah early excited a lively interest, and that the compiler must have lived at a period earlier than that which is ascribed to the pseudo Isaiah himself. From all this we infer tbat the compiler lived before the exile. The adversaries themselves felt the weight of this argument. They, therefore, attempted to remove it by various hypo theses, which received a semblance of probability from the circumstance that even the considerate Vitringa had called in question the genuineness of the heading. Vitringa conjectured that this heading belonged originally to the first chapter alone. He further conjectured that it originally contained only the words, prophecy of Isaiah, the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning y'udah and ,erzesalenz. The following words, he says, were added by the compiler, who enlarged the particular inscription of the first chapter to a general one of the whole collection. According to Vitringa the inscription does not suit the whole book, the con tents of which are not confined to Judah and Jeru salem alone. This had been felt even by Kimchi, who, anticipating the objection, observes, qua cunque contra genies profert, ea amnia propter yudam elicit. Whatsoever Isaiah utters againstthe nations, be says on account of Judah. Judah and Jerusalem are the chief subject, and, in a certain sense, the only subject of prophecy. There is no prophecy concerning other nations without a bearing- upon the covenant.people. If this beating should be wanting in any portion of prophecy, that portion would be a piece of divination and soothsaying. No prophet against foreign nations prophesied con cerning them with the view to spread his predictions among them, because the mission of all prophets is to Israel. The predictions against foreign nations are intended to preserve the covenant-people from despair, and to strengthen their faith in the omni potence and justice of their God. These predic tions arc intended to annihilate the reliance upon political combinations and human confederacies. They are intended to lead Israel to the question, If they do these things in the green tree, what shall be done in the dry ?' If this is the punish ment of those who are less intimately allied with God, what shall then become of us to whom he has more clearly revealed himself? But they are also intended to indicate the future conversion of the heathen, and to open to the view of the faith ful the future glory of the kingdom of God, and its final victory over the kingdoms of this world ; and thus to extirpate all narrow-minded nationality. God shall be revealed not only as Jehovah but also as Elohim. His relation to Israel is misunder stood, if that relation is exclusively kept in view without any regard to the universe. Therefoie the whole collection is justly entitled Prophecies con cerning Judah and Jerusalem. No matter whether this inscription originated from Isaiah himself or from an ancient compiler. That the word 117r1 means not merely a vision, but also a collection of visions and prophecies, may be learned from 2 Chron. xxxii. 32, and Nahum i. r. It means a collection of prophecies and visions united like a picture in an historical frame (comp. Jer. xiv. 14), although it may also denote one separate prophecy, as in Obadiah, ver. 1. 1111-1 has no plural (comp. Hitzig's Commentary on ch. i. ; Ewald, Pro pheten p. 39).