How untenable all these hypotheses are may be readily perceived from the fact that each of them remained the almost exclusive property of its author, and that each following critic felt himself prompted to discover a new hypothesis, until Gesenius endea voured to stop them by cutting the Gordian knot. Hitzig, however, again attempted to unloose it, but, as we have already seen, unsuccessfully. Ewald maintains that the compiler never intended that chaps. xl.-lxvi. should belong to Isaiah, and that the last twenty-six chapters had been subjoined merely in order to preserve them the better. But it is untrue that the first portion is unconnected with these chapters. The first portion terminates with the prediction of the Babylonian exile, and the second commences with the annunciation of a future re demption from this captivity. Chaps. xl.-lxvi. have no heading of their own; which proves that the compiler annexed them as Isaian, and intended them to be read as such. The so-called spurious portions in the first part of Isaiah were, according to the opinion of Ewald (p. 62), intermixed with the genuine, becausc the compiler really supposed them to belong to Isaiah. Thus Ewald admits that the intermixed pieces have the testimony of the compiler in favour of their authenticity. To deny that this testimony extends also to the second part, is an arbitrary assumption. Now, if this tes timony is granted, we are content. With it we gain this much, that the attacked portions have the presumption of genuineness in their favour, and that, therefore, very substantial reasons are required for denying their Isaian origin. This is all that we want.
3. According to tbe opinion of several critics, all die spurious portions of Isaiah belong to one and the same author. I3ut it so happens that the por tion which is most emphatically declared to be spurious, namely, chaps. xiii. and xiv., bear an inscription which expressly ascribes them to Isaiah. Now, as the internal arguments against the authen ticity of all the portions which are said to be spuri ous are nearly identical, if the opposition to chaps. xiii. and xiv. is given up, it cannot with consistency be maintained against the other portions. This argument serves also as an answer to those who ascribe the portions which they consider spurious to several authors. The contents of these portions are similar. They contain predictions of the fall of Babylon, and of the redemption of Israel from captivity. Whatever proves the genuineness of one of these portions,, indirectly proves the others also to be genuine.
4. According to Josephus (Antiq. xi. I. T, 2) Cyrus was induced by the prophecies of Isaiah re specting hint to allow the return of the Jews, and to aid them in rebuilding the temple. The credi bility of Josephus, who in regard to facts of ancient history is not always to be relied upon, is here supported by two circumstances. First, the favour shewn by Cyrus to the Jews, which remains inexplicable except by the fact mentioned, in com bination with the influence of Daniel. ln/modern times, the favour of Cyrus to the Jews bas been called a prudential measure; but it does not appear what he could either hope or fear from a people so enfeebled as the Jews were at that period. It has been added that Cyrus was favourable to the Jews on account of the similarity between the Persian and the Jewish religion ; but there is no historical proof that the Persians, on any other occasion, fa voured the Jews on account of their religion. The favours shewn to Nehemiah on behalf of Israel were only personal favours, owing to his position at the Persian court. We allow that all this would be insufficient to prove the correctness of the above statement in Josephus, but it must render us inclined to admit its truth.
The second argument is much stronger : it is, that the statement of Josephus is supported by the edict of Cyrus (Ezra i.) This edict pre-supposes the fact related by Josephus, so that Jahn calls the passage in Josephus a commentary on the first chapter of Ezra, in which we read that Cyrus an nounces in his edict, that he was commanded by Jehovah to build him a temple in Jerusalem, and that he received all the conquered kingdoms of the earth as a gift from Jehovah. This cannot refer to any other predictions of the prophet, but only to what are called the spurious portions of Isaiah, in which the Lord grants to Cyrus all his future con quests, and appoints him to be the restorer of his temple (comp. xli. 2-4 ; xliv. 24-2S ; xlv. 1-13 ; xlvi. ; xlviii. 13-13). The edict adopts almost the words of these passages (comp. the synopsis in the above-mentioned work of Kleinert, p. 142).
In reply to this, our adversaries assert that Cyrus was deceived by pseudo-prophecies forged in the name of Isaiah ; but if Cyrus could be deceived in so clumsy a manner, he was not the man that his tory represents him ; and to have committed for gery is so contrary to what was to be expected from the author of chaps. xl.-lxvi., that even the feelings of our opponents revolt at the supposition that the pseudo-Isaiah should have forged vatidnia post evennem in the name of the prophet. Had these prophecies been written, as it is alleged, only in sight of the conquest of Babylon, Cyrus would have been deceived before the eyes of the author, and this could not have been effected without collusion on the part of the author. This collusion would be undeniable, since the author again and again re peats that he was proclaiming unheard-of facts, which were beyond all human calculation.
5. In the books of the prophets who lived after Isaiah, and before the period of the so-called pseudo-Isaiah, we find imitations of those prophe cies which have been ascribed to the latter. Since Gesenius has demonstrated that all the portions which have been considered spurious are to be ascribed to only one author, it can be shewn that they were all in existence before the time assigned to the pseudo-Isaiah, although we can produce the imitations of only some of these portions. But even those opponents who ascribe these portions to dif ferent authors must grant that their objections are invalidated, if it can be shewn that later prophets have referred to these portions, because the argu ments employed against them closely resemble each other : consequently these prophecies stand and fall together. The verbal coincidence between Jeremiah and the so-called pseudo-Isaiah is in this respect most important. Jeremiah frequently makes use of the earlier prophets, and he refers equally, and in the same manner, to the portions of Isaiah whose genuineness has been questioned, as to those which are deemed authentic (comp. Kiiper, yerendas librorum sacrornm interpres atque vindex, pp. '55). The most striking, is the coincidence of Jer. I., li., with the predictions against Babylon in Isaiah. Jeremiah here gives to God the appellation vrIp 5.1,tv, the Holy one of Israel, which frequently occurs in Isaiah, especially in the portions whose authenti city is questioned, but is found only three times in the other books of the O. T. Isaiah uses the appellation L',11P with peculiar predilection, because it points out the omnipotent covenant fidelity of the Lord ; which was to be considered, especially as it guarantees the truth of the contents of those pro phecies which are attacked by our opponents. This circumstance is so striking that Von Coelln and De Wette, on this account, and in contradic tion to every argument, declare even the corre sponding chapter of Jeremiah to be spurious. This is certainly a desperate stroke, because the chapter is otherwise written in the very characteristic style of that prophet. This desperation, however, gives us the advantage afforded by an involuntary testi mony in favour of those portions of Isaiah which have been attacked. The words of Isaiah, in ch. li. 15, I am the Lord thy God who moves the sea that its waves roar,' are repeated in Jer. xxxi. 35. The image of the cup of fury in Is. li. 17, is in Jer. xxv. 15-29 transformed into a symbolic act, according to his custom of embodying the imagery of earlier prophets, and especially that of Isaiah. In order to prove that other prophets also made a similar use of Isaiah, we refer to Zephaniah ii. 15, where we find Isaiah's address to Babylon applied to Nineveh, Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart I am, and none else beside me,' etc. Zephaniah, living towards the termina tion of prophetism, has, like Jeremiah, a dependent character, and has here even repeated the charac teristic and difficult word 'DM Kiiper (p. r3S) has clearly demonstrated that the passage cannot be original in Zephaniah. The words of Isaiah (lii. 7), ` How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that pub lisheth peace,' are repeated by Nahum in ch. i. 1.5 (ii. 1); and what he adds, the wicked shall no more pass through thee,' agrees remarkably with Is. lii. 1, for henceforth shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.' Na hum iii. 7 contains an allusion to Is. li. 19. Beside these references to the portions of Isaiah which are said to be spurious, we find others to the portions which are deemed genuine (comp. for instance, Nahum. i. 13, with Is. x. 27).