6. Again, the most ancient production of Jewish literature after the completion of the canon fur nishes proof of the integral authenticity of Isaiah. The book of Jesus Sirach, commonly called Eccle siasticus, was written as early as the 3d century be fore Christ, as Hug has clearly demonstrated, in opposition to those who place it in the 2d centurybe fore Christ. In Ecclesiasticus xlviii. 22-25, Isaiah is thus praised : 'For Hezekiah had done the thing that pleased the Lord, and was strong in the ways of David his father, as Isaiah the prophet, who was great and faithful in his vision, had commanded him. In his time the sun went backward, and he lengthened the king's life. He saw by an excel lent spirit what should come to pass at the last, and he comforted them that mourned in Sion. He shewed what should come to pass for ever, and secret things or ever they came.' This commenda.tion especially refers, as even Gesenius grants, to the disputed portions of the prophet, in which ‘ve find predictions of the most distant futurity. The comfort for Zion is found more particularly in the second part of Isaiah, which begins with the words Comfort ye, comfort ye, my people.' The author of this second part himself says (xlviii. 3), I have declared the forme]. things from the beginning ; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them.' Thus we per ceive that Jesus Sirach, the learned scribe, confi dently attributes the debated passages to Isaiah, in such a manner as plainly indicates that there was no doubt in his days respecting the integral genuine ness of that book, which has the testimony of his torical tradition in its favour. Jesus Sirach declares his intention (Ecclus. xliv.-1.) to praise the most celebrated men of his nation. The whole tenor of these chapters shews that he does not confine him self to celebrated authors. We therefore say that the praise which he bestows upon Isaiah is not in tended for the book personified, but for the person of the prophet. If Jesus Sirach had entertained doubts respecting the genuineness of those pro phecies on which, in particular, he bases his praise, he could not have so, lauded the prophet.
In the Jewish synagogue the integral genuineness of Isaiah has always been recognised. This general recognition cannot be accounted for except by the power of tradition based upon truth ; and it is sup ported as well by the N. T., in which Isaiah is quoted as the author of the whole collection which hears his name, as also by the express testimony of Josephus, especially in his Antiquities (X. 2. 2, and xi. 1. 1). After such confirmation it would be superfluous to mention the Talanudists.
7. According to the hypothesis of our oppo nents, the author or authors of the spurious por tions wrote at the end of the Babylonian exile. They confess that these portions belong to the finest productions of prophetism. Now it is very remarkable that in the far from scanty historical accounts of this period, considering all circum stances, no mention is made of any prophet to whom we could well ascribe these prophecies. This is the more remarkable, because at that period prophetism was on the wane, and the few prophets who still existed excited on that account the greater attention. What Ewald (p. 57) writes concerning the time about the conclusion of the Babylonian exile, is quite unhistorical. He says, In tbis highly excited period of liberty regained, and of a national church re-established, there were rapidly produced a great number of prophecies, circulated in a thousand pamphlets, many of which were of great poetical beauty.' What Ewald states
about a new flood of prophetic writings which then poured forth, is likewise unhistorical. History shews that during the exile prophetism was on the wane. What we read in the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel proves that these prophets were iso lated ; and from the book of Ezra we learn what was the spiritual condition of the new colony. If we compare with their predecessors the prophets who then prophesied, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, we cannot say much about a revival of the prophetic spirit towards the conclusion of the exile. Everything concurs to shew that the effi ciency of prophetism was drawing towards its end. The later the prophets are, the more do they lean upon the earlier prophets ; so that we are enabled to trace the gradual transition of prophetism into the learning of scribes. Prophetism dug, as it were, its own grave. The authority which it de mands for its earlier productions necessarily caused that the later were dependent upon the earlier ; and the more this became the case during the pro gress of time, the more limited became the fie.ld for new productions. It is not only unhistorical, but, according to the condition of the later produc tions of prophecy, impossible, that about the con clusion of the exile there should have sprung up a fresh prophetic literature of great extent. In this period we hear only the echo of prophecy. That one of the later prophets of whom we possess most, namely Zechariah, leans entirely upon Jere miah and Ezekiel, as upon his latest predecessors. There is not a vestige of an intervening prophetic literature. The feebleness of our opponents is manifested by their being obliged to have recourse to such unhistorical frctions in order to defend their opinions.
Thus we have seen that we possess a series of ex ternal arguments in favour of the integral genuine ness of Isaiah. Each of these arguments is of importance, and in their combination they have a weight which could only be counterbalanced by in surmountable difficulties in the contents of these prophecies. We now proceed to shew that there are no such difficulties, and tbat the internal argu ments unite with the external in demonstrating the authenticity of Isaiah as a whole.
I. The portions of Isaiah which have been de clared by our opponents to be spurious, are, as we have already said, almost entirely such as contain prophecies of an especially definite character. It is this very definiteness which is brought forWard as the chief argument against theirgenuineness. Those of our adversaries who go farthest assert in downright terms that predictions in the stricter sense, such, namely, as are more than a vague foreboding, are impossible. The more considerate of our oppo nents express this argument in milder terms, saying, ' that it was against the usage of the Hebrew pro phets to prophesy with so much individuality, or to give to their prophecies so individual a bearing. They say that these prophecies were never anything more than general prophetic descriptions, and that, consequently, where we find a definite reference to historical facts quite beyond the horizon of a human being like Isaiah, we are enabled by analogy to declare those portions of the work in which they occur to be spurious.