INSCRIPTIONS, SEMITIC
dressing the wounds of his patient will be quickened by
the prospect of an adequate remuneration. See H o ~ ~ s E . clans twelve. But from d of Gen. 3611 (see Z EPHO)
Surely we cannot venture to suppose, with Jiilicher (GLeich-
nissreden, 590) that the Good Samaritan’s KaTdhupa was a
Gasfhausorhostelry. It is much more probable that the ‘lodgiug-
place differed but slightly from the so-called Good Samaritan’s
Inn on the way to Jericho, which bears the name of Khan
flairzira.
Nor would it be reasonable to suppose that a different sort of
lodging-place is meant by the KaTdAupa (EV inn) of Lk. 2 7 ;
that Lk. uses different words in 2 7 and in 10 34 may only arise
from a difference in the literary source. I t is true that in
L k . 2 2 1 1 xa7dAupa seems to mean a room that was lent to
pilgrims (for the passover) ; but the context in 2 7 is a,s adverse to the name of a village near the ruins of Petra (see
the meaning ‘guest-chamber’ as to that of ‘inn. That the
g&Zf/i Chimham of Jer. 41 17 ( R V w . ‘the lodging-place of
Chimham’) is meant, is quite impossible, though this has
been suggested (cp Plummer, S f . Luke, 54). See CHIMHAM, and
cp NATIVITY.
That an Oriental ‘manger’ (+&vq) was not like those of the
West is shown at great length by Kitto (Pict. Bi6. L k . 27) who
states that ‘when persons find on their arrival that the apart-
ments usually appropriated to travellers are already occupied
they are glad to find accommodation in the stable, particnlarl;
when the nights are cold or the season inclement,’and adds that
‘the part of the stable called “ the manger could not reason-
‘I
ably have been other than one of those recesses, or at least a
portion of the bench which we have mentioned as affording
accommodation to travellers under certain circumstances.’
INSCRIPTIONS (SEMITIC). See W RITING,
PAPYRI.
INSPIRATION (3p@),Job 3 2 8 , RV ‘ breath.’ See
SPIRIT, PROPHET.
INSTRUMENTS OF MUSIC ( V @ - Y $ ? ) , I Ch. 1516.
See MUSIC, 5 EVm&)is represented as a descendant of ESHTON
INTERPRETER (vY$n),
Gen. 42 23 Job 3 3 2 3 EV,
and elsewhere. See AMBASSADOR, I ; PARACLETE.
IOB (2\*),Gen. 4 6 1 3 RV, a corruption O f JASHUB,I.
IPHEDIAH, RV Iphdeiah (3:7!!, § 30, ‘ Yahwb re-
deems’), b. Shashak in a genealogy of BENJAMIN (q.v.,
$ 9 , ii. @), I Ch. 82511 (is@psia [BI, ie@aAiaCALI).
IPHTAH (ngY),Josh. 1 5 4 3 R V ; AV J IPHTAH (g.v.).
IPHTAH-EL ($p’n@9,), Josh. 1914 RV ; AV JIPH-
THAH-EL (4.2’. ).
IR (l’v),
I Ch. 71211. See IRI,I.
IRA (K??P, ’ watchful ’ ? [€]I pac [BAL]).
I . b. Ikkesh, the Tekoite, was one of David’s heroes (z S.
.
23 26, d a c [L] ; I Ch. 11 28, wpaL [BNA]) in I Ch. 27 o ( a p a [A] a ‘ fenced city ’ of Naphtali named between Migdal-el
o8ouLas [B], r8. [L]) he is a t the head bf the sixth hivision 2
David’s army. Marq. (Fund. 19) would read N3Y (cp L and
B in Ch.) and identify him with the Iddo in I K. 4 14 ; see IDDO
“i. The I
111. 4).
THRITE @.vi), another of David’s heroes, z S. 23 38
(ora8 [Ll), I Ch. 1140 ( t p a [Bl, ta [K], ?pa [Ll).
3. The JAIRITE (~~F~~)-~.e.,amanofJAi~(aGileaditeclan)-
was one of David’s ‘priests!:’!l( 1”) ; z S. 20 26 ; cp Dr. TBS
220 (eipas o r a p a v [B], e. o r a c i p a [A], Lwsaa o t d f p [L] ; Pesh.
*ty3?). Perhaps for ‘1N’il we ought to read 9?n;o,
i.c., the Jattirite (so Th., Klo., after Pesh.; cp L).
ABIATHAR.
IRAD (l:? raiAaA ? [ADEL] ; I R A D ) , Gen. 418”.
Philo explains, yur8as S Ippl)ve6mur ~ o i p v r o v(de Post.
Caini, Mangey, 1 2 3 7 ) ; possibly he read yadap, which
the c9pyists altered. The best reading seems to be
i ~ p ‘ErHd
, (cp 5?y, Mt. ‘Ebal) ; but Lagarde (Orien-
idin, 2 3 3 ) prefers ‘EdHd.
T o read lilt, ‘Arid, ‘wild ass: and compare the ‘sons of
Hamor ’-:.e members of the Ass-clan (?) Gen. 33 19-does not
suit th; cha&ter of the genealogy, nor :re we helped by the
proper name Arad. The name is probably of Bab. origin. See
CAINITES, $ 7. T. K. C.
IRAM (D?’4(), a phylarch (aZZziph) or rather clan
(kZe$h) of Edom (Gen. 3 6 4 3 [d om.], I Ch. 153 [HPAM,
A ; alp. L]). In Gen. Lc. 65‘s Hebrew text had o . ~ b $
(a variant of lax) ; so also @B reads in Ch. Lc. B. W.
Bacon, following Ewald, suggests that originally Zepho
2171
IRON
(\a:) stood before I r a n , thus making the number of
we shall do better to adopt the reading i?k ’ Zophar ’
(cp Z OPHAR ), and may then with probability emend
nlqj into ’ ~ 3 1(Omar)~ which precedes Zepho in Gen.
3 6 1 1 , so that all the sons of Eliphaz but GATAM[q.v.],
will be included in the list of clans of Edom. It is also.
possible, however, with S. A. Cook, to connect Iram
with the S. Judahite names I R A , IRy ; cp G ENEALOGIES
i., 5 n. W. R. Smith suggests a connection with ‘Aireh,
SELA, 5 2). See also Haupt’s note in Ball, SBOT,
Gen. 94.
See Lag. Sepfuuginfa-Sfudien,ii. 10178 37270, cited b y
Nestle, lyarg. 12, where the order is ‘Magediel, Evmn, Fazoin
(Fazon). T. K. C.
IRI (’?’?, 5 76, ‘my watchman’?; cp IRU, and
see I RAM ).
I. b. Bela in a genealogy of BENJAMIN (q.v., 5 g, ii. a) ; I Ch.
77(oup[e]~[BA],-pras[L],URAI[Vg.l,i.e. vy). In I Ch. 712t
the name is I R (l’y : [utoi]pa[wpl [I<], w p a [AI, [ULOLI
rspi[pouOl
[L; note that Jerimuth precedes Iri in v. 71,HZK [Vg.]), on which
see also AHER.
2. I Esd. 862 AV (oupt [A]). See URIAH,
4.
IRIJAH (VTII, ‘Yahwb sees‘), a captain of the
guard, ten@. Jeremiah (Jer. 3 7 1 3 f . l . ; capoyia [E], -c
[KAI. APOYIAC [Ql! IAP. EQ”1).
IR-NAHASH ( ~ Q l??, J as if ‘city of Nahash’; so’
[q.~.]
in I Ch. 412 (rrohawc [rroxswc Bl, N M C [BAI,
~ p ~ a [L])
a c ; see TEHINNAH. The name has actually
been taken to mean Bethlehem (see Jer. Qu. Heb. ad
Zoc., and on 2 S. 1 7 2 5 , cp N AHASH ) ; but it is certainly
corrupt.
Probably it has arisen out of ]et l\D,Cor-ashan (I S.30 30),
which is itself an easily explicable corruption of Y ?,:t !l ‘ Beer-
sheba’l (@BL pvpyaj3ec). ASHAN[g.u.] in Josh., I Ch., also
comes from plv, Sheha.’ A less plausible emendation would
he hrl 187, ‘serpent’s well.’
@ adds that mdArs vaas was the brother of sueAwv (B, -p [A]),
TOU ,yem<m ([Bl, T . K B V ~ < L [AI), or aBOop TOO icvs<aiou [Ll, which
means that Beer-sheba was closely related to HAZAR-SHUAL (in
the Wady Seyal). With rurhwv cp QW’s a[ua]puoha in Josh.
193. T h e reference to the Kenizzites confirms the above ex-
planation. T. K. C.
IRON (]k$ [Ll),
[AI, i a p w ~
~ a p w a[Bl, i a p i w ~
and En-hazor, Josh. 1938. Now Yariin, a village 64
m. W. from Hazor and about the same distance W. by
S. from Kadesh (Josh. 1 9 3 8 ) . On a hill to the NE.
are the ruins of a monastery, which was originally a
synagogue like the famous one at Kefr Bir‘im (Guerin.
Gal. 2 1 0 5 8 ’ ; PEFMem. 1 2 5 8 ) .
($!p;
IRON CIAHPOC; Vg. f . r w m 2 ) . T h e
Israelites of course derived the use of iron from the
1. Among Canaanites, and it was comparatively late
See the Semites. fhat iron displaced bronze as the metal
in ordinary use. We should naturally
expect this. In Egypt the use of bronze preceded t h a t
of iron, though iron was perhaps not wholly unknown
as early as the great pyramid of Gizeh, where a piece of
wrought iron has been found in an inner joint near the
mouth of the air-passage on the southern side.Y For a
later period we may mention the oxidised remains of
some wedges of iron intended to keep erect the obelisks
of Rameses 11. at Tanis. Iron is also frequently re-
ferred to in the lists of tribute (see Brugsch’s Hist. of
Egyp). In Babylonia and Assyria, too, the actual work-
ing of iron seems to have been late, though it was
1 Here pointed out for the first time, though H. P. Smith
seems on the verge of the suggestion.
9 Except where it gives an explanatory translation, as ‘falcatos
currus’(Judg. 4 3). though it sometimes gives the literal transla-
tion of the same expression as ‘ ferreos currus ’ Josh. 17 18.
3 Trans. International Conggress ofOrietr/alisfs,‘74, p. 396J:
2172
 IRON
certainly manufactured and employed much more in
these countries than in the Nile Valley.
There is no trace of iron in the early hymns, and it seems clear
that iron did not displace bronze till after 800 B.C., for in the
ninth ,century we still find ‘bronze axes’ mentioned in the in-
scriptions. Place found hooks grappling- irons, harnesqes
ploughshares, etc., at Khorsabid, and Layard abundance o?
scale-armour of iron in a very decomposed state at Nin1riid.l
W e now pass to Syria and Palestine. It is recorded
by the Assyrian king RammLn-nirari 111. (810-782 B. c. )
that he received 3000 talents of copper and 5000 talents
of iron as tribute from the land of Imirisu ( L e . , Aram-
Damascus). At about the time of Amos, then, iron
was plentiful in Syria. This, however, is no proof that
iron was not well known in Syria and Palestine at an
earlier date. If Hommel is correct, the Canaanites de-
rived their first knowledge of iron from Babylonia.
Both hl? and Ass. parsiZZu were, he says, connected with
the Sume& 6u-argaZand the New Sumeriau bu]raZ, the non-
Semitic sound] having become z in Semitic (ZDMG 45 340).
It is probable, however, that before iron was much
used, in Babylonia, it was worked in N. Palestine.
There iron-smelting must have been understood at an
early period. The iron chariots of the Canaanites (see
CHARIOT, 3 ) , so familiar to us from the OT, are
mentioned also in the historical inscriptions of Egypt ;
they came from the valley of the Kishon and the inlaiid
district to the N. ,% and iron objects were found by Bliss
in the fourth of the ruined cities in the mound of Tell-
el-Hesy (Lachish), which he inclines to date about 1100
B.C.3 W e can therefore readily understand that a
Canaanite legend (from which the Israelite legend in
Gen. 4 2 2 must be derived) placed the ancestor of iron-
workers as well as brass-workers in primeval times (cp
C AINITES, 5 I O ) .
We are in no uncertainty as to the source whence the
Canaanites obtained their iron; it was the monntain-
range of Lebanon (Dt. 8 9 ; see L EBANON). Jeremiah,
too ( 1 5 r z ) , speaks of iron from the N. ; but whether
the eulogist of wisdom refers to these northern mines in
Job 282 cannot be determined. The unknown writer
may have travelled beyond the limits of Palestine. The
Egyptians procured iron (with other metals) from the
Sinaitic peninsula ; had this poet travelled there? At
any rate, smelting-furnaces were well known to the later
Hebrew writers (Jer. 114 Dt. 420 I K. 8 ~ ~ ) .
There are but few OT passages of really early date
which refer to iron. The references in the Hexateuch
(e.g., Nu. 3122 3516 Dt. 3 r r 5 1 9 5 Josh.
2. OT
references. 228) occur in documents of late com-
position. The account of Goliath‘s spear
( I S. 177) was written at least zoo yedrs after David’s
time, and the mention of an axe-head of iron in z K. 6 5
(certainly not due to a ‘ copyist ’ 6 , belongs to a com-
paratively late stratum of prophetic legend. The most
important reference in the David-narratives is doubtless
that in z S. 1231. The phrase ‘ axes of iron ’ used there
suggests, however, that axes of bronze were still in use ;
cp Am. 1 3 ‘ threshing-instruments of iron ’ (see AXE, 6).
It is remarkable that according to tradition no iron
instrument was used in the construction of Solomon’s
temple. The editor of the tradition accounts for this
by the legal orthodoxy of his hero (see Dt. 275f:, and
cp Josh. 8 3 1 ) . ThHChronicler is bolder; he supplies
the omission ( I Ch. 22 3 and elsewhere), and even repre-
sents Solomon as having able iron-workers of his own
(zCh. 27), though obliged to send to Tyre for a chief
artificer.
1 Dr. J. H. Gladstone, ‘The metals used by the great nations
of antiquity ’ Nature z1st April 1898, p. 596.
2 This cdncides wjth the statement in Josh. 17 16 (cp Judg.
413). See WMM As. U. Bur. 154.
3 Bliss A Mound of Many Cities 135.
4 Wi. ;cads here ‘iron of Baal-zedhon and Chalcis.’ H e ex-
plains 75’n (which in MT follows &.m), but in the next verse)
here and in Ezek. 27 11 as meaning Chalcis W. of Damascus,
near Antilibanus ( A T Unters. 180). But see)CmciA(end).
5 On Og’s ‘ iron bedstead ’ see BED.
6 So Flinders Petrie in Hastings’ DB, S.D. ‘axe.‘
2173
ISAAC
It has often been supposed that the graphic description in
Nah. 2 3 [4] contains a reference to steel. Where AV renders
‘The chariots shall be with flaming torches ’ (taking n7& as if
=ill%!), the Thesuurzls of Gesenius-Rodiger gives ‘fulgent
chalybe vel falcibus currus.’ RV too has ‘the chariots flash
with steel,’ without, however, committing itself to the hypothesis
that the Assyrian chariots had scythes. l h a t hypothesis as is
shown elsewhere (C HA RIOT , 5 I), is untenable : nor is therknder-
ing ‘steel’ a t all well supported.1 In fact, the word $ilri&tk
is corrupt ; not improbably m k should be n&g=Ass. @aZZu$tu,
‘covering’ (from @aZh$r,‘to be covered,’ in 11. ‘to cover’),2 a
word often used in connection with horses, chariots, and warriors.
Render therefore ‘the (metal) plating of the chat-iots flashes
like fir;.’ In vie; of Nahum’s fondness for Assyrian technical
terms (see SCRIBE) this is not a difficult conjecture.3 Steel
then, is not medioned in the OT, for no one will no;
defend AV’s rendering ‘steel’ (n+) in z S. 22 35 Ps.18 34 1351
Job 20 24 Jer. 15 12 (see BRASS).
From the time of Amos onwards iron was in genera1
use among the Israelites as well as among the Syrians
(see above).
Amos (1 3) mentions threshing instruments of iron. Writers
of a later date mention iron objects in abundance e g . tools
( I K. 6 7 2 K. 65) pans (Ezek. 43), nails for dbors \I Ch.
22 3), bars for foriifying city-gates (Ps. 107 16 Is. 45 2 ) ) a stilus
or pen (Job 1924 Jer. 1 7 1 ) ~hunters’ darts (Job 417 [40211),
horns (Mic. 4 13 cp I K. 22 11) fetters (Ps. 105 IS). Note also
that the ideal ’described in is. 60 includes ‘iron instead of
stones’ (u. 17), obviously a hyperbole.
Numerous literary metaphors are derived from iron.
Thus, affliction is symbolised by the smelting-furnace
*’ (Dt. 420)and byironfetters(Ps. 1071o),
Metaphors’ a severe rule by a rod, and slavery by
a yoke of iron (Ps. 2 9 Dt. 2 8 4 8 ) , obstinacy by an iron
sinew in the neck (Is. 484) ; a destructive imperial power
by iron teeth (Dan. 77) ; a tiresome burden by a mass
of iron (Ecclus. 22 15) ; insuperable obstacles by iron
walls ( z Macc. 1 1 9 ) . As a beautiful simile drawn from
this metal we may select Prov. 2717, ‘Iron sharpens
iron, so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his
friend.’ ,r. K . c.
IRPEEL (5&W,
‘God heals’ ; cp Rephaiah, and
!WDV in CIS 2 no. 77 ; N AMES , 5 30),an unknown city
of Benjamin, grouped with REKEM(or rather Bahurim)
and Z ELA, Josh. l827t. W e should probably read,
‘ And Bahurim, and Irpeel, and Zelah’ (taking over
p i g from v. 28).
Observe that in Bapqha, the corruption (see TARALAH)
is
given, but the true reading 5 ~ ~ is
1 not
3 represented. Neither is
the second corruption q$N” represented in lB (see ELErH). 111
M T the true reading 5~513and the two corruptions 35Nn and
q$H? both find a place. @A, however, gives tfp+aqh, and @ L
t ~ P W . T. K. C.
IR-SHEMESH (Lb?Yv), Josh. 1941; another
[q.v.].
name of BETH-SHEJIESH
IRU ( W v ; HP[B], ~ p a [ A ] ,~ h ~ [ L o m . ] ) , a s o n o f
Caleb (I Ch. 4 1 5 t ) ; cp I RAM .
ISAAC (?cy!, or [Am. 7 9 1 6 Jer. 3326 Ps. 10591
ppy!, $3 54 ; I C A A K [ADL, etc.], but in Am. 7 9 TOY
r € h U T O C [BAQ], HCAAK [E2*F n . 2881).
Popular tradition could not mistake the obvious mean-
ing of Isaac. According to J (Gen. 181z),Sarah laughed
1. Name. to herself when she overheard the promise of
a son ; when it was fulfilled, she exclaimed,
‘ Whoever hears of it will laugh at me ’ (Gen. 21 66 ; see
SBOT). E, however, gives other accounts. On the birth
1 The Syriac and Arabic words for ‘steel,’ which resemble
MT’s$Zldd8th, appear to be loan-words from Persian.
2 Del. S.D. quotes the phrase ‘Forty pf his chariots with
trappings (Ausviistung) they car;ied away.
3 On the metal plating of the chariots see Billerbeck in Beifr.
zur Assyriologie, 3 167, and cp C HARIOT , $ 3, and i n the re-
mainder of this difficult Terse of Nahum, see SHOE.
4 A better sense, however, is obtained by pointing l n ’ instead
of l q i (Vg. eracuitur), and hy reading instea; of ’I?.
The proverb then becomes ‘Iron is sharpened by iron ; so a
man is sharpened by the sieech (lip, mouth) of his friend.’ So
Gratz (Monatsschr. 1884~p. 424). ?nand 935 are sometimes
confounded. Toyk’note IS hardly satisfactory, because he does
not adequately account for $35.
2174
 ISAAC
.of Isaac she cried out, 'God has given me cause to laugh'
(Gen. 21 6 a ) ; in v. g of the same chapter she sees Ishmael
' laughing,' or rather ' playing ' (png~). Lastly, P tells
us (Gen. 1717) that Abraham laughed in surprise on
hearing the promise. Evidently the voice of tradition
varied. W e might have expected to hear, but we do
not hear, that Isaac, like Zoroaster (Plin. HN, 7 16, and
Solinus, c. I ) , laughed on the day of his birth.
It is customary to suppose that Isaac was originally
a t once a tribal name and a divine title, and that the
full form of the tribal name was Yi?hal$-el,--i.e., El
laughs (so also Ed. Meyer). 'The divine title Ykhak
= a he who laughs,' ' the Langher,' has been thought to
point to the god of the clear sunny sky ; the myth of
.Zoroaster's laugh has no doubt a solar connection. It
would be safer to explain the name as the ' cheerful, or
-friendly one ' (cp Job 2924), who turns a smiling counte-
nance towards his worshippers. ' Such a conception of
their deity might seem natural to the pastoral tribes
-who, to judge from the traditional narratives, honoured
.and became identified with the name of Isaac, and who
in early times paid him religious homage as the divine
patron of Beersheba.2
It is much more probable that ' Isaac ' like Abraham
,(see J ERAHMEEL) and J A CO B (4.v.) is an ancient
' in Palestine proper with a name at all resembling this
popular corruption. With much probability it may
be regarded as a corruption of A&i&aZuf ( ' the brother
,defends,' cp Ass. &a& ' stronghold ').
Halasa is close to the Wady Ru4ei6eh (Rehoboth) one of
thgseat's of Isaac (0 z below), and is probably to he identified
with the ancient ZIKLAG (T.u.). The equivalent name Halasel
appears elsewhere as BEZALEEL, also as Hazzelel[poni]. All
these are udahite names which must perhaps ultimately be
traced b a d to the primitive Jerahmeelite divine name Ahihaliis
.(fhJ'vti), the original of Isaac (pnr'). The religious importance
of Elusa (=JJalqa) can now he more fully considered.
I n Gen. 31 42 53 the singular phrase 'the fear of Isaac ' (1 'In?
occurs ; 3n3 is very rare in the older literature. It is specially
frequent in Job ; cp Job 4 14a where in3 'terror,' is the result
of an apparition. Hence 'ghost' may leem to some to he a
plausible rendering(Schwa1ly Gespenst) ; Uillmann gives numen
ueven?nduT; similarly Halzinger. But the objection from late
usage remains. The matter is important in its bearing on early
spirit-lore. More probably is here an old word meaning I.
thigh ; 2. ancestor ; 3. clan (as sprung from a single ancestor ;
c p W R S Kin. 34 174; Bevan, Daniel, 214).
The narrators found comparatively little to say about
Isaac (for the reason see below, 5 5 ) ; but some of their
2. Storyof Iraditions are of great interest. First in
sacrifice : importance is that of Abraham's sacrifice
of his <only son,' accomplished in will
locality. but not in act (Gen. 221-19). Few of the
early narratives have received more light than this from
analytic and historical criticism.
It has become certain that the story has been considerably
altered since E wrote it. The editor or compiler of J E not only
anpended vw. 146-18 (an unoriginal passage, full of reminiscences),
b k also introduced several alterations into vv.I-14a.
The most remarkable of the editorial changes concerns
the locality of the sacrifice. It is obvious that such a
sentence as ' Go into the land of the Moriah (so in the
Hebrew) and offer him ...on one of the mountains
which I will tell thee of,' is no longer in its original
form, and most critics have thought that ' the Moriah '
was inserted (together with the divine name Yahwh in
vv. II 1 4 ) by the editor of JE. This writer was probably
a Judahite, and it is supposed that he wished to do
honour to the temple of Jerusalem by localising on the
hill where it was bnilt one of the 'greatest events in the
life of Abraham (see M ORIAH). We are, at any rate,
1 See Goldziher, Hebuew MyUoZgry, 9 4 8 ; Schirren, Myth-
en aus NeuseeZand, 186 (laughter of the dying sun-god). D e
Goeje, thinking of the 'only son ' in Gen. 22, formerly made Isaac
=the spring sun.
2 Am. 8 1 4 : read, with Wi., qy7 for the impossible 31,2 of
MT. From Am. 5 5 , however, it appears that northern as well
as southern Israelites resorted to the sanctuary of Beersheba-
a recognition, perhaps of the early connection of Israel with
the land of M u q , to dhich Kadesh apparently belonged. This
illustrates Amos's remarkable use of ' Isaac ' as a synonym for
' Israel ' in 7 g 16 ('8 Iamop, and so Symm. in 8.9).
2175
ISAAC
not entitled to assume that the original locality was the
temple mountain ; nor is it safer to suppose, with Well-
hausen and Stade, that Mount Gerizim is intended, and
to read, ' to the land of the Hamorites ' (o31bq yv&)
(cp Gen. 33 19, ' Hamor the father of Shechem '), for
Gerizim is undoubtedly too far off,2and we hear nothing
of Abraham's having to climb a steep mountain. Diil-
mann's suggestion (adopted by Ball in S B O T ) is at
first sight more attractive. A vague expression, such
as ' Go into the land of the Amorite '3 ('!bet+ yl5-5~;).
would harmonise with one of J's leading objects, which
was to represent Abraham's action as, not a concession
to surrounding superstition, but the height of self-
devoting faith. The patriarch, as Dillmann rightly
holds, is supposed to set off with his ' only son ' (a
T ~ Y
uibv uou ~ b hv y y a i r ~ ~ bwithout
v) balancing the claims of
rival sanctuaries, just as he set off from Haran, 'not
knowing whither he went' (Heb. 118), but following his
invisible Guide. The reading ' the land of the Amorite,'
however, cannot be held satisfactory. It leaves us
without a clue to the situation of the place of sacrifice,
except that it was in Palestine, more than two days'
journey from Beersheba. The mere name (however
we read it) in v. 14 tells us nothing. No sanctuary
is mentioned in the OT.
In considering the question of the reading in v. z it
would have been better to try another course. The
sanctuary (nipp, v. 4 , means ' sacred place ') was no
doubt well known, at least by hearsay, to most Israelites.
It was called (the narrative being Elohistic) E16him- (or
El-)yir'h (v. 14) ; we abstain here from questioning the
accuracy of this reading, and of the El-roi and Lahai-
roi of Gen. 1613f. (see, however, end of this section).
Is there, then, any sacred place bearing this name, or
a name that might fairly be regarded as another form of
this ? There is the divinity who, according to JLappeared
to the exhausted Hagar, and was called by her El-riji, i.e.,
God of seeing (Gen. 16 13) ; and the name was shared by
the divinity's sanctuary. It was in the neighbourhood
of the well (6C+) of Lahai-roi or El-roi, that Isaac dwelt
(Gen. 2511; see below), and hence it is reasonable to
suspect that here may be the'sacred spot intended by the
narrative ; the ' mountain ' may be the nearest hill to the
well called 'AinfifuweiZeh,which we have elsewhere iden-
tified with B EER- LAHAI- ROI. The place is I O hours S. of
Ruheibeh (Rehoboth),on the road to Beersheba. Going
at a leisurely pace, it might conceivably take Abraham
three days to reach it. In this case the expression which
the editor of J E misread as ' to the land of the Moriah'
was probably ' to the land of (the)Misrim ' (mqp n p ) .
As Winckler has pointed out, both Kadesh and Beer-
lahai-roi lay, in all probability, in the region anciently
called Musr or Muyi (see M IZRAIM, 2 6 ) . A bright
light is now thrown on details which have hitherto caused
embarrassment, such as the loneliness of the place of
sacrifice, and the precaution taken by Abraham of
carrying wood for the altar (cp Grove, in Smiths DD,
art. ' Moriah ' ) . e Habitations, indeed, there must have
1 P?Sn would surely read very oddly, especially as in vu. 35
Abraham's ass (%E!) occupies a rather prominent position.
Bleek and Tuch suggested n1b;r (Gen. 126 Judg. '71).
2 See the hooks of travel a.5. Tristram's Land of IsyaeZ,
where a strong, but not too &on;, opinion is expressed. The
Samaritan tradition, identifying the mountain with Gerizirn, is
purely sectarian and artificial.
3 Cp Geiger, Uuschr. 278.
4 This view was first proposed by B. W. Racon (He6mica,
April, 1891; Genesis, 1 4 1 3 ['92]),who thinks, however, that the
original reading in v . 2 was X$? yl: (cp 201 Nu. 1329 E ; cp
Gen. 2462 J). This is palzagraphically improbable. Bacon
also thinks that in V . 14 E originally wrote, not El-yir'b, hut El-
ra'i.
5 I in p i s n fell out ; the corruption of p into then became
easy, and after the editor had misread p*isDniiiK as n~inilsiu,
it was natural for him to prefix 5 ~ .
6 Wi. (Gesch. ii.) accepts the proposed reading for Moriah in
2176
 ISAAC
been not very far from El-roi ; but there was no walled
city like Jerusalem, and the ascent of the hill would
take less time and trouble than Mount Gerizim. The
hill itself is to be imagined as bare of trees ; but near at
hand Abraham could see thick brushwood ( q ~ p ) ,in
which a ram was caught by the horns.
This view of the story, too, enriches us with something
that we did not know to be recoverable, viz., E's
expl_anatiou of the name of the old southern sanctuary
of El-rei (or, as he calls it, El-yir'B). The editor of
JE having already adopted a fine narrative accounting
for the name (16 1-14), and wishing to attach the great
event described in our ch. 22 to the central sanctuary of
Judah (see M ORIAH ), introduced the changes to which
reference has been made. Elsewhere, however (see
J ERAHMEEL ), in treating the apparently corrupt text
of Gen. 1 6 1 3 3 suggestions have been made which
favour the emendation of Gen. 2214 as follows,-' and
Abraham called the name of that place Well of Jerah-
meel, even as it is called to this day.'
Thereare,also, twoother related aspectsunder whichthe
'Moriah' story must be considered. Thewriter obviously
3. Didactic wishes, in the most considerate manner, to
oppose the practice of sacrificing firstborn
purpose. sons (cp FIRSTBORN), and, subordinately
to this, to justify the substitutionary sacrificeof an animal.
In treating this past of our subject, we need not linger
on the famous passage of Philo of Byblus (professedly
reproducing a primitive Phoenician story), in which
Kronos (or rather E l ) is said to have sacrificed his only
son I E O ItoJ ~ free his country from the calamities of war.
In spite of its doubtful attestation and modernised form,
the story has the appearance of being based on tradition.
Probably it was told at Byblus to justify the rite of
human sacrifice, and a similar myth may have been
current among the Canaanitish neighbours of the
Israelites. The story in Gen. 22, however, is clearly
intended as a basis for the abrogation of the rite.
There may have been stories having the same object
among the Canaanites or the Israelites ; these, not
the story in Philo of Byblus, would be the right
narratives to compare with the Elohist's. So far,
however, as an opinion is possible, the form of the
Elohist's story is, apart from the detail about the ram,
all his own. It was suggested, indeed, by circumstances
already related in the traditional narratives ; but it was
moulded by himself, and it is bathed throughout in an
ideal light. Evidently this pious writer felt that for the
higher religious conceptions no traditional story would
be an adequate vehicle.
The course which he adopted shows the writer to have
been a great teacher. He admits the religious feeling
which prompted the sacrifice of a firstborn son ; but he
suggests that the idea of such a sacrifice is unnatural
(the unsophisticated mind of Isaac cannot take it in,
a n d Abraham himself would never have thought of it but
for a divine oracle), and earnestly insists that Israel's
God demands no more and no less than absolute
devotion of the heart. One thing more he suggests-
that there are stages in religious enlightenment, and
that an act which was justifiable in the wild days of
JEPHTHAH ( q . ~ . ) ,was no longer tolerable. In the
Southern Kingdom a protest against the continuance or
revival of human sacrifices was raised by the writer
of Mi. 66-8 ; in the Northern, at an earlier date, by the
Elohist.z
There is a fine Indian parallel to the story of the deliverance
.of Isaac in Aitnyzya Braknzana, 7 13-16 (Max Miiller, Anc.
Gen. 222, and thinks that the original seats of both Abraham
and Isaac were in the north near Dan(perhaps the true [accord-
ing to him] Kirjath-arba). The journey referred to in Gen. 22
would thus he from the far north to the far south.
1 Muller FHG 3 5703
9 See fuither, Kamph., Das Verhulfnfssdes MemchenoPfers
sur isYmZif. Re?. '96 where recent literature is referred to.
On human sacrifkes 'in Babylonia, cp Ball, P S B A 1 4 ('92),
.No. iv. ; in Egypt, Tylor and Griffith, Tom6 ofPaheri(Egypt
2177
ISAAC
Sanskr. Lit. 408.419) where Cunaqepha, son of a Brahman
who had been all butt sacrificed in honour of Varuna, is liber!
ated by the gods, and adopted by a priest. The stage of moral
development, however, represented in this story, is more ad-
vanced than that in Gen. 22.
It is true, the narrator is behind the prophet in
spirituality-thousands of rams, says the latter. will
4. Substitution not propitiate the ' high God ' (God
of heaven),-but the Elohist spoils his
of ram. pathetic narrative bv a close which.
for modern taste, could hardly he more prosaic. ' And
Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold, a
ram caught in the thicket by his horns, and Abraham
went and took the ram, and offered him up for a bnriit-
offering instead of his son ' (22 13). The first readers of
the Elohist, like the first readers of the epilogue of the
Book of Job, had standards and requirements different
from ours. Below the new taste for spirituality lay
the old taste for ritual. If human sacrifices were
not to be offered, what was the surrogate for them?
The voice of humanity in certain priestly circles had,
it appears, spoken for a ram, which in the symbolism
of vicarious sacrifice was henceforth to represent a man.
The animal selected was not always the same. At the
Syrian Laodicea ( = Phcen. Ramitha) it was a stag,
which animal was annually sacrificed in place of a
maiden as late as the second century A . D . ~ We would
gladly know at what date this stag sacrifice was intro-
duced. Did the humane Israelitish priests precede or
follow the priests of Phcenicia? And was the original
substitute for the life of the firstborn son among the
Israelites a ram ( $ 5 ) or a stag ($3) ? When we con-
sider ( I) that wild animals were not usually sacrificed
among the Israelites; ( 2 )that in Gen. 2Z7 a sheep is
spoken of as a victim ; and ( 3 ) that in the region of El-r6i
we should expect a gazelle rather than a'hart ($E),
( y ? ~ )
it seems best to abide by the ordinary reading ' ram.'
No subsequent narrative comes up to that in 22 1-14,
though the idyllic tone and the deep religious spirit of J's
6. Other account of the finding of the right wife
for Isaac (ch. 24) claim admiration (see
stories. REBEKAH). The narratives respecting
Isaac himself tend to lower our estimate of his
character ; but we must remember that the patriarchs
represent the highest Israelitish ideals only in part ; they
also embody Israelitish weaknesses. Isaac's shiftiness
in his relations with Abimelech (Gen. 261-11R,) need
not be excused when we have learned to look upon him
as a tribal representative ; the repetition of, virtually,
the same story twice over in the life of Abraham (cp
Gen. 12 10-20 J ; 20 E) is an indication of the compara-
tive lateness of the traditional stories of that patriarch,
as well as of the fondness of the people for this particular
tradition, which showed how inviolable were the persons
of their ancestors.
The mingled greatness and weakness of Isaac is most
strikingly shown in the story of his paternal benedictions,
one of which, however, is more fitly styled a curse
(Gem 27). It is to us a somewhat repellent narrative,
on account of the unfilial and unbrotherly craft of
Jacob and the love of good eating ascribed to Isaac.
With the ancients it must have been popular. As to
Expl. Fund '94), 2 0 3 ; Crum PSBA 16133' and Masp.
D a w n of Ckdisafion 168 193). in Semitic coLntries W R S
ReZ. Sewz.(? 3 6 1 3 ; 6'e. heid. '1x23 Maspero includes the
gazelle among the animals substituted for human victims ; in
2nd ed. he notices Flinders Petrie's recent discoveries.
1 Porphyr. De A6sf. 256 ; Pausan. iii. 168; cp WRS ReZ.
Sem.P) 409, 466. On the commutation of victims, cp Lang,
Myth, Ritual, and Sacu$ce, 1269-271.
2 'Stag' ($0is Clermont-Gannean's reading ( J A , 7th ser.
11510). There is the same doubt as to the vocalising of $x in the
sacrificial tablet of Marseilles (l. 9). here however the mean-
ing ' stag ' is certainly preferable. ,'A ' r i m ' in Phoenician is
$23. Were the stags spoken of in the Marseilles tariff substi-
tutes for humawvictims? Robertson Smith (ReZ. Senr.?) 467)
suspects an allusion in 2 S. 119 to an ancient stag sacrifice like
that at Iaodicea. This hypothesis, however, is not borne out by
the most recent criticism (see Klo., ad Zoc., and Bu. in SBOT).
2178
 ISAAC
the craft -of Jacob, we need not excuse it, for it was
inherited by the tribes of Isaac and Jacob from their
nomad ancestors. As to Isaac’s passion for a certain
food, this too was, no doubt, a tribal failing ; a notable
Arabic song in the HamHsa (Freytag, 506) reckons
‘roast flesh ’ as first among the pleasures of life. The
detail mentioned in 273J would not, however, have
been thought of but for the necessity of giving scope
to the cunning of Jacob. Possibly, too, the first tellers
of the story may have thought that Isaac, being a semi-
divine hero, and being about to pronounce fateful
oracles (see ESAU), should not be treated otherwise
than as a deity. It was in festival raiment (v.15)
that Jacob the deceiver approached his father (the
Jews in Jerome’s time said that they were Esau’s
priestly garments), and Robertson Smith has plausibly
defended1 the view that the skins worn by Jacob on
his arms and neck were analogous to those worn by
worshippers in many lands at sacrificial ceremonies (cp
ESAU). At any rate, it is evident that the pronouncing
of the oracles was a quasi-divine act, and that, accord-
ing to the narrators, the circumstances connected with
it were overruled by their God to the accomplishment
of his own ends. It would seem that this was not one
of the very earliest narratives ; in the oldest stratum of
tradition Isaac and Ishmael (both attached to Beer-lahai-
roi) must have taken the place afterwards occupied by
Jacob and Esau. The details of the present genealogical
connection were of course afterthoughts. (If Isaac was
originally a JeruhmeeZite hero we can the better under-
stand how the Israelites, whilst frequenting his sanc-
tuary, adopted comparatively little of his legend. )
It is, however, not only at Beer-lahai-roi, but also a t
REHOBOTH, BEERSHEBA, and G ERAR , that we find Isaac
established.2 These three places come before us in
Gem 26 1-33, which is substantially the work of J, though
editorial insertions have been made, and v. 33 (as Bacon
-see below, n. 4-has rendered very probable) should
change places with 21 31-33. It was at Beersheba, accord-
ing to ] and E, that Isaac spent the second part of his
life, and no doubt it was there, not at Mamre or Hebron
(as P, in 3527, represents), that tradition supposed the
patriarch to have died. According to the most probable
view of 2133, it was Isaac, not Abraham, who planted
the sacred tree at Beersheba, invoking the name of
Y a h ~ h . It
~ was there, too, that he ‘intreated Yahwh
for his wife, because she was barren,’ and’that Esau and
Jacob were born.4 It was at Beer-lahai-roi, however,
endeared to Isaac (as fancy involuntarily suggests) by
the memory of the interrupted sacrifice (and not less to
Ishmael by the memory of his mother Hagar), that
Isaac received his wife that evening when he had gone
out on some unknown errand into the open country.
It is worth remarking that the WZdy Mnweileh (in
which the well of Lahai-roi should be placed) must at
one time have been better watered and more cultivated
than at present (Palmer).
On apocryphal allusions, see APOCRYPHA, 8 11.
T. K. C.
1 ReL Sem.P) 437 ; cp 467.
2 T h e reader should be cautioned against some inaccurate
though seemingly very critical statements in Maspero’s Strug&
of the Nations 68. To make Isaac a resident at Hebron
effaces one of thileiding distinctions between him and Abraham.
3 Gen. 2133 is interesting (cp ETERNAL, TAMARISK). Was
the tree a n ’??! (‘tamarisk’)? or an @t+(‘sacredpost’)? and
was the divine name, which Isaac, according to the original J,
invoked, +y hi, ‘the everlasting (or ‘ancient ‘1) deity,’ or
(supposing n$y to be corrupt) ]V>y s,! ‘the most high deity’?
4 Probably the order of the narratives is 24 251-6116261-32
2131.33. See Bacon (Genesis, 141, 24!;, cp He6vaica, Apri!
18g1), who thinks that, in 2133, J originally wrote ‘Isaac,
‘Abraham’being due to the writer of JE, who transposed the
passage ; hut cp Kautzsch and Ball.
2179
ISAIAH, PROPHET
ISAIAH (Prophet)
CONTENTS
Biographical facts (0 I). Prophecies without narratives
Narratives in Is. (18 2-6). (a$ 7-17).
Resulting picture of Is. (a18J).
ISAIAH, in RV Mt. 33, and OTpassiiii; E SAIAS, in
AV; and in AV Ecclus. 4822, ESAY(!Vy@ everywhere
except in title of book; there ilJ&5’: [see JESHAIAH,
4 5 6]),son of AMOZ( q . ~ . )2 ,K. 192 Is. 1I 2 Ch.2622
3220 32 etc. ,-the most gifted and powerful of those early
prophets who are known to us by written records.
The name is to be explained probably either as ‘help of Yahwl: ’
[so J. H. Mich.], cp ’YV!, or a s ‘Yahws helps,’ from Y@; p’ql?
[so Del.]; cp Sab. yfjr and the names 5~yfir,y&; B has
quarar [= a;yW’? so Klo.11 of the prophet-L everywhere, BNA
everywhere except 2 Ch. 262z-~auu[s]~ov [BA] and q u o v [N] in
Ecclns. 4820(23), but never except Ezra 8 7 [AI, of the other
six bearers of the name2 (se; JESHAIAH).
I. Isaiah lived at Jerusalem, was married (83), and
had children 1 7 7 81). Plainlv he was of high social
\ . , - I
When he needs a ktness he
;ties to the chief priest (see U RIAH ),
facts‘ and his whole conduct and bearing
bespeak one who can claim social respect. In this he
contrasts with Amos and Micah. We may presume
therefore that be had every educational advantage which
the capital could supply, and it is plain that he inherited
a literary tradition of no very recent date. The heading
in Is. 1I refers to Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah
as the kings in whose ‘ days ’ (or period) he prophesied.
This heading, however, is probably the work of a late
editor, who gained his information from a study of the
works of Isaiah. From the reference to Judah and
Jerusalem as the subjects of the prophecies, we may
assume the statement to have been intended to apply
only to chaps. 1-12. It remains true, however, that we
have no reason to suppose that Isaiah prophesied under
Manasseh. The story that he was put to death (the
later legend said, sawn asunder ; cp Heb. 1137) by order
of Manasseh, as a punishment for speeches on God and
on the holy city which were contrary to the law, obtained
a wide currency, but has no support in the Book of
Kings, and is unworthy of credit.3
These dry bones of biography need to be clothed
with living flesh, and for this we must turn to Isaiah’s
which contain the very
2. Narratives essence
discourses,
of his life. Grand and an-
in Is* & tiquely simple was his character, and
those who have been enabled by a thorough criticism
and exegesis to form an idea of the limits, the period,
and the meaning of his discourses, will find themselves
in a position to rectify some common misapprehensions.
11. It will be convenient to obtain our first introduc-
tion to Isaiah from certain stillextant narratives respecting
portions of his prophetic ministry, proceeding from his
disciples or admirers at different periods,-viz., (a)
Is. 6, (a) 71-16, (c) 81-4, ( d ) 20, ( e ) 36-39 (2 K.1813-
2019 11 2 Ch. 32).
From (a)-whichis an account of the vision by which
Isaiah was set apart as a prophet-we learn that he
entered on his ministry in the year of the death of Uzziah,
1 PREP) 6585. Klo.’s alternative restoration 3 2 ’ Y (the only
restoration retained in P R E P ) 8 713) does not seem plausible, yet
the Arabic ‘ b E for $J?W! might perhaps lend it some support.
2 With reference to the B equivalents, it may be noted here
that the first vowel is oftenest L or E or LB, the u being frequently
~ :Klo.;
doubled ( r c u [ u l ~ a s = ; r ~ ~so ? cp LBUCL, I Ch. 231 [AI), but
also (four times in B, once in A, once in L) o or o (Lw,uaa,
I Ch. 25 ~5 [B]=?;r;ye? so Klo. ; wuams, I Ch. 26 25 [BA]=
W?$, cp Neh. 1 2 p ? - c w q e , I Ch. 2625 [Ll).
3 See APOCALVPTIC LITERATURE, 5 42. Besides the Ascens.
Isaire, and Justin, c. Tryph. 120, cp the passage quoted from a
MS of,tbe Targum on the prophets in Lagarde’s Projh. Cltald.
p. XXXI11.
2180
 ISAIAH, PROPHET
;.e., probably in 740 B.c. Isaiah had evidently been
waiting for indications of the .divine will-otherwise how
should the words ’ Send me ’ have darted at once to his
lips ? Already, too, he had the not less humbling than
exalting consciousness of,a divine presence which ,glori-
fied the world. To this was now added the sense of a
new and special relation between himself and YahwB. H e
was sent to work among his people as a prophet. At the
same time he had a presentiment, which in the light of
his newrelation toYahwB seemed to him arevelation, that,
being such as it was, not merely Israel, but even Judah,
was doomed to perish.l The revelation was, it is true,
as yet more like an objective fact than a subjectively
realised truth, or rather like many a flash of insight
which visits and revisits us for moments, and then
disappears, till at length a sad or joyful experience
makes it ours for ever. Nor was it so terrible a
presentiment as it may appear to us, because it was
evidently accompanied by a revelation of the conversion
of a remnant, as we gather from the name which Isaiah
gave to his eldest son S HEAR-JASHUB (4.v.). And we
must believe that, as time went on, apparent changes
for the better in the moral condition of Israel somewhat
dimmed Isaiah’s perception of the contents of his earli-
est revelation. Only by the sternest experience could
he be absolutely and entirely convinced, in the depths
of his nature, of the necessity for the fall of Judah.
(6) Probably to a period shortly before the writing
down of the consecrating vision belongs the grun riJt;uto
.
3. Is. 71-16 (to apply Dante’s phrase) which is related
Immanuel.’ in our second narrative piece (6). Isaiah
and Ahaz are the sole acting figures.
Perhaps it is because the consecration narrative (u)
serves as a preface that the prophet or his secretary
has made no reference to the revelation of the ‘rem-
nant. ’ The unbelief of Ahaz was in fact an unpardon-
able offence which made Isaiah indisposed to look at
the brighter side of his revelation. Nothing can well
he sterner than Isaiah’s prophecies at this period (see
SBOir, or Zntr. Is. 396$), though a short breathing-
time is allowed before the sad end.
The story of the ‘ great refusal ’ of Ahaz is well known.
The king expected a siege, and was preparing for it,
when Isaiah accosted him. H e bade him not be afraid,
reminding him that Yahwb was the head of Jerusalem,
whereas the rulers of Damascus and Samaria were but
puny mortals, and no better than half-burned fire-
brands ; in short the coalition against Judah would, in
common parlance, ‘ end in smoke.’ The prophet, how-
ever, saw clearly the inefficacy of his appeal. Ahaz had
no confidence either in his material, or-worse by far-
in his spiritual, bulwarks. To his friendly ‘ fear not *
Isaiah therefore added a caution against the dangers of
unbelief. What those dangers were he did not say;
but Ahaz caught his meaning, and had no need to
question him. ‘ An established house’ was a common
phrase for a family which did not die out, and re-
mained in its ancient seat ( I S. 2 3 5 2528 I K. 1138) ;
Isaiah’s caution, therefore, if we may consider its
reference as limited to Ahaz, threatened the king with
nothing less than the extinction of his dynasty. At
this point (Is. 7 IO) the record becomes incomplete ; the
omission is veiled by a conventional introductory formula,
indicating a fresh stage in the discourse. Probably some
startling announcement was made, for the accrediting
of which Isaiah conjectured that Abaz would require a
‘ sign.’ Then this extraordinary man, who deals
with the king.’as though his equal or superior, gives
1 The closing words, ‘ a holy seed is the stock thereof,’ are
probably an editorial attempt to make sense of a corrupt passage.
For a possible restoration see Che. Crit. Bi6. Budde’s rendering:
‘When then a tenth is there, it shall serve again for pasture
(New World, Dec. ‘95,p. 741) is improbable. The natural sense
E that given in EV. The following word ])$K, (‘like the tere-
binth’) should probably he emended to ]i*$? ’?, ‘for consump-
tion .. .’ Cp review of Marti’s Jesaia in Crit. Rev. Jan. 1900.
2181
ISAIAH, PROPHET
Ahaz carte 6Zunche in the choice of a ‘sign’ (see
I MMANUEL). The king has no doubt that Isaiah can,
as we should say, work a miracle, and consequently
believes that one way to safety from his present foes
would be to obey the prophet ; but he is not sure that
some worse trouble for himself might not follow. H e
does not believe that Yahwi: will be strong enough, a
little later, to save him from Assyria ; and yet how can
he accept YahwA‘s help in the smaller trouble unless he
is prepared to accept it in the greater? The only way,
from his point of view, to avert the danger from Assyria
is to make it a friend, which will moreover be able
to save him from Syria and Ephraim. Friendship
involves the protection of the weak by the strong, so
that there is really no cause (Ahaz thinks) to introduce
religious considerations into the question. Then
Isaiah, to save his honour as a prophet, hurls, as it
were, a sign at the unbelieving Ahae. He says that
Immanuel-ie., ‘God with us’-will be the name
which any one of the children soon to be born will
receive from its mother, for before the tender palate of
the child can distinguish between foods, the lands of
Rezin and Pekah will have been devastated by Assyria.’
Isaiah has, in fact, not less political than religious in-
sight. If he could have put off the prophet, and spoken
only as a statesman, he might have asked why Ahaz
should pay Assyria for humiliating Syria and N. Israel
when it was its own interest to do this. There was, at
any rate, no immediate necessityfor burdening his small
territory with tribute to Assyria ; the unbelieving king
was as weak in politics as he was in religion. If we
possessed a fuller record of the declarations of Isaiah
(vv. 17-20 cannot be relied upon, being fragmentary,
and partly recast by a late editor), we should prob-
ably find that the immediate punishment of the king’s
unbelief specified in it was this - that deliverance
from Reziu and Pekah would be a ‘sign ’ to him, not
of good, but of evil import. Since the king has rejected
the opportunity so graciously given him of winning
YahwB’s favour, he must not look for a long continuance
of calm days. Disaster is looming right in front of him.
That the ‘ sign ’ which Isaiah indignantly hurls at
Ahaz is one which, in our fragmentary record, appears
to be of happy augury, has caused a difficulty to many
students. Prof. F. C. Porter in particular has felt
this so strongly that he has devised a new interpreta-
tion of Immanuel which deserves consideration (see
I MMANUEL ). Two chief objections to it must, however,
be mentioned.
( I ) Immanuel-ie. ‘God is with us ’-hy no means expresses
the faith or the ‘uAderlying assumption’ of Ahaz; the true
object of the king’s worship was neither the old national God,
nor the Yahwl: of Isaiah but-policy. Hence his perturbation
of mind, with which contrast theconfidence arising ont of asense
of oneness with their God possessed by the N. Israelites (Am.
5 146 18 6 13).
(2) The explanation of Immanuel as an expression of the false
faith of the multitude is opposed by the analogy of the name
SHEAR-JASHUB ( q . ~ . ) , which conveys a truth accepted by Isaiah.
It is perfectly true, however, that the unbelief of Ahaz made
the confidence of the happy mothers of Is. 114 only too likely to
prove of short duration. They would suppose that Yahwl: was
unreservedly favourable to their people, whereas he had but
granted a short interval before the sin of Ahaz should bring its
terrible punishment on king and people. The sign was not as
happy a one as Isaiah had intended.
(c) The third piece of narrative is 81-4 (cp next art.,
5 6). From 73 we already know that in 734 Isaiah had
4. Is. I-4 a son named Shear-jashub, who was old
Isaiah,s sons. enough to accompany his father in his
walks. From 8 1 - 4 we learn that
shortly afterwards he had another son, named MAHER-
SHBLAL-HASH-BAZ, whose name portended the fall of the
1 Dillmann’s objections to this explanation are-(r) that 7 IS$
produces the impression that the child of a mother well known
to Isaiah and to Ahaz is meant, and (2) that ‘thy land 0
Immanuel’ in 88 can only be understood of a historical perlon.
But 715 can be shown to he a gloss, and $Ni>ny7 x 1 (88) ~ should
rather be ’y $3 : Y ~ N . Certainly the passage is difficult; but no
sther solution seems available,
2182
 ISAIAH, PROPHET
two northern kingdoms. These two sons, apparently,
are the ‘children whom Yahwi: has given him,’ and,
like himself, they are ‘ signs and omens in Israel’ of
divine appointment. His children, at any rate, are
‘signs’ in virtue of their names, which are doubtless
as well known in Jerusalem as that of the crown prince
himself. With regard to Isaiah we are not told that
h e received his name by divine appointment. It is
only the prophet Jeremiah who claims to have been
consecrated from his birth, and who may therefore
conceivably have regarded his name as an omen (cp
Jer. 1IO). It is enough that Isaiah and his sons alike
prophesy of the future, and rouse the dull consciences
of men. . Thus, when the crisis comes, Isaiah will
not stand alone. Before his inward consecration (in
B. c. 740 ?) he felt himself ‘ unclean ’ through his soli-
darity with his people; but now, by solidarity with him,
the members of his family are”virtua1ly detached, like
himself, from’ the ‘ people of unclean lips ’ among
whom they dwell. For Isaiah‘s wife, too, is a prophetic
personage (83), though she may not bear a prophetic
name ; she participates in the privileges of her husband.
(P) Chap. 20 describes the strange procedure by
which Isaiah gave, so to speak, an acted prediction of
1,Is. 20. the fate reserved for two neighbouring
countries. The people of Ashdod revolted
from Assyria in 713,and Judah (now itself a vassal of
the Great King) was tempted to follow their example.
Isaiah heard an inner voice bidding him go about, like
one of the poorest class, without either sandals or an
upper garment. He obeyed till the siege and capture
.of Ashdod in 711, which was a still more striking omen
of the punishment in store for rebellion. This is the
.only prophetic action recorded of Isaiah. Generally
h e was contented with spoken prophecy,-either upon
sesthetic grounds, or because spoken prophecy was less
susceptible than acted prophecy of misinterpretation.
The strange attire in which he appeared for three
years. need not have meant what it was at length
declared to mean. It might have signified merely the
prophet’s grief (cp Mi. 18) for Ashdod ; but as we see
from nv. 3-6, it was a perfectly unsympathetic announce-
ment of the fate of the north Arabian countries of MuSri
and K U S , ~which had long been important factors in
Palestinian politics. To this Isaiah added a graphic
description of the confusion of the statesmen of Pales-
tine (‘ this coastland ’) at the fall of the single great ally
on whom they had counted (cp I SAIAH ii., 5 g a 141).
( e ) From the two remaining narratives we must not
expect too much, owing to the lateness of their date
6. Is. 36-39. (see next art., 5 15). One of them (36-
37ga 3 7 J ) is no doubt earlier than the
other (37g6-38J) ; bnt even the earlier is full of contra-
dictions to the ideas and the implied situations in the
universally acknowledged prophecies. So much, how-
ever, we may admit to be just conceivable :-( I ) that
Hezekiah in 702-1 B.C. really did take pains to
propitiate Isaiah, and did convince the prophet of his
disposition to obey the divine oracles ; and ( 2 ) that
Isaiah in consequence declared that on this occasion
Jerusalem should escape a siege. The grounds for this
view, however, are more hypothetical than one likes, and,
a t any rate, the details of Hezekiah‘s embassy to Isaiah
and the speeches assigned to the prophet are altogether
untrustworthy. And yet how transcendently great this
prophet of Yahw&must have been to have formed the
subject of so much imaginative writing! And how
highly the later Jews must have valued the privilege
of prophetic revelation to have devoted themselves so
earnestly to filling up the gaps in its historical record !
111. W e now turn to those discourses of Isaiah which
have no accompanying narratives. W e will view them
as revelations of a great religious character, and treat
them with the respect due to all such revelations ; Le.,
1 He uses the same phrase as in 8 18.
a See CUSH, 8 2 ; MIZRAIM, 5 26; but Cp GEOGRAPHY, 5 9.
2183
ISAIAH, PROPHET
we will not require them to exhibit throughout a cast-iron
7. Prophecies consistency. The criticism which we
without 1 1 ~ have ~ -sought to employ elsewhere has not
tives : Is, 26-21 been controlled by preconceived ideas
,,
~ respecting Isaiah’s prophetic system,
0 “5.
and we-may therefore venture, as
historians, to build upon its conclusions. W e have
heard from Isaiah’s lips his own account of his con-
secrating vision. Criticism justifies us in holding that
he lost no time in expanding and applying the stern
truth which had lodged itself in his mind. For both
Israel and Judah he announced a grievous disaster,
which to the deeply-moved prophet appeared not less
awful than a judgment upon the world (26-21). Never
again did he write in a style so poetic, so sublime.
Probably he learned that a manner at once more
pointed and with more personality was better fitted to
win the. attention of the people ; indeed, in 26-21 he
writes, it would seem, more to relieve himself than to
impress others.
In 31-5 Isaiah expresses himself more plainly. H e
anticipates a captivity like that in Jehoiachin’s time,
when (if we may trust the narrative) few, except the
poorer class, were left in Judah, and says that young
men of tyrannical character will be the rulers of the
humiliated state which should remain.
This picture of the future (which, apart from the
reference to the rulers who would take the place of the
8. Is. 316-41 captive king, he repeated in 316-41 51-7
and 58-24) did not correspond to facts.
51-7 58-24’ The punishment of the sins of Judah‘s
rulers was delayed; the Davidic king remained on
an, as yet, unshaken throne.
Isaiah was not at all perplexed at this. H e recog-
nised the divine will that Ahaz should have a fair trial
and choose between the broad and the narrow way.
Again and again he offered counsel to Ahaz; but the
young king was too wilful to listen, and his counsellor
began to grow weary’ (713). One trial more, as we
have seen, was given, but in vain; and then Isaiah
distinctly pointed to the ‘ waters of the river ’ ( L e . , to
Assyria) as the source of the calamity in store for
Judah as well as for Israel ( 8 7 J ; cp.526-30720).
We have but fragments of Isaiah’s discourses at this
period; but it is plain that the unbelief of Ahaz had
9. Is. 85-22. greatly deepened the prophet’s conviction
of coming ruin ; no words of Carlyle are
more fraught with indignation and grief than 821 f.
Still, even here all is not dark. Many, we are told,
not all, will rue their opposition to the divine word
(8 14), and if we could be sure that 8 9 f. and 9 2-7 (1-6)
were written at this period by the prophet, we should
feel that Isaiah was by no means destitute of the richest
consolation. The strict conservative view, however,
is difficult in the extreme, and though Isaiah certainly
believed that a ‘remnant’ would (like himself and his
disciples, 816-18) turn, in humble, penitent faith, to
YahwB, and so escape captivity, it is not safe to sup-
pose that Isaiah pictured to himself its future history.
Had Isaiah any hope for (northern) Israel ? He had
none for the survival of the ancient kingdom ; but did
lo. Is. 99-21 he believe that in Samaria too there was
‘remnant’ which would ‘ turn’? Three
17 281-6. aimportant prophecies (not counting 26-21
and shorter passages) relate to Israel : 99-21 (8-20) 17
and 281-6. The second and third of these contain
passages which may seem to favour an affirmative
answer ; but a strict criticism will not allow us to
regard 177f: and 285f: as more genuine than 1111-13.l
Yes ; Isaiah had no hope for the country which, on the
ground of its past leadership, still arrogated to itself
the name of Israel. It is probable, however, that when
the Assyrian hosts actually drew near Samaria (later
than the prophet had at first anticipated), Isaiah‘s hopes
1 Dillmann (on Is. 28 5 f
.) quotes all these passages as con.
chive evidence.
2184
 ISAIAH, PROPHET
for his own land revived. He appears at that time to
have expected an Assyrian invasion of Judah, and in
prophetic vision to have seen the foe pressing on to the
capital. There is actually a record of this vision in
ll. Is. 1028-32 that fine descriptive passage, 10 28-32,
and we have some reason to think that
8 g f : 1712-1J‘ Isaiah at that time uttered the defiant
words of Sgf., and in 17 12-14announced the destruc-
tion ohthe Assyrian invaders of Judah. This, if true,
was certainly not mere patriotism on the part of Isaiah.
There mnst have b e e r s o m e change in the internal
condition of Judah, which to Isaiah’s prophetic eye
spoke of a modification (surely not a reversal) of
YahwA‘s purpose. W e can hardly err in connecting
this with a change in the government of the country.
It is possible that Hezekiah had considerable political
influence even before his father’s death, and that he
was supposed, on good grounds, to have been influenced
by the preaching of Isaiah. This will account for the
hopeful spirit of 5 9 f: and 1712-14 (the present writer
12. Is. 1428-32. would formerly have added, of a third
passage, 14 28-32, which the heading
states to have been written ‘ in the death-year of king
Ahaz,’ 719 B . c . ) . ~ Isaiah at this time no longer appre-
hended an immediate Assyrian invasion ; the reason
of which is, that the Assyrian arms had (in 721
or 720) received a temporary check in N. Babylonia.
He was well aware, however, that Sargon would soon
he as dangerous as ever, and if he was still confident
in the present security of Jerusalem. it was because the
ruler of Judah was now, what Ahaz had not been, a
believer. For Isaiah does not yet regard the individual
as a moral unit. If Yahwk protects Zion, it is because
Zion’s ruler has responded to the demand for ‘faith’
(cp 25 16).
Eight years passed, and still Isaiah held the same
language. For though the greater part of 105-126
13. Is. 105-1& (next art., $j 7) is certainly of late
1424-27,origin, and written for other &cum-
(part) stances than those of the eighth
century, yet enough remains to assure us that Isaiah
in 711 regarded an Assyrian conquest of Judah as
contrary to the plan of YahwB. The grand rebuke
addressed to Assyria in 105-15 (apart from the inter-
polations) should not improbably be combined with
1424-27, which is the misplaced conclusion of the
Isaianic prophecy (next art., 9 [u],I ). Thus in 711
(this date may, on good grounds, be assumed) Isaiah
believed it to be YahwB‘s purpose ‘ to break Assyria in
his (Yahwe‘s) land, and on his mountains to tread him
under foot’ (1425). No light is thrown either in
105-15or in 1424-27 on the condition of affairs in Judah ;
but we must assume that Hezekiah still maintained the
attitude of one who ‘ believed ’ Yahwk and his prophet,
for without this we know that Isaiah could have seen no
hope for his country (7 g 25 16).
It is true Sargon states, in a fragmentary inscription ( K B
2 q 3) tha; the inhabitants of Philistia Judah, Edom, and
Moah &inned revolt from the Assyrian su)zerainty and entered
into negotiations with Mnsri (see MIZRAIM8 2 &the passage
relates to the time preceding the siege of Xshdod mentioned
above-but it is allowable to suppose either that the Assyrian
scribe put down four of the best-known names of Palestinian
peoples somewhat a t random, or that Hezekiah confessed his
error to Isaiah, and gave pledges of future obedience.
At any rate, Isaiah, who had already expressed such
strong confidenqe in the present safety of Zion, could not
and would not change his tone without solid reasons.
Again eight years elapsed ; but now symptoms of a
change appear. The next prophecy in chronological
order to the great ‘ W o e ’ on Assyria is
14. Is.
287-22 (next art., 12, end). No passage
of Isaiah gives us quite such graphic details as to the
1 The passage, however, is really an imaginative composition
like the poem io 1446.21 (see next art., $ g, 6 [g], p). It is Scn-
nnckerib’s death, most probably, that is referred to in both
poems. See Marti‘s commentary, and cp SBOT,‘Isa.,’ Heb.
195, where a n emended text is exhibited.
2185
ISAIAH, PROPHET
faults of the upper classes at Jerusalem, and it is remark-
able that Isaiah appends to these details a solemn re-
statement of the spiritual hasis of the security of Judah.
If we take this prophecy in combination with one of
certainly not much later date (the denunciation of Shebna,
2215-18 : next art. g [ h ] , z ) , we may infer that Isaiah
again thought he saw an imminent prospect of the de-
portation of many of the leaders of the state to Assyria
(cp 3 I). There was indeed still a possibility of averting
this fate. But would these clever politicians adopt it ?
Of the king, however, we hear nothing. Isaiah seems
to regard Hezekiah as, to a great extent, the puppet of
the predominant political faction. Indeed, remembering
the story of Padi of Ekron, one is inclined to think
that such dependence may have been generally the lot
of the small kings of Palestine at this time. At any
rate, Isaiah’s great object is to startle the politicians
out of their security. H e warns them that, though the
horizon is clear at present, it will not remain so. H e
will not on this occasion say when the storm will break
out. ‘ Add year to year, let the feasts run their course ’
(291). Certain it is, however, that before long A RIEL
( q . ) ~will be marked out as his prey by the Assyrian ;
Jerusalem (for this is the meaning of the symbolic name
employed) will be besieged and reduced to great straits.
It is not the Assyrian, however, who will deal the final
blow. A theophany will take place ; Yahwk himself,
the storm-God and the war-God, will appear and
destroy the guilty city (cp 210-21).
What was the cause of the change in Isaiah’s preach-
ing? It was the rise to power of an Egyptian party at
Jerusalem. The peoples of Palestine and Phcenicia
saw in the new (Ethiopian) dynasty of Egypt the only
power which could save them from the oppressive and
uncongenial rule of Assyria (cp EGYPT, 66). Isaiah,
on political, hut vastly more on religious, grounds,
insisted on the futility of an alliance with Egypt
(chaps. 30 J ) . H e supplemented his ‘woe’ upon
Jerusalem by the declaration that the Egyptian allies
of Judah should be defeated, for Yahwk himself would
fight on the side of the Assyrians (so we must under-
stand 313). This cycle of prophecies (28-31) is of
the highest value both for the history of Judah and
for the biography of the prophet. It gives us a
graphic picture of the excitement at Jerusalem and the
opposition to Isaiah’s preaching, and shows how the
initial revelation of Judah‘s doom was gradually fixing
itself more and more in the prophet’s mind. It also
confirms an idea which has probably already suggested
itself to us-that Isaiah’s interest is not in the circum-
stantial details of his prophecy, but in the connection
between national sin and national calarnity. His object
is to reveal God in history, not-except in a secondary
sense-to turn the course of events.
The negotiations with Egypt do not appear to have as
yet succeeded, and if chap. 18 (next art., 5 9 [a],3) was
15. Is. 18. written at this period, it shows that Isaiah
had for a time trinmphed over the Egyptian
party. Otherwise he‘ would certainly not have given
Judah a further breathing-time. Otherwise, too, he would
not have so calmly bidden the Ethiopian ambassadors
return to their own land. It is remarkable that Isaiah
should speak so respectfully of the Ethiopians, for not
long since he spoke quite otherwise of Egypt (303-7). A
fuller acquaintance with this period of Egyptian history
might enable us to explain this1 It is still more re-
markable that Isaiah should have adopted so lofty a
tone of enthusiasm in speaking of the prospects of
Judah. May we not venture to assume that Hezekiah
had initiated something in the nature of a reform,a
something which might be charitably regarded as turn-
3 Or, pq.ssihly if there was a second Assyrian invasion, the
prophecy in chab. 18 might refer to this.
2 See H E Z E K ~ A H the supposed fact of an early reform
where
in the cultus is cohtroverted. Isaiah’s main object was moral
amendment ; he has no programme for any other reform.
2186
 ISAIAH, PROPHET
ing to YahwB’? Isaiah has already told us how far,
a t an earlier time, the ‘ princes’ of Judah were from
practising the virtues which befitted them. Must we
not conjecture that Hezekiah had lately made examples
of some of the chief offenders among them (e.g.,
Shebna)? If so, king and prophet were destined to
be sadly disappointed. The prophecy in chap. 18 (if
rightly dated) had been delivered on the assumption
that the rulers of Judah had really ‘ turned ‘ to YahwB.
I t did not indeed promise that there should be no
Assyrian invasion. Sennacherib would, of course, take
the field against the kings of Palestine (including Heze-
kiah) who had refused tribute. But it did guarantee
(upon implied conditions) that the invasion should be
stopped at the outset by a supernatural intervention.
This, however, did not happen. As Sennacherib and
Isaiah agree in stating, widespread desolation was
wrought in Judah by the irresistible warriors of Assyria.
To all-to the prophet not less than to his countrymen
-this was a sign of YahwKs displeasure. All that
could now be hoped for was to avert destruction from
Jerusalem. The rulers took one means
’ 16‘ Is’ 15-26* of doing this ; Isaiah wished them to
take another. Sacrifices had never been so abundant,
nor public prayers so fervent (1 11-15 ; cp Am. 5 z z 24
with VV. 15 18) ; but Isaiah, like Amos, attached no
intrinsic value to ceremonies. One means, and one
only, there was to check the progress of Sennacherib ;
it was to change their lives. Their God would forgive
the past, and restore to them his protecting care. They
would sow and reap, undeterred by Assyrian warriors ;
they would ‘eat the good of the land.’ On the other
hand, if they rebelled against the divine will they would
suffer the hardships of a siege (see H USKS).
‘ If your sins be scarlet they may become white as snow;
If they he red as crimsgn they may become as wool.
If ye be willing and obedent the good of the land shall ye eat *
But if ye refuse and rebel, &ob-pods shall ye eat’ (118.20, las;
line emended).
Even in the too brief summary (15-26),the discourses
of Isaiah delivered at this period move us deeply. W e
long to know what effect they produced. Only a late
tradition on this subject has come down to u s ; it is
that contained in chaps. 36f. (next art., 5 I 5). It may
be barely possible to hold that a good effect was pro-
duced, that Isaiah assured Hezekiah of safety. If this
was the case, he very soon changed his tone. It is
l,. Is. 221-14.certa,in that, as the last Assyrian
warriors disappeared, Isaiah, sick at
heart, used language (221-14: next art., 5 g [b], 2)
which can be understood only as a final acceptance
of the doom pronounced in 69-13. He bows to the
decree of the God of Israel. For Judah there is no
more hope; for himself no further ministry. The
heart of ‘ this people’ has become gross, and there is
no possibility of salvation. Therefore cities must be-
come waste, and houses uninhabited, and, should a
tenth be left, this must, in turn, he consumed. For
the small prophetic band-himself, his children, and
his disciples-there may still be a future (cp 816-18);
but he has received no revelation on this subject ; nor
could he, without a psychological miracle, have even
imagined a condition of things totally opposed to the
present. Only a short time ago he could anticipate
the restoration to Jerusalem of ‘judges as at the first,
and counsellors as at the beginning’ (126). Now it
would appear as if, by a moral compulsion, he placed
himself by the side of Amos, who had prophesied of the
guilty worshippers in the sanctuary at Bethel, that ‘ not
one should flee away, not one should escape ’ (Am. 9 I ) .
The reader may need to be reminded that the
latter part of this uicture of Isaiah is based uuon
18. Resulting critical conclusions which are not as
picture of yet generally accepted. The criticism
of the prophecies of Isaiah is slowly
Isaiah. emerging from a position analogous to
. that in which the Hexateuch was before the publication
2187
ISAIAH, PROPHET
of Wellhausen’s Pdegomena. The reader may, if he
will, keep his mind in suspense as to the critical prob-
lems of the day, and confine his attention to the
earlier part of the present article. Should he do so,
he will obtain a sound though an incomplete concep-
tion of the great prophet. But to those who have
seen the weakness of the old criticisni, and the strength
of that which offers itself as on the whole far more in
accordance with facts, and who find the synthesis of
new and old presented in this article historically credible,
it may be safely said that the more they contemplate
the character of Isaiah as now disclosed to them, the
grander it will appear. W e have not hitherto realised
the scale and proportions of his truly heroic faith.
What Abraham was in legend, Isaiah was in fact. He
was prepared to trust God in the darkness as implicitly
as the ‘father of the faithful,‘ when, according to the
noble story, he lifted up his hand, at the divine com-
mand, to slay his only son. For we may be sure-
the variations in his picture of the future attest this-
that Isaiah loved his people dearly, and was alive to
the least indications of moral progress. And yet he
could, with breaking heart, give up the present Israel to
its doom, so complete was his faith in the all-wise pur-
pose of the God of Israel. How that which seemed the
end of all things could yet not be a fatal blow to the
divine purpose, it was not for him to judge.
As a man and a prophet we have now fully recognised
Isaiah‘s greatness. Was he also a Doet? In 3722-29
I
(next art., 5 1 j [@])-avery fine taunt:
ing poem on Sennacherib is assigned to
him : but the lateness of the narrative
in which it is placed, iogether with the late character of
the phraseology, prevent us from accepting this assign-
ment. Another fine taunting poem also has been claimed
for Isaiah-that in 144b-z1, which was not originally
connected with the late prophecy against Babylon in
chap. 13 (see ISAIAHii., g, 6 [9], p). But ideas and
phraseology alike point away from Isaiah, unless we apply
a very imperfect criticism to both sections of the evidence.
I t must suffice here to mention the fact that in14 12.14 reference
is made to a fully developed myth of Babylonian origin, for
which there is no parallel in the works of the pre-exilic prophets
and to point out the similarity of this taunting song to that i i
3722-29. Boih these songs were probably composed with
refefence to the story of Sennacherih, and both are of late
origin. Probably 14z8--2 (next art., 5 g [61, 3) also should be
included in the group (s& above, $ 12).
Nor can we reckon as more than a curiosity of
criticism the theory that Pss. 46-48 were written by
Isaiah, the first when the Syrians, the second when the
Philistines, and the third when the Assyrians \were
overthrown. The siniple truth is that Isaiah was too
great to be a literary artist ; his words were deeds.
The preceding sketch requires to be supplemented by
~-
a sympathetic survey of the ~-
prophetic literature of the
20, post-exilic period (see P ROPHETIC
U nkn o
Isaiahs. wn LITERATURE). A critical rearrange-
ment of the ~*DrODheCieS of the Book of
Isaiah not only makes Isaiah a simpler and a grander
and therefore also a more truly antique personality than
he could be according to the older criticism ; it intro-
duces us to a number of less original, bnt in some re-
spects more attractive personages, who being neither
public men nor ambitious of fame in an age (aldv) that
was passing away, have not been remembered by name.
They drew their inspiration (so they must have believed)
from the divine Spirit which dwelt within the community
(Is. 6311 ; cp S PIRIT ), and they were content with the
hope so touchingly expressed by a psalmist of similar
character-
Remember me, 0 L ORD in the gracious welcome of Thy people;
Oh visit me with Thy silvation ;
That I may look on the prosperity of Thy elect,
May rejoice in Thy nation’s joy,
May triumph with Thy inheritance.
(Ps. 106 4J, Kay’s translation.)
It may be hoped that English students will not any
longer cherish the unfounded prejudice that to follow
2188
 ISAIAH, BOOK
out the many traces of plurality of authorship in Isaiah
involves less appreciation of those passages of the book
which were not written by the son of Amoz.
Besides the commentaries and histories of Israel see Dr.,
Isaiah,his lif. and tivnesFJ (‘93); W R S Proph. Cs.’(‘82) 205-
156. Duhm TheoL der Propheten 149-177
21. Literalure. 7.753; Guthi, Das Zukunftsitd d& Iesaia
(‘85). Giesebrecht, Beitv. E. Jesaiakritik
76-84 (‘90) ; Hackmann: Die Zuku?q5’serwa~ung des Jesaii
ISAIAH (BOOK)
CONTENTS
Introductory ($ I).
Earlier criticism (5 zf.).
Critical principles (5 4).
Chaps. 1-12 ($5 5-8).
The criticism of the Book of Isaiah has been almost
revolutionised within the last twenty years1 The
1. Criticism problems have become more compli-
cated, the methods of the critics more
before 1880. varied and subtle. The present position
of criticism cannot be properly understood, however,
without some acquaintance with an earlier stage. It
is necessary, therefore, to preface this article by a
sketch of what appeared certain or probable before
1880. T o give the student a mixture of the two criti-
cisms would be misleading. H e has to pass as quickly
as possible through the initial stage already traversed by
criticism, that he may not perplex himself with unreal
difficulties,
. A . EARLIER CRITICISM
W e must begin with the criticism of I. Isaiah ( i e . ,
Is. 1-39), and then proceed to that of 11. Isaiah ( i e . ,
Is. 4 0 - 6 6 ) , remarking by way of introduction that
critics in general are agreed that the final redaction of
the Book of Isaiah must have been anterior to the
composition of Ecclesiasticus (probably about 180 B.C. ),
because of the description of Isaiah‘s wide range as a
prophet in Ecclus. 4822-25, a passage which occurs not
only in the Greek and the Syriac, but also in a lately
discovered fragment of the Hebrew text.
Abraham Kuenen (’28-’91), one of the greatest of
2. Kuenen recent ‘ higher critics,’ gave this sketch of
growth of I. Isaiah in the first edition
in 1863. the of his Znfrod. (Ondevzoek) in ’63.
A . C HAPTERS 1-39. i. krvangemeht. -Yhe earliest
parts of the book Kuenen takes to be the two collec-
tions,* chaps. 1 - 1 2 and J3-23. The former consists
entirely of genuine prophecies of Isaiah; the latter
contains some prophecies dating from the last years of
the exile. A characteristic of the second group is that
headings are prefixed to the prophecies, with the peculiar
term N t n ‘(divine) utterance,’ or ‘oracle’ (131 1 4 2 8
151 17rr-[201] 21IrrIg 221 231). It is naturai to
assume that this was the later of the two collections,
and it is possible that the present position of the
short prophecy, 1424-27, is due to the editor of this
group, who may have wished, by transferring this
passage from 1 0 5 - 1 2 6 (near which It must once have
stood) to a place amongst the oracles of his own
collection, to connect the two groups, and give them an
appearance of homogeneousness. This editor certainly
lived in post-exilic times, whereas the collector of
chaps. 1-12 was either Isaiah himself or one of his
disciples (cp S z 16). Time passed, and other prophecies
came to light which rightly or wrongly were ascribed to
the prophet Isaiah. Another editor, wishing to complete
1 Until quite lately the school of Dillmann has been regarded
in England, as elsewhere among students of Isaiah, as represent-
inm the farthest point td which a sober criticism can go. The
w h g n e s s to reconsider thin s however shown in the art.
‘Isaiah’ (Hastings, DB 2 r.995 by Prof. d. A. Smith, justifies
the hope that the transition to a more consistent critical position
will not be so slow in England.
2189
ISAIAH, BOOK
f 9 3 ) ; Smend, A T ReL-Gesch. 203.227 (‘9:); Duff, Old Test.
Theol: 1150.294 (‘94); A. B. Davidson, The Theology of
Isaiah in Exp. T . ’ 4 (beginning at 296)’ M‘Curdy, His%.,
Proph., andMon., vo? 2 (‘96), though a good Assyriologist, does
not go deep enough into critical and historical problems to
achieve his aim ; J. Meinhold, Jesaja u. seilze Z e i f . (‘98); cp
also $ 6 of G. A. Smith’s art. ‘ Isaiah’ in Hastings’ DB. See
also DEUTERONOMY, HEZEKIAH, MESIAH PROPHECY, TEMPLE.
2-7 (other bearers of the name). SeeJEsAAmH, 1-6.
T. K. C.
Chaps. 49-55 (B17J).
Soliloquies in Chap. 61J (5 19).
Chaps. 56-66 (5 21).
Redaction (5 22).
a Book of Isaiah, attached chaps. 28-33 24-27 and 3 4 $ ,
and appended, as a suitable close for the book, a
historical account of Sennacherib’s invasion and Isaiah’s
prophetic activity at this period.
ii. CoZZections of Zsaiunic prophecies. - a. The
earliest.-These are, Kuenen thought, in chaps. 2-4,
written in the first years of Ahaz, before the outbreak
of the Syro-Ephraimitish war.l Chap. 5 describes
Isaiah’s expectations a few years later, after the first
defeat experienced by Ahaz. During the same war
Isaiah wrote his account of his great vision (chap. 6 ) ,
and from chap. 7 we learn what he held out in prospect
to Ahaz at the height of the crisis. Chaps. 171-11 and
S I -96 [7] are only a little later than chap. 7, whilst the
prophecy in 97 [8]-104, which in 910 [IT] presupposes
the defeat of Rezin by the Assyrians,z and the devasta-
tion of N. Palestine, was probably delivered shortly
after the close of the Syro-Ephraimitish war, when the
N. kingdom was beginning to recover from its serious
disasters. 1428-32 also, in spite of the heading in
v. 28, may be placed in this period. The Philistines,
threatened by the Assyrian power, may have sent an
embassy to Ahaz, the - p~ot&d . of Tiglath-pileser, desiring
~~
his support.
6. The prophecies of the Assyrian period.-These
are divided into two classes-(a) . . those before and (. 6.)
those after Hezekiah’s revolt.
(a) To the former class belong 21 113and 13-17, which suggest
that the Assyrian power was gradually extending towards
Egypt. More certainly chap. 28 belongs to the three years of
the siege of Samaria. Chap. 23 refers to Shalmaneser’s campaign
against Phoenicia. The obscurity of v. 1.3 permits no very
positive critical inference; but the mention of Assyria confirms
the Isaianic authorship. Nor is Kuenen prepared to give up
the epilogue (vv. 15-18), though he recognises the comparative
weight of the objections to the genuineness of this passage and
indeed of the whole prophecy. The ‘hard king’ of 1 9 4 is
Sargon, who is actually named in chap. 20.
(8) Then come the important chaps. 29-32, all of which belong
to the year before Sennacherib‘s invasion, and open the second
class of the prophecies referred to. 29 1-8 is regarded as a two-
fold prediction, first of Jerusalem’s extreme danger, and then
of her deliverance.3 The prophecies in 22 15-25 (Shebna) and
T21-14 were delivered not much later. The description in
22 8-11 is viewed as partly imaginative ; the preparations for the
defence of Jerusalem were such as would naturally he made on
the approach of a foe. 10 5-12 6 was written during the invasion ;
14 24-27 is closely connected with it, and may he regarded as its
epilogue. Jerusalem itself was threatened when chap. 1 was
written, and 17 12-1418 and 33 belong to the same period. All
these prophecies express a firm assurance of the speedy destruc-
tion of the foe.
c. The prophecy against Moab.
This prophecy (chap. 15J) receives from Kuenen a careful
consideration. H e rezognises the peculiarity in language, in
style, and in ideas of 15 1-1612 which he assigns to an older
prophet of the Norihern KingdoA. The epilogue he thinks may
1 The heading in 1 I is of course due to an editor an? of no
authority (cp CHRONOLOGY, S zJ).
2 This implies the reading ‘the adversaries of Rezin’ (’l?
]’$l), which isaccepted by Dillmann, hut rejected by Duhm and
Cheyne (see SBOT). Kuenen, however, is not unconscious of its
lifkculties.
3 Kueneu’s view of 29 1-8,9-14,has been till quite lately the one
generally held, I t has been well stated by Driver (Zsaiah, 56.J).
2190
 ISAIAH, BOOK
well have been written by Isaiah, when he adopted the work of
his predecessor, about the same time as 21 13-17 (see above, 6 [a]).
The earlier prophet most probably lived hefore the great con-
quests of Jeroboam II., when Edom was subject to Judah (cp
1 6 6 with zK.147).
iii. The historical chapters (36-39).-These are re-
garded as having been compiled from contemporarydocu-
ments shortly after the time of Hezekiah, and inserted
by the collector of chaps. 1-35 (or perhaps of the whole
book), partly to illustrate the prophecies of the Assyrian
period, partly to supplement the narratives in cliaps. 7
8 20 (cp above, § 2, i.).
iv. Later additions. -a. Chaps. 24-27. -Theearliest
of the exilicprophecies inserted in I. Isaiah is held to be
that in chaps. 24-27. The evidence against Isaiah’s
authorship is not indeed so overpowering as in the case of
chaps. 40-66, because of the obscurity of the prophecy,
but is still forcible enough. Points of contact between
the language of these chapters and that of Isaiah are
not wanting ; but there is such a striking difference in
style, in imagery, in vocabulary, and even in ideas, that
on this ground alone we may be sure that Isaiah is not
the author. Then the historical situation-however
difficult of interpretation some features in it may be-is
certainly not that of any of the acknowledged prophecies
of Isaiah. Kuenen’s conclusion is that the author lived
during the first part of the exile and that he predicts
the fall of Babylon. On three points he remains in
doubt-(I) where the prophet lives, whether in J u d z a
(cp 256f: IO), or elsewhere; ( 2 ) whether 241-13 is to
be regarded as a prophecy, or as a description, and
whether it relates to the whole earth, or to Judah and
Jerusalem; and ( 3 ) whether 271of. pictures the con-
dition of Jerusalem, or of the hostile city mentioned in
252 265-Le. (according to Kuenen), of Babylon.
6. Chaps. 34f.-To the same period Kuenen assigns
chaps. 3 4 3 The writer’s silence as to the Medo-
Persians and his indignation against Edom are the
reasons for placing these chapters early in the Exile.
Peculiar ideas and words are of course not as abundant here
as in chaps. 24-27. This last remark applies also to 13 1-1423
but the historical situation is defined even more plainly than i;
3 4 s as that of the Exile, and more definitely of the close of the
Exile. The Babylonian oppression is presupposed, and the tone
of the writer is evidentlyemhittered by the thought of the suffer-
ings of his people. This embitterment prevents us from identify-
ing the author with the so-called 11. Isaiah. The little prophecy
in 21 1-10is also (on account of zB) clearly not Isaiah‘s work, and
is probably not much later than 13 1.1423.
B. C HAPTERS 40-66. Chaps. 40-66 are regarded
by Kuenen ( i . e . , the Knenen of 1863) as forming a
single book in three equal parts (chaps. 40-48 49-57
58-66) marked by a kind of refrain1 (4822 5721),
the substance of which was written by one man,
before the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, though the
different prophecies or poems composing it may have
been collected and arranged after that event.
a. External evidence as to authorship. ---Knenen ex-
amines at length the external evidence for and against
Isaiah‘s authorship of this book.
The evidence for it is, (I) the testimony of Ecclus. 4823-25
(which, however simply proves that the writer was not in a
position to discrihinate between works of different ages copied
into the same roll).
2. The ‘edict of Cyrus’ in Ezra 1zf: 2 Ch. 3623 (which has
been thousht to imply that Cyrus had become acquainted with
the prophecies ascribed to Isaiah, hut which in reality merely
implies that the narrator had such an acquaintance).l
3. The use made of Is. 40-66 hy prophets who lived after Isaiah
hut hefore the middle part of the Exile (the extreme insecurity
of which argument, in the form in which Delitzsch presented it,
is shown by Kuenen).
On the opposite side, too, some external evidence is
produced.
1 For the later view of these ‘refrains,’ see Duhm or SBOT
(‘ Isaiah ’).
a On the question whether the publication of the ‘edict of
Cyrus’ is a historical fact, and whether the kernel of the ‘edict
is genuine, see CVRUS, $ 5 ; E ZRA ii., $ 6 8 ; ISRAEL, $ 5 e f :
Kuenen, in both editions of his Introduction, whilst admitting
the fact of the return under Cyriis, maintained that the so-called.
‘edict’ was a free composition of the Chronicler.
2191
ISAIAH, BOOK
Stress is laid on the position of chaps. 40-66, which are separated
from the preceding collection of prophecies by some historical
chapters, and must once have circulated in a separate form.
Without any strong grounds an editor who had noticed the
reference to a Babylonian captivity in 39 6f:, may have supposed
that chaps. 40-6G were a grandly planned supplementary prophecy
by Isaiah.
d . Znternal evidence.-i. Historical situation.-The
most important argument, however, is that based on
the historical situation in those chapters. All agree
that, at least in general, the author addresses the
Israelitish exiles in Babylon.
Jerusalem and the cities of Judah lie in ruins; and this sad
state of things has already lasted a considerable time (51 3 52 2 5
58 12 63 18 19 [r8 19a] 64 9-11 [S-io] 42 14 57 12 58 12 63 15-19 [ ~ g e ] ) .
Deliverance, however, is at hand ; Cyrus will conquer Babylon
and release the Jews, who, on their retiirn will rebuild Jeru-
salem and the temple, and enjoy unim&inahle prosperity
(409-11 41 27 43 1 9 8 4426 46 13 58 12 60 IO 61 4 66 xzf.). In
this connection, it IS noteworthy that no mention is made of
Israelitish kings or of sacrifices. On the other hand, the keep-
ing of the sabbath (562-s) and fasting (58 18) are specially
mentioned.1
We are at once inclined to place such a book in the
second half of the Exile. ’
This conclusion is strengthened by the writer’s accurate know-
ledge of the very heart and soul of the exiles (see, e.g., 4027
45 9f: 46 6 3 49 24 56 3 H . 57 5 8 58 2 8 62 6A 65 4 3 66 1-5).
Nor is there anything in the book suggestive of the
pre-exilic age. If Isaiah had written it, he would
certainly have betrayed his real as opposed to his
imaginary period by some involuntary allusion.
On the contrary, (I) all the allusions to the age of Isaiah to
the continuance of Jerusalem and of the temple and to Jndza
as the home of the prophet which have been iniicated in chaps.
40-66 rest without excepdon 011 misunderstanding.2 ( 2 ) l’he
prooi derived hy the prophet from the predictions of Israel’s
liberation and the fall of Babylon loses all its significance if the
writerwerenot closeathand(see411-7 z x - ~ g 4 ’ g 4 3 8 - 144.9-11
~
468-13 48). At first sight indeed, the passages in which idolatry
is attacked3 may seem inconsistent with an exilic date; hut
observe ( I ) that the writer frequently has in view not Israelites
but the surrounding heathen population ; (2) that sometimes i t
is rather of a danger than of an actual fact that the prophet
speaks ; (3) that Ezekiel (20 30-38) refers to idolatrous prac-
tices among the exiles by the river Chehar ; and (4) that we
cannot infer from the attachment of the returned exiles to the
religion of Yahwh that those left behind were all devoted mono-
theists.
ii. Language and ideas. -Nearly 200 years could
not have passed away without leaving their impress on
prophetic language and ideas. The second Isaiah is in
fact very different from Isaiah b. Amoz, both as a writer
and as a thinker.
I . Of the personal Messiah expected by the son of
Amoz4 (96[5]f: 111-5) there is not a trace in 11.
Isaiah (see MESSIAH).
It is to a widely different figure-the ‘servant of Yahwk’-
that 11. Isaiah assigns the liberation and the regeneration of
Israel. In connection with this it should he noticed that the
older prophet is much more universalistic in his pictures of
the future than the younger, who is by no means free from an
extreme nationalism and cherishes exaggerated expectations
of the future glory oiIsrael (for which, it is true, there are points
of contact in some of Isaiah’s prophecies ;5 see, e.g., 116 3 1s 7
19 18-2523 18).
2. Other differences, too, may be referred to.
Thus the high respect for the sabbath expressed in chaps.
56 58 is very unlike Isaiah (contrast 11r-r5). The uniqueness
of the divinity ofYahw5 hecomas more prominent in the second
part of Isaiah, and is proved by arguments which Isaiah b. Amoz
could hardly have used, whilst the fundamenta! ideas of that
prophet’s discourses are somewhat in the background in chaps.
40-66.
1 It need hardly be said that this is among the weaker of the
arguments here adduced.
2 Here we may reply in the words of Goethe, ‘Du sprichst
ein grosses Wort gelassen aus.
3 These passages are 4 0 1 7 8 4 1 1 8 2 1 8 4 3 9 3 44gJ 22
45148466-912 481fi 4J85568574J581 59212f: 6 3 1 7
646 [ s l s 6 5 3 8 663J, though Kuenen admits it to he possihle
that where general terms are used for the sins of the exiles, the
reference may he to moral and religious laxity rather than to
idolatry. Not a few passages, too, refer specially to horn heatheri
men.
4 This is one of the many points in which later criticism finds
something to correct in the older theories.
1 Here again Kuenen in 1863 expresses views which later
criticism shows to be inaccurate.
219%
 ISAIAH, BOOK
Such-apart from the linguistic and stylistic argu-
ment, which is not at all adequately presented by the
older critics-is the reasoning by which Kuenen in 1863
justified his disintegration of the Book of Isaiah. If we
compare it with that of conservative critics we are struck
by its superior naturalness. It is the outcome of a
critical movement of long duration, and cannot fail to
be, to a large extent, in accordance with facts.
B. LATER CRITICISM
If we apply the same critical methods still further, we
cannot fail to see weak points. The earlier criticism
3. Subsequent abounds in inaccuracies, and the newer
criticism, after well-nigh twenty years
advance. of elaboration. has so far completed
its task that Kuenen's older view (still to a verilarge
extent represented in students' books) needs to be
superseded. If we do not adopt that form of the newer
criticism which is due to Kuenen himself, it is because
a growing criticism cannot be tied down to the results
of a single man, and because much work has been
brought to maturity since 1889 (the date of Kuenen's
second edition).
The interval between the traditional view of the Book
of Isaiah and that which is now presenting itself was too
great to be traversed without a halt. The criticism
which has just been summarised will enable the reader
to break the journey. He will now be in a better
position to consider those points in which the earlier
solutions of critical problems may have been unsatis-
factory, and consequently to do justice to the criticism
which still remains to be described.
The fault of the earlier critics was that they had an
imperfect sense of the deep gulf between the old and
*' the new Israel. Even the books which
had the most beneficial effect on pre-exilic
principles* Israelites were not in all respects suitable
for, or even intelligible to, the much altered people of
the later age. The prophetic writings in their present
form are post-exilic works ; such pre-exilic records as
they contain have been carefully adapted to the wants
of post-exilic readers. With regard, then, to Is. 1-30,
our first question should be, not, Is there any reason urhy
this or that chapter or section should not be the work
of Isaiah? but, T o what age do the ideas, expressions,
and implied circumstances most naturally point ? W e
can seldom expect to find that the whole of a long
passage belongs to the same period, because a post-
exilic editor would almost certainly have found it neces-
sary to modify what the earlier writer had said by longer
or shorter insertions. It must be remembered, too, that
the prophets of the eighth century were too great and
too much absorbed in their message to spend much time
in the written elaboration of their prophecies. We can
hardly expect to find that Isaiah left much in writing,
and we must also make allowance for the perils to the
ancient literature arising from the collapse of the state.
It will be well for the student to be continually revis-
ing his earlier results in the assignment of dates in the
light of his later critical acquisitions. Critics are some-
times accused of arguing in a circle because they, by
anticipation, mention facts in favour of the non-Isaianic
origin of a prophecy derived from sections which only
later will be proved to be non-Isaianic. This accusation
is not reasonable. It is necessary that the whole body
of relevant facts should be before the student, and it
is important to see what points of contact a disputed
prophecy has with other prophecies which are equally
disputed. T o economise space, it is sometimes neces-
sary to leave the student to distinguish between those
arguments which are immediately available, and those
which will only later be seen in their full force. It
will be found that each step we take in the assignment
of dates will supply subsidiary facts (especially phraseo-
logical) in proof of conclusions already seen to be
probable. But the student must not be in a hurry,
2193
ISAIAH, BOOK
and must sometimes let difficult problems wait till he is
riper for them.
It is too bold to maintain that we still have any collec-
tion of Isaianic prophecies which in its present form
B. Chaps+ 2-5. goes back to the period of that prophet,
T o begin with chaps. 1-5. Chap. 1
has, properly speaking, no connection with chaps. 2-5.
It is a preface to the whole collection of the prophecies.
of Isaiah (chaps. 2-33 or 35). It seems to be composite.
Verses 29-31 are possibly(or probably) the close of a separ-
ate prophecy of an earlier date (see below),whilst ZJV. 27f:
are certainly a post-exilic insertion (cp Marti). The early
section formed by chaps. 2-5 has been much altered.
It contains fine prophetic writing; but if a disciple of
Isaiah really bestowed much editorial care upon it-
i.e., if it was welded by such an editor into a whole-
the traces of his work have entirely disappeared.
Chap. 2 (soon after 740 B.c.)is composed of two different frag-
ments of similar contents, on the day of YahwF; (vu. 6-10 18-21,
and vu. 11-17), which have been brought together by an early
editor, and had prefixed to them an important eschatoloeical I
prophecy (2 2-4).1'
3 1-4I (735 B.c.) is nearly in its original form (see especially
Marti); but the appendix, 42-6, is beyond the possibility of
doubt post-exilic3 It was in fact a fixed custom of later editors
to adapt prophecies of judgment (most early prophecies were
such ; cp Am. 3 6-8) to the use of contrite post-exilic readers by
Messianic appendices. But what of 22-4P Why should 26-41
have a Dreface as well as an annendix ? Prohahlv it has been
moved from its original positid; to fill the place'of a passage
which had become illegible. It was originally intended to he the
appendix to 129-31, which appears to he a fragment of an in-
dependent prophecy of Isaiah against tree-worship, linked to
1 2 - 2 6 by the editorial passage, 127 f: Chap. 5 1-7 and 8-24
(525 is editorial) form two distinct hut related prophecies
(735 B.C.). On 5 26-30 see below (0 7, begin.).
The next group of prophecies is 61-9 7 [6]. In its
original form this came most probably from a disciple
6. Chaps. of Isaiah (about 734 B . C . ) . It con-
sisted of a prologue on Isaiah's in-
augural vision, and prophecies bn the invasion of Rezin,
the ruin of Syria and Ephraim, and the Assyrian
invasion, and concluded with a divine warning t o
Isaiah and his disciples, and an epilogue of great
interest, as showing the editorial care which, in this
instance at least, a disciple of Isaiah bestowed on his
master's work. To this has been added a fragment
on the despair of the people of Judah ; 81gf: (except
the last words) are late and editorial. Other traces of
late editorial work could be mentioned.
One of them is the opening verse of chap. 7 , which is depend-
ent on 2 K. 165 (late pre-exilic), and another possibly 886-10(this
passage, however, can be defended as Isaiahs).a Editorial work
is also plainly discernible in 7 17-25 ;hut on this we cannot linger.
The most important monument of an editor is not
the closing words of chap. 6 in M T (not in 'a a),
holy seed is the stock thereof,'4 but the Messianic
appendix, 9 2-7 [I-61. This appendix, though recently
defended by Duhm, is (in the opinion of some scholars)
1 2 5 is a later addition to a late prophecy. 2 2 - 4 is the
prophecy itself which in a large sense may he called Messianic.
Duhm regard; it as the work of Isaiah, hut refers it to the
prophet's old age when he may have written prophetic poems
like this passage Lnd like 9 2-7 11-61 11 1-8,for the edification f'.
his disciples. But the prouounced universalism of the religion
of 2 2-4, and its similarity in phraseology to passages which have
an unmistakable post-exilic impress, and are regarded by Duhm
himself as late, besides its want of a natural connection with the
context both in Is. 2 and in Mic. 4 (for Mic. 4 1-4 gives a second
edition of the naseaee). makc5 Duhnis romanticallv-soundine
theory impossible. ?I;'MICAH E. $ 2 c and see flrther C h c
It&-. Is. 9-16; Sta. Z A T W I 165f: k z z f H a c k d n n , Zzck&..s-
enuavtung, 126-130; Marti,/es., &HE: Mitchell, IsaiaAi.-xzi.,
108ff.: and on the other side especially Bertholet, Die .S'tekn<
der IsvaeZiten, etc., 9 7 8
2 So Giesehrecht (Beitv. 27) Duhm Hackmann Cheyne.
Stade in 1884 took a middle poshon (ZATW 4 149&>.
3 See I SAIAH i. 0 3 n., and cp Che. Znfr. Is.37-40. The
passage was a t any rate composed and inserted later ; at what
period, is disputed.
4 v. 13 should probably run thus (or nearly thus) : fi$? '3
~ ~fii)?e! ~;'p!I?, . 'for consumption
~ ~ shallp be on its plants,
and parching on itsproductions.' and ph>areduplicates;
3nxsD alp y n is a second attempt to make sense of a corrupt
passage.
2x94
 ISAIAH, BOOK
almost as certainly late as anything in the whole com-
pass of prophetic 1iterature.l Its combination of
enthusiasm and moderation gives the passage a unique
position among Messianic prophecies ; to assign it to
post-exilic times (which were not incapable of fine as
well as poor literature) involves no disparagement. It
is clearly an independent composition attached by the
editor by means of the linking verse, 9 I [Sz3]. Observe
the vagueness of 9 6 [5],f, which implies that the hope
of the Messiah was already well defined in the popular
mind, which could easily fill up the outlines. In the
age of Isaiah such vagueness is inconceivable.2 Both
these additions, when accepted as Isaiah‘s, cauld not
but distort the interpretation of the portions really due
to the prophet.
The next prophecy is 10 5-126, to which 98 r71-104
was prefixed-bya later editor, probably to fillp; the
., Chaps.
5- space on a roll which was too large for
126; g8c7,-104; the prophecy 105-1116. Originally this
fine passage, which is hardly to be
105-llr6
526.30.
combined with 5 26-30,~belonged to
the same group of prophecies as 51-7
a n d 8-24 (see above, 8 ) . It is nearly in its original
f o r m ; but, besides minor changes due to accident,
9 14 [Ig] f. and 104a have been substituted for passages
which had become illegible. The latter is the most
important because (as rightly emended by Lagarde) it
contains a reference to Beltis and Osiris which is un-
expected in this context4 Chap. 10 is Isaianic, but,
even apart from the editorial insertions (see SBOT), does
not all come from one time. Vu. 276-32 are clearly an
insertion from some other source ; ;.e., they were not
written as a part of Isaiah‘s great ‘ woe’ upon the
Assyrian. The passage describes the expected march
upon Jerusalem of a foe from the N., and Duhni
doubts whether a passage so full of plays upon names
can be Isaiah‘s. If it is not Isaiah’s, one might
plausibly ascribe it to Micah, who, in the bitterness of
his spirit, makes very similar plays on the names of
towns in danger of capture from the Assyrians (Mic. 1
10-15). W e may probably date it 722 B.c. 10 16-27a,
a t any rate, is certainly not Isaiah‘s. It refers, it is
true, to the Assyrian invasion ; but it treats this as typical
of the attack of the assembled heathen nations on
Jerusalem expected by late eschatological writers. It
tells us of the great final judgment on all YahwA‘s
enemies, from which transgressors within Zion itself
will not be exempt (cp. Is. 128 3314, and passages in
the Psalms). There is, however, a bare possibility
that some scarcely intelligible fragments of Isaiah may
have been worked into his material by the editor. The
Isaianic portion, 105-913f., may be dated 711 B.C.
T o this composite work (ch. 10) three appendices were
attached-(I) the last .(121-6) very late indeed, so ex-
ceedingly poor is it, and so entirely unprophetic in
style.6 (2) The first (111-8) is a description of the
1 See Che. Intr. Is. 44.46 (cp 3ew. ReZ. Lifee, 98-101).
T o the works there cited (against Isaianic origin) add Volz,
D i e vorex2ische Jahwepro#hetie und dev Messias, 57-59 (‘97) ;
Sellin, Serrc66abeZ, 36-38 (‘98). Sellin places the prophecy at
the close of the Exile ; he thinks that it refers to Zerubbabel.
His disparagement of the phraseological argument is inconsist-
ent with his own practice. I t is true however that the text is
in several respects corrupt. I n 94a&1, for ins;ance, it is surely
necessary to read 32Dc 3’Qil: p’?’? (SBOT,Heb. 195).
If this be admitted, Isaiah cannot have written the passage,
for inn and p D , q l are not used by Isaiah. On i1ND no stress
can be laid ; the word is corrupt. See S HOE . The name of the
king. however if the text be emended is not such as Isaiah
would have ddowned (see M E S S IA H, a n i cp Crit. Bid.).
2 The fact that this fine comuosition produced no effect on
Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, is not inconsistent with the
sketch of the growth of the prophecies given in this article
(against Di1lm.-Kittel, go).
8 The phrases in v . 26 are too hyperbolical as applied to the
Assyrians. Peiser and Wi. acutely find a reference to the Cim-
merians (cp 4 5-819-31).
4 See G EB A L i., and for a parallel see CHIUNand SICCUTH.
5 On this point there is unanimity among critics. To make
chap. 12 exilic with Kiinig would be needless caution.
2195
ISAIAH, BOOK
Messiah as a Derfect ruler-a countemart of 96r;l f.
- - ”~
8. Appendices It is not well linked to the context. A
..
11 1-8Io-rb ;
. .- better connection was Droduced for the
la former passage (92-7 fr-6]), though in
1-6.
neither case is any mention made of
that sifting of the population of Jerusalem to which
Isaiah (12 5 ) refers as a condition of better government.
There is also none of Isaiah‘s classic moderation in the
terms of the description. The elaborate description
of the transformation of the animal world, and the
extravagance of v. 46, is in the taste of the later
period.
( 3 ) The second appendix (1110-16) is marked out as
such with singular definiteness. Whoever wrote 112-9
certainly regarded it as a suitable close. On the other
hand, we can well understand a subsequent writer
wishing to insert something on the restoration of the
exiles of Israel and Judah. The style is poor (note
the impossible expression ‘ r6Ot of Jesse ’ for the Messi-
anic king) ; the rhythm still poorer ; the phraseology
and ideas late. ‘Assyria’ means to the writer the
Persian empire. This is one of the most assured and
suggestive results of criticism.
W e have now analysed all the first part of our Book
> I I . .
of Isaiah (chaDs. 1-12). and Dass on to a collection of
9. Chaps.13-23. ten oracles (13-23), mostly on the
neichbours of the Israelites. each with
0
a heading containing the word maiki (N&J)-an ex-
pression which specially belongs to collectors and editors
(cp also 306, where it forms part of a Iate insertion).
a. Four short passages, however (1424-27 1712-14 18
203-6), strike the eye as having no editorial headings.
These must once have stood in some other connection ;
all appear to be genuine works of Isaiah. ( I ) The first
is perhaps the true conclusion of Isaiah‘s prophecy on
the failure of the plan of the Assyrian king (105-1s; see
ISAIAH i., 5 13). ( 2 ) The second is either an appendix
attached by Isaiah to 171-11 (see below), or a short ~
independent prophecy of uncertain date. ( 3 ) The third
(which has a late, artificial appendix, u. 7) belongs to
the time of Sennacherib’s invasion (Duhm, Cheyne).
!4) The fourth, as the brief historical preface states,
is contemporary with the siege of Ashdod by Sargon in
7 1 1 B.C. It has been thought to predict the ruin of
Egypt and Ethiopia ; but upon archaeological grounds
must be held to refer rather to the fate anticipated
for Pir’u, king of Musri (to whom Yaman, king of
Ashdod, fled for refuge). See ASHDOD, MIZRAIM, a 6.
This Pir’u, not the Egyptian Pharaoh, is the king
who will grievously disappoint the Judahites, accord-
ing to Is. 20 Sf:, to which 306 is parallel, in complete
accordance with Sargon’s own statement in the frag-
mentary cylinder text. The opening verse therefore
comes from some ill-informed early editor or biographer. a
6. (1-2). Of the ten o r a c h with headiagsgs, only two
can be regarded as certainly Isaianic-viz. ( I ) 171-6
9.11,~ and ( 2 ) 221-14 15-18. (I) The former was evi-
dently written before 7 2 0 ; ( 2 ) the latter falls into
two parts, of which the first (I SAIAH i., § 17) may
have been written in 701, and the second a year
or two earlier. Kuenen’s former view that 228-11
is an imaginary description can hardly be maintained ;
but it is probable that the descriptions in WV. 5-7 8-10
1 See Infr. Is. 62-66; Jm.ReL Life, 101-104. Sellin’s
remark (Seru66ada2,38) that, though this prophecy might also
have been written at the end of the Exile, or shortly before
Haggai, it contains nothing inconsistent with Isaiah‘s author-
ship implies a wrong point of view. Considering the frag-
meniary state of the prophecies ascribed to Isaiah, we have to
ask, not, Can we with some ingenuity imagine Isaiah uttering
this or that passage? but, To what period does this anonymous
fragment of prophecy most naturally belong?
2 So first Wi. Musri 2 4 : cp SBOT ‘ Isa.’ (Heb.). In Zntr.
Is. IZO the Sargon-te‘xt is cited ; but Pir’u is wrongly taken to be
=Pharaoh (so Schr. and formerly Wi.). At this period, however,
as Winckler has shown, Egypt had not yet begun again to he a
factor in Asiatic politics.
3 On the interpolated passage (v. 7J) see Intr. Is. 93, and
cp especially Stade, Z A TW3 10-13 (‘83).
2196
 ISAIAH, BOOK
have been amplified. On the text of this most import-
a n t prophecy ( 2 2 1 - 1 4 ) see SBOT (Heb.) 197.
(3) 1428-32 may plausibly be claimed for Isaiah. In
721 (or 720) Sargon was completely defeated by the
Elamites at Dur-ilu in N. Babylonia (Dab. Chron. B, col.
1,lines 33-35 ; ICB 2 276J), which led to a pretty general
rising in Syria and Palestine. Hauun, king of Gam,
with the help of the N. Arabian Musri (see MIZRAIM,
3 2 6 ) , again -asserted his independence. Both in the
N. and in the S . , however, Sargon put down the
rebellions, and Hanun fell into the hands of the
Assyrians. Foreseeing this, Isaiah may have written
this prophecy ; on the other hand, the headings are not
generally so accurate, and the language used of Zion
seems to Duhm' more in accordance with post-exilic
views than with Isaiah's. Even Winckler, to whom
(-4T Unters. 1 3 5 3 ) the above historical explanation
belongs, feels compelled to sacrifice \my ??:?, ' the poor
,of his people' (v. 32) as post-exilic in appearance (in
spite of 102). Marti agrees with Duhm, and the present
writer now coincides. See I SAI AH i., 5 12 ; SBOT
(Heb.) 195 ; but cp. In&. Is.80-82.
(4-8) There are also prophecies in which it has been
suspected that there is at least an Isaianic element-
viz., (4),chaps. 1 5 J ; (?), (6), and(7), 2111-17; (8), 23.
As to (4), the only portion which can be at all plausibly
viewed as Isaianic is 16 14 (beginning ' I n three years ').
1646-5 has also been regarded as a scrap of Isaiah's work.
At any rate it has the appearance of being an insertion. T o
regard it as Isaianic, however, is reasonable only if the prophecy
i n which it is enclosed can be shown to be an older work adopted
by Isaiah 2 and against Isaiah's authorship is the striking
resemhlan:e between v. 46 and 2920, and between v. 5 and 96
Isif: (passages suspected of being late).
Nor is it in accordance with the critical results obtained
elsewhere to regard part of 16 14 a5 Isaianic ; those phraseologi-
cal points in it which at one time seemed Isaianic are now
rightly viewed in a different light (=.E., 7 BVD is suspicious,
j u s t because it appears also in 1025 2917y. The original elegy
on Moab may be most plausibly referred to the time of
Nebuchadrezzar ; but not on grounds derived from parallel
passages in Jer. 48 (see J EREMIAH ii., $ II&).
As to oracles ( 5 ) , (6), and (7),21 16J shares the same
suspicion as 1 6 1 4 , and is best regarded as post-exilic.
The two oracles in 21 X I J and 13-15suggest the danger
to which Edom and Arabia were exposed, either from
ASur-bBni-pal.(Wi. A T Unfers. 124),or from the later
Chaldean invasion (Che.). As to oracle (8), Dillmann's
view that an Isaianic elegy on Tyre was retouched on a
large scale by a post-exilic writer is the most conserva-
tive view which has still any claim to be considered.
The blockade of Tyre by Shalmaneser IV. (who died during
the blockade) and Sargon must have greatly interested Isaiah,
and the prophet, if he described the fate of Damascus and
Philistia, is not very likely to have passed over that of Tyre.
Still it is on the whole hardly worth while to search chap. 23
for fragments of a prophecy on Tyre by Isaiah ; the results of
a n analysis are too precarious, especially if we take account of
recent proposed emendations of the text. We may, it is true,
Teasonably suppose w.1-12 14 to be of comparatively earlydate,
though not Isaianic. I t was a t any rate written before Nebu-
chadrezzar's siege of Tyre in 586-573 B.C. ZI. 13, which is a
prophecy of the capture of the city by the Chaldeans, is
clearly a later insertion ; it is the work of a post-exilic editor
who held the mistaken opinion that Tyre had been stormed
and destroyed by Nehuchadrezzar. The epilogue (717,. 15-15,
all i n prose, except the dance-song in v. 16) is by another hand,
and is also obviously post-exilic.
(9) Of the ten oracles with headings two still remain
t o be mentioned-(9) chaps. 13-1421and (IO) chap. 19.
(9) a. S o far as the oracle on Babylon (chap. 13) is con-
cerned, the older critics gave tbe correct date; chap. 13,
1 Duhm dates this prophecy between the battle of Issus (333)
and the capture of Tyre and Gazi by Alexander ( 3 3 ~ )and~ eve?
suggests that the name ' Ahaz' has taken the place of ' Arses
king of Persia from 338 to 336 B.C.
2 So Kuenen in r863; Che. Proplt. Is. 1 9 6 J ; Dillm.
yes. q 6 f : In 1889 De!. (yes. 231) described this as 'at present
the prevailing opinion. Later criticism, however, has attacked
it with some vigour. See Duhm's commentary, and Che.
Znfr. Is. 8 6 3 Driver's suggestion that the body of the
prophecy may have been written by Isaiah in anticipation of
Tiglath-pileser's foray in E. Palestine in 734 (Isaiah, 91 r881)
may be mentioned.
2197
ISAIAH, BOOK
which is closely related to, but earlier than, Jer. 50J (see
JEREMIAH ii., 0 11 8 )is of not much earlier date than
chap. 40 etc. p. The ode 'on the king of Babylon,'
however (144d-zr), can hardly have been written by the
author of the oracle.
14 I-4a and vv. z z f : (which stand outside both oracle and ode,
and are more inelegant in style than either) must surely belong
to an editor, who probably took the ode from an anthology.
The ode (1446-21) is parallel to the poem on Sennacherib in
37226-29,' and both songs most probably refer to the same
Assyrian king ('king of Babylon ' in 1 4 4 is therefore a mistake).2
That Isaiah would have expected or even wished Sennacherih
to be excluded from the royal tombs is indeed most unlikely.
The fact that the poet did both wish and expect this contumely
for Sennacherib only confirms the view that the author of the
ode was not that qreat prophet.3 The phraseology the aritici-
pations, and the ideas of the song are alike oppAsed to the
theory of its Isaianic authorship. See I SAIAH i., 9: 19.
(I O ) Chap. 19 is one of the most difficult sections of
the first half of Isaiah.
I t seemed natural that the prophet should have left some
more definite record of his expectations for Egypt than is to be
found in chap. 20 or chaps. 30f: Eichhorn, however could
not see anything Isaianic either in the main prophecy 0: in the
supplement (uv. 16 or 18-25), and Ewald found such a falling off
in the style that he felt obliged to assign it to Isaiah's declining
years. The present writer till 1892 thought that a t any rate
vv. 1-4 and 11-15 contained an Isaianic element. H e now
recognises that even this is too conservative a view, and that
the points of contact with Isaiah are not greater than can be
accounted for by imitation.
Not only 195-10, but also vv. 1-4 and 11-15 are post-
exilic. The ' harsh lord ' ( v . 4 ) is not Ah-biini-pal,
but some Persian king ; the writer may not have meant
any single king. Stylistic and exegetical data point
unmistakably to the Persian period, though not neces-
sarily to so late a date as the time of Artaxerxes Ochus
(so Duhm).
The supplement (vv. 16 or 18 to z g ) , which possesses
the highest religious interest, still more manifestly
belongs to the time when the fusion of Israelites and
non-Israelites first became a reasonable anticipation-
L e . , to the early Greek period. Before 275 it can
hardly have been written. See H ERES, and cp SBOT
' Isa.' (Heb.) on 1 9 1 8 , and T L Z ' 9 6 , no. 20, col. 522.
(11) Chap. 211-10. For a time the present writer
(supported by Driver) accepted the view of Kleinert
( S t KY. 1877 p. 174 8 ) that Is. 2 1 1 - 1 0 was Isaianic
and related to one of the three sieges of Babylon by the
Assyrians (710,703, and 696 B . C . ) . The chief ad-
vantage of that view is that it affords a ready explana-
tion of the grief which the prophet expresses at the
' hard vision announced' to him. The difficulties of
the view cannot, however, be completely surmounted
(see Znfr. Zs. 1 2 3 8 ) . Driver (Zntrud.) too has fully
abandoned Kleinert's attractive view. Winckler's view
( A T Unters. 1 2 0 3 ) that the war between ASur-bbi-
pal and his brother SamaS-Sum-ukin is referred to, has
also not found acceptance. W. H. Cobb (JBL1 7 4 0 8 )
revises the theory of Isaiah's authorship. He takes
21 1-10 to refer to the invasion of Palestine by Assyria.
Against this see Marti, Jes. 165J Marti's own view,
however, which is an improved form of the usual critical
view, is not free from objection. Elsewhere (see Crit.
Bib.) the present writer has sought to show that the
poem in 211-10 relates really, not to Babylon, but to
Edom, which, in later times, came to be regarded as
Israel's arch enemy. The emendations that seem
necessary relate mainly to proper names.
1 Cp Budde Z A T T V l 2 3 2 f : ('92).
2 Cobb ([Bk 1896 p. 31) thinks that 'king of Bahylon'is here
used as a title of an Assyrian king, since Sennacherib, as well
as Sargon and Tiglath-pileser, repeatedly calls himself 'king of
Eabylon.' The supposition is as needless as it is improbahle.
The introduction to the ode can easily Le shown to be of late
editorial origin.
3 Winckler who originally proposed to explain the ode of
Sennacherib (ALtor. Forsch. 193f: ; so Cohb, / E L , 1896, p. z8),
now finds it necessary to interpret I t of the murder of Sargon
(;b. 414). Maurice, quoted by Strachey (Jewish History and
PoZifics 166), va4 confident' that the description exactly
answereh to Sennacherib. Plumptre (in Ellicott's O T Com-
mentary) preferred Sargon.
2198
 ISAIAH, BOOK
Let us now turn to that remarkable collection of
prophecies in chaps. 28-33, beginning,
lo* chap' for reasons of convenience, with chap.
32. 323
The phenomena of chapters 32 f.are very peculiar.
That chap. 33 is later than any part of chap. 32 is
certain, both on account of the phraseology and because
of the ideas. It could not indeed otherwise have been
possible for Duhm to assign 321-5 9-14 and 15-18 20 to
Isaiah.
In SBOT321-8 is described as a first, and nv. 9-20 as
a second appendix. It is possible, however, that
Bickell is right in connecting vv. 15-20 (he emends n.
19 with much skill) with nv. 1-5.
The main question is not whether vv. 1-5 (or 1-5 15-20)
are Isaianic or not for the late date of this passage is even
more certain than ;hat of 92-7 r1-61 111-8 2 nor can it be very
much earlier than vv. 6-8 which Duhm ad& to be post-exilic.3
I t is rather this : Are v; 9-14 a genuine though strangely mis-
placed Isaianic fragment, akin to 3 1 6 5 24? It is certainly
conceivable that it once stood at the end of chaps. 28-31, follow-
ing the analogy of that very striking little prophecy (cp Intr.
1s. 180). I n order to recognise it as Isaianic, however, it would
be necessary a t any rate to emend the text and even then there
is a rhetorical indefiniteness which distiiguishes the passage
from 3 1 6 5 24, and does not suggest Isaiah as the author.4
On the whole, the remark of Stade is as true now as
when it was first made, that when we pass from chap.
31 to chap. 32 we find an altogether new set of ideas
and an entirely changed s i t ~ a t i o n . ~
As to chap. 33, so far as it relates to the period of
Sennacherib's invasion it gives in many ways an in-
ll. Chap. 33. accurate biew of the facts. In reality,
however, it is addressed to a later genera-
tion which regards the Assyrian invasion as typical of
later crises in Jewish history. Hence the absence of
any attempt to imitate Isaiah's style ; hence, too, the
liturgical tone which presupposes a not very early part
of the post-exilic period.
The only question is whether we may venture to follow Duhm
and Bickell, the former of whom identifies the enemies referred
t o with the Syrians under Antiochus Eupator (cp zm. 8 19, with
I Macc. 662 29 respectively) and the situation with that pro-
duced by the battle of Bethlzacharias and the capture of Beth-
zur (164 B.c.), when Jerusalem was at the last gasp and the
Jewish revolt seemed almost crushed, whilst the lattir finds in
chap. 33 two Maccabaean poems, the first written after a defeat,
the second after Simon the Maccabee's conquest of the Akra of
erusalem6 (142 B.c.). I t is at least not impossible ; aprophecy
1Tater than zoo B.C. is not indeed to be expected; hut the
phenomena of this appendix to an appendix are somewhat
peculiar. Chap. 33 is more than usually unconnected: it may
therefore he composite. In this case 7,. I will he due to the
editor. Moreover, the exulting tone of the latter part of the
chapter agrees extremely well with Bickell's proposed date.
o'@ (a 14) as a religious class-name (almost = lawless, see
H YPOCRISY) is specially characteristic of Joh which probably be-
longs to the eai-ly Greek period. At the Lame time it is not
impossible that this usage began earlier and that t i e exulta-
tion is a reaction from the preceding nielancholy of the writer
(as often in the psalms). Bickell rearranges too niuch, how-
ever.
The coniposition 'may plausibly be referred to the
dark period of the third Artaxerxes (see Jnh: Zs. 171,f ) ;
but the use of o.?Iq (see above) and the reference to the
Tax-collectors (cp I Macc. 1 . 9 ) in v. 18 (for emended
1 See his article in ZKM, '9,. . and we cannot stop short there. We must evidently include v . 7
2 Duhm thinks that no post-exilic writer would have written
so drily and in such an incidental manner of the expected king.
I t is evident however that there were long spaces in the earlier
post-exilic ;eriod in Ghich the hope of the Messiah was by no
means vital and in which consequently the Messiah would he
spoken of k t h o u t enthusiasm. On the arguments for a late
date see Zntr. Is. 172-175 177-180.
3 'khe passage is too chourless to he dated with precision
but clearly belongs to the age o f the Wisdom-literature, and no:
to any very early part of that period.
4 Stade's objection to ZIV. 9-20, that the passage is inconsistent
with Isaiah's conviction that Yahw&will not let Jerusalem be
captured ( Z A T W 4 260)~ is, however invalid, because Isaiah
does not seem t o have had such a cor&ction a t this period (see
I S A I A H i., S 14). According to Duhm vn. 15-20are of uncertain
origin, but most probably Isaianic; of w. 9-14 he appears to
have no doubt, hut places it in Isaiah's period.
5 Stade %ATW4256('84).
6 ,See B'ickell, ZKM, '97, and see SBOT (Heb.) 106 ; Marti,
Is. in KHC 242.
2=99
ISAIAH, BOOK
text, see S CRIBE), together with the peculiarities of the
poem, incline the present writer to agree with Marti in
dating the work about 163 B.C. The objection drawn
from the history of the canon is no doubt weighty ; but
it is not absolutely conclusive (see C A N O N , 0 39, col.
665,n. I).
The removal of the chaps. just considered ( 3 2 J )
from the work (28-31 : I S A I A H i., 5 14 end) to which
12. Chaps. they are appended makes it somewhat
28-31. easier to appreciate that work. Though
only the framework of chaps. 28-31 is
Isaianic, the inserted passages do not all equally blnr
the outlines of Isaiah's picture of the future. Still we
must not on that account think lightly of the critical
problems which remain. No part of the true Isaiah
has been so systematically manipulated out of regard
to the feelings of later readers as this.
a. Let us first of all take 29 16-24 and 30 18-26.
It is certain from the context that Isaiah was addressing him-
self not to a penitent and believing community which stood in
need of comfort, and whose chief fault was their dreaming of
earthly means of realising God's promises, but to irreligious
politicians and a 'rebellions' unreceptive people. If we apply
the principles set forth above (see 5 4), and ask to what age the
ideas, the expressions, and the situation in 2916.24 3018-26.
most naturally point, we cannot doubt that these passages are
of post-exilic origin and addressed to the same set of people as
32 L-5 15-20. Imagine their being intended for the. same
audience as that which listened to the preceding prophetic
speeches, and we are disposed to doubt Isaiahssanity. By sucha
flattering view of the religious condition of his hearers he would
have defeated his own ohject. Resides what ideas could the
rulers possibly have attached to the description of a spiritually
regenerated people? The mention of a 'great slaughter' when
the 'towers' should fall might perhaps have arrested their
attention; but the only 'slaughter' which they would have
thought of would he that of the Assyrians, whereas the prophetic
writer means a general destruction of all the opponents of what
he regards as the true religion both without and within Jeru-
salem.
The affinity of these passages to the post-exilic type
of thought and expression is too striking to be over-
looked or doubted by the student.
6. Other post-exilic additions are, probably, 2823-29
and 3027-33. The latter passage develops the idea of
the ' great slaughter' (3025); it is more in the manner
of 631-6 (5 21) than in that of the two late additions
just considered, being warlike and grandly, though
luridly, picturesque.
252929, if really Isaiah's, must be addressed to an inner
circle of disciples, who have assimilated the prophetic teaching
of a 'remnant. However, the leading idea of the passage is
characteristically late. Its first OccurIence seems t o be in Jer.
1 0 2 4 ; hut it is not quite certain whether Jer. 1023.25 is
Jeremiah's (see Stade, G e s d . 167611.). As to the phraseology,
?;@ln in v. 29, which occurs only in Prov. and Job (Mic. 6 9 is
corrupt), is perhaps the only very suspicions word. I t is,most
improbable that Isaiah would have used it.
c. The most remarkable insertions of all, however,
are those in 291-8. According to the older critics (see
above, 5 2, i. c), Isaiah put a double-faced enigma
before his hearers, which only excited blank amazement
as being 'out of all relation to the facts' ; but can
the delightful part of the prophecy in vu. 1-8 really have
been written by Isaiah ? Surely not.
Duhm has already recognised later insertions in uv. qb sa 8 ;
among the interpolated passages, for here too we are struck by
the great falling off in the style, and the wide difference in the
picture of the future. ' Rhythm and parallelism came easily to
Isaiah ; there are hut slight traces of them in (all) the passages
assigned here io a later writer. And whereas Isaiah can bear
to contemplate a sore judgment upon Jerusalem, the author o f
m. 5 7 5 has before him a future day when all nations shall
gather together round the holy city, and he cut off' (Inlv. fs.
189). With this view Hackmann agrees. H e is, indeed, its
originator, except that he defends v. 7 hy giving a new turn to
the meaning. I n short, his idea is that the dream in v . 7 is
a figure for the suddenness of the appearance of the foes before
Jerusalem. This is ingenious ; but Hackmann forgets Job 208,
Ohad. 16 (end).
Apart from the interpolations just considered, chap.
1 Though defended as Isaianic by Duhm, it has been doubtpd
by Guthe and Smend. Hackmann (%ukr~n~~sel.wartung, 4zf.)
and Cheyne (Zntr. Is. q g j ? ) regard it as on all grounds post-
exilic.
2200
 ISAIAH, BOOK
29 appears to be a combination of three distinct
prophecies (each very short but very striking) dealing
respectively with the destruction of Jerusalem, the
culpable insensibility of the rulers to the divine teaching,
and the fatal consequences of a formal religion. Chap.
2915 contains a fragment of a prophecy on the
Egyptian alliance ; and there are two more fragments
on the same subject in 301-35 and 311-5a.l 308-17
clearly formed the close of an ancient prophetic col-
lection; 3 0 1 - 3 (with 4 5 4 and the supplement 67a)
must have been misplaced.
Except 281-4, the Isaianic prophecies may e
assigned to 703-702 B.C. ; the oracle2 is earlier, and p$-
supposes the siege of Samaria. 28 7-22 may belong to
703 ; it gives a warning to Jerusalem, suggested by the
doom of Samaria.
The difference between the older and the newer
criticism is perhaps even more conspicuous in the group
13. Chaps. of chapters (24-27) placed before that
24-27. which we have been discussing. (i.)
Referring by way of contrast to what
Kuenen thought in 1863 (above, J 2 iv. a ) , let us see what
Duhm thought in 1892. ( a ) His method is that which
all good critics now employ ; he begins, that is, by
removing later accretions.
Among these he classes (I) the song in 251-5, which com-
memorates the destruction of a strong city and states that on
this account another mighty city will p;aise God. (2) the
taunting song on Moab, 259-11 ; ( 3 ) an artistic poem) (26 T-19)
which stands alone in the OT in respect of the many variants
which have penetrated into the text ; and (4) the little song in
272-5.
The prophecyitself comprises chaps. 24256-8 2620-27I
IZJ
278 is a quotation from the margin, which roperly speaking
illustrates z). TO and is therefore misplaced, w h t TU. 79-11 are
the remainder of an exhortation to the Jews to break off from
their sins, and so become entitled to deliverance, which is
certainly parenthetical and very possibly a later insertion.
(6) Let us then look first at the prophecy or
' apocalypse.'
I t describes the desolation of a great world-empire by war,
and closes with the final judgment upon Israel's oppressors,
the setting up of the divine throne in the holy city, and a
festival, full of refreshment and consolation, for all peoples.
The author, Duhm thinks, lived under John Hyrcanus ;
he saw thesiege of Jerusalem and the devastation of
Judah by Antiochus Sidetes, the beginning of the war
with the Parthians, in which the Jews were forced to
take part ( B .c. IZ~),and the defeat and death of
Antiochus (B.c. 128). The last is the event obscurely
referred to in 2414-16a, which the writer cannot for
his part regard as a happy omen, because the barbarous
Parthians will invade and devastate Palestine. In 25
1-5 Duhm finds the exultation of the Jews at the
destruction of Samaria, and the demolition of the
temple on Mount Gerizim ; the ' city of nations ' is
Rome (cp Schurer, Iewish People, i. 1 2 7 7 ) . The same
background is assigned to 261-19 ; 25g-n, however,
Duhm refers to the time of King Alexander Jannaeus,
who made theMoabites pay tribute (Jos. Ant.xiii. 135).
(ii.) The last of the dates just quoted is the least
important; the Moabites were not dangerous to the
Jews in post-exilic times. The reference to them in 25
9-11 is probahly arc ha is ti^.^ The other dates are
rather plausible. The Parthians did not indeed actually
invade Palestine before B.C. 40 (cp Enuch 5 6 5 f . and
Dillmann's note); but the author may have expected that
they would' do so in 128. The hatred of the Jews for
the Samaritans might well find expression in a psalm,
1 30 1-3 relates to the embassy to Egypt and is Isaianic. m.4
5a are a late insertion based on a fragment (vu. 66 7a) which
described the flight of uanun, king of Gaza, and his followers
to Pir'u king of M q r i in N Arabia(see MlzRAlM $26). Cp this
late inlertion with 366 (aiio late), and see Wi.'Musri, 134f:
30 76 is a late insertion of a scribe (see RAHAB): 31 56-9 is
composite, but altogether post-exilic (Intr. Is. 2 0 3 x ) .
2 2 8 5 3 is obviously Messianic in the wider sense, and is a
later insertion addressed to the post-exilic community.
8 Cp Bertholet, Die SfeZZung der ZsraeZiten, etc., 237.
4 I&. Is. 159 ; cp Smend, Z A T W 4209 212.
71 2201
ISAIAH, BOOK
and the poor style of the song in 25 1-5 favours a late
date. These passages, however, are admittedly accre-
tions. Their date is of less importance than that of the
main prophecy or apocalypse, which refers to so many
popular religious beliefs.
T o Duhm's date for the main prophecy there are
objections derived from the history of the Canon (see
C ANON , J 39, cp n. I , col. 665). Strong reason is
required for making any considerable part of Isaiah
later than zoo B. c. Chap. 33 indeed, as an ' appendix
to an appendix,' may, since internal evidence favours
this, be made Maccabsran ; but can we venture to assign
the important collection of prophecies and songs in
chaps. 24-27 to a period even later thanThe Maccabees?
The matter concerns the history of religious ideas as
well as of literature. Will not the period of the fall of
the Persian and the rise of the Grzco-Macedonian
empire answer all the requirements of the passages? It
is a pity that the historical evidence is not stronger ; but
Marti's treatment of it in his commentary is certainly
too superficial.
The opening section is the monument of a time of long-
continued misery in Syria and Palestine. Such a time began
under Artaxerxes 11. and lasted till the consolidation of the
power of the Ptolekes in Palestine (301). The frequent
passage of Persian armies marching to Egypt must have caused
much distress to the Jews; and once, if not twice, they were
concerned in a revolt against Persia. Cruelly did Artaxerxes
punish them ; as Noldeke says 'much blood appears to have
been shed in Judaea' at this time.' Most probably too Robertson
Smith is right in transferring the defilement'of ;he temple
mentioned by Jos. (Anf.xi.71) to this period,l and seeing in
the narrative a legendary or even p?triotic distortion of facts.
T h e phrase 'the city (or, perhaps, cities) of destruction' (24 IO)
may allude to the fate of Sidon and (Jerpsalem ; it would be
unsafe to add of Jericho.2 26 1-19 a liturgical poem) may
describe the feelings of the pious community of Jerusalem when
their city had been spared by the army of Alexander. They
were deeply grateful for this, but were still painfullyconscious of
the ruin wrought by the tyrant Ochus. T h e deportation of
many Jews to Hyrcania and elsewhere3 had made a gap
in the population, and only by a 'dew of healing' (read
DC274 s@) from God could the martyrs be restored to their
brethren. For a study of the ideas, phraseology, and situation,
see Znfr. Is. 145.162; and see below (0 2 1 ) on 637-6412[11].
Chaps. 24-27 were prefixed to chaps28-33 to indicate
-
that for the Dost-exilic aee the chief interest of the
14. Arrange- latter group of prophecies was eschato-
The two closely related com-
of chaps. 1ogi:aI.
positions in chaps. 34f: were doubt-
24-35. less added to promote the same interest.
The former chap.34 (observe the strange use made of
popular superskons), is sombre in the extreme, I t relates to the
great future iudement uoon the hostile nations. These nations
;re spcuially' rci;rcicntcci IJY the arch-enenly lidoin (cp i;Y 14),
f r m i whom some fresh outrage iiiuht have been snKcrcd not lung
i d o r e the IJr<Jphecyw a s wrillen. ']'hi3 outrage \!'as presumahiy
coiinected wirh the further progreas of the Edomite iinnligratioii
into the S. of Jiidiih.4
'J'he cornpailion prophecy chap. 35, makes up for thc horrors of
chap. 34. It rclxtci to the return of the Jewish cxiles and thc
glorificatioii of their land.
According to Lhihm, the author of thcsc works wrote
also Jer. 5Of. : but why? Surely tllrre were other
iiiembcrs of thc sanie school who wcrc cnpable of
producing or redartiiig this final outburst of wrath at
lhbylon. XI1 that wc have n right to say is that these
various works werc written in I'alestinc nearly at the
same tinic in the post-exilic period. If the h l T of 34
160 is correct, the collcction of real a n d supposed
Isainriic prophccics to \vhich chops. 34f: had latcly bccn
1 OTJCf? 435 : so Judcicli, Kleilrasinfisclre Studien, 7 7 6 ;
Clie. .Vew W o h ' , Sept. '+ ; perhaps alio lye. I]C cd. 148.
2 Solinus (35 4 hloinmsen) say, that Jcricl~u,which snccwded
ierusilcrn :IS the capit:il of Judza, \vas suhdued by Artaxerxci;
u t t l i i a has h e n shown by Keinach (in .S',mific Sftidrjs,in
MLNZD of ~A.
I hoAo/l,if,, 4 5 7 8 ['97]) to refer to the inva5ion
of I'alustine by Ardx,hw, the founder of the dvnabiv of the
Saswiiidx, u Iio came iuto conflict wit11 tlie einpeior Akxander
Severus.
Syncellus (lhdorf), 1q&. ' The notice is heyond doubt '
(Rlarqrmrt, U d e ~ . s ~Z~ I I Yh GescA.
. ?'on 1:'mn 26 ['56]). iiote
the Jtxvisli name Hyrcanus. Artnpnnus too-; Je\vir;ll Hcllcnist
-bears n Hyrcanian name(Marq.).
4 See Nuon, % 91: : and cp Torrey, J B L 17 i 6 f . ; Che. In&.
Is. z ~ JLU ~ 17J 2 0~ 7 ~
2202
 ISAIAH, BOOK
attached were already a book of Yahwe’-Le., a (Duhm would say 40-55) ; he was right, at any rate
sacred scripture. These two prophecies, then, were
very probably the latest of the group.
To an equally late period we must refer the appending
of certain narratives (chaps. 36139) to
15’ Chaps’ which reference has been made already (see
36-39’ I SAIAH i., 5 6).
These narratives which are derived ultimately from prophetic
biographies,l agrle in most respects with the text of 2 K.
18 13 17-2019. The older critics were in the main right ; but
their analysis of the narratives was incomplete, and they gave
too much credit for accuracy to the account as a whole. Under
the influence of this impression they assigned too early a date to
the historical document from which it seemed to be derived.
It has been shown (especially by Stade and Duhm)
that Is. 36-39 consists of two distinct narratives : ( a )
36 1-37gfZ3 7 J , ( 6 ) 3796-36 3 8 J
(a) Psalm.-As to the inserted passage, 389-20
(Mikti6h of Hezekiah) which Knenen in 1863 did not
deny to Hezekiah, there can no longer be any doubt that
it is a post-exilic thanksgiving-psalm on the deliverance of
the faithful community of Israel from some great danger
(cp Ps. 30) ; the song or ‘ supplication ’ (see MICHTAM)
is not found in the parallel section of Kings.
(p)MishiL-Another passage, which to the last was
held by Kuenen to be Isaiah‘s (though he recognised the
weight of the counter arguments), and certainly belongs
to the original narrative (more strictly to the second of
the narratives) is held by Stade,3 Duhm, Cheyne, and
Marti to be certainly post-exilic. This is 37726-32.
Evidently this was taken by the narrator (or more prob-
ably by the first editor) from some lyric anthology, such
as that from which we have already supposed the song
in 144b-21 to have been taken. It is in fact a fine ‘ dra-
matic lyric’ (cp Pss. 46 48), showing at once a vivid
realisation of the traditional story, and a sense of its
continued value to the community, which (as we have
seen) regarded the invasion of Sennacherib as typical of
a great future event.
The final redaction of the first half of Isaiah may be
dated (like the appendix to chap. 19) about 250-
220 B.c. ; but this is not free from doubt.
On chaps. 40-48 we can be somewhat briefer. Taking
this collection for the moment as a unit, and putting
16.Chaps, aside all but historical considerations, we
can no more dream of assigning it to Isaiah
40-48.
than of ascribing ‘ By the waters of Babylon
we sat down and wept ’ (Ps. 137 I ) to the authorship of
David. There might have been a case for the Isaianic
origin of ‘ Go ye out from Babylon ’ (48 zo), if only the
passage had run, ‘ Behold, in the latter days my people
shall go forth from Bahylon.’ There might have been
a case for such an origin of ‘Thus saith Yahwb to
Cyrus’ (451), and of * O u r holy and our beautiful
house ... is burned u p ’ (6411[1o]), if these passages
had been introduced by ‘ Behold, I will raise up a king,
Cyrus by name,’ and ’ In days to come Yahw&will send
fire upon Jerusalem.’ No literary critic, however,
would dream of supposing that the author of chaps. 40-
66 was a prophet of the eighth century who had become
dead to his actual present, and lived again in imagina-
tion among men still unborn.4
On this point the newer critics have nothing to add
to what was so well said by Kuenen in 1863. Indeed,
that eminent critic in his earlier stage was right both
positively and negatively as regards chaps. 40-48
1 KBnig (EinZ. 266) also recognises that these narratives came
from a separate work of prophetic origin.
2 See Che. Profih. I s . 1218f., Intr. I s . 2 2 4 8 ; Skinner,
Isaiah 1-3?, p. 278, who holds, however, that the song is ba4ed on
a reco;d of individual experience, which was adapted for use in
the temple by an editor.
3 8ee.KINGs BOOKSOF $ 9 .
4 This was I&g the theory by which Franz Delitzsch sought
to reconcile the requirements of criticism and of orthodox
theology.
5 The later insertions (apart from the Songs on the Servant)
detected by recent critics in chaps. 40-48 cannot be discussed
here. The most remarkable of these are to be found in chap. 48.
The editor has actually interspersed the Second Isaiah’s writing
2203
ISAIAH, BOOK
negatively, as regards chaps. 56-66. Where he failed
was in not giving due weight to certain phenomena in the
second part of chaps. 40-66 which (as conservative
critics saw) pointed away from Babylon as the place,
and from the closing years of the Exile as the time of
composition.1
It is this second part of chaps. 40-66 that we have
now to consider.
The first question is, Have chaps. 49-55
17*gtlr been rightly assigned to the Second Isaiah?
( a ) Kuenen himself in 1889 already saw
the difficulty of his former position.
H e came to the conclusion that chaps. 501: 54A were written
after the return from Babylon and even expressed some doubt
whether chap. 49 should not ’be added to the group (Ond.14
2 1373.1.42). In 536 B.C. the Second Isaiah might have brought
the original Prophecy of Restoration to Judxa (i6. 145); and
Kuenen thought it not unreasonable to credit the same great
writer with the composition of the four chapters just mentioned.
(a) Kosters, too, who did not accept the tradition of
a return in 536, was of opinion that 49 12-26 51 1-16
51 17-521254J cannot have the same origin as chaps.
40-48. They were written, according to him, in
Palestine, .but not by the Second Isaiah. The following
are Koster’s arguments.
I. As to style and diction. There is no doubt a general
resemblance to chaps. 40-48. But observe that nowherein these
passages are the persons addressed described collectively as
‘Jacob’ and ‘ Israel,’ and that in 52 I Jerusalem is called the
‘holy city’ (~l?:~l’p), a characteristically late phrase, found
also in 48 2 (which is probably interpolated), and in Neh. 11I 18
Dan. 9 24 ; cp also 64 I O [91, ‘ thy holy cities ’ (sf12 ‘lg).
2. As to contents. Almost throughout, the point of view is
shifted from the exiles at Babylon to the small and struggling
community of Zion. There .are indeed points of contact with
the preceding prophecies ; but this only proves that the writer
of this section was acquainted with the other work, not that he
wrote it. Moreover, when he comes to speak of the departure
of the exiles from Babylon, his expressions are inconsistent with
those of a parallel passage in the other work3 (contrast 52 12,‘not
in hurry shall ye go out,’ with 48 20, ‘flee ye from Chaldaea’),
and if not in 5210.12, yet in 491218 he admits the idea of a
general retnrn of the Diaspora, which is not mentioned in the
earlier chapters but was one of the chief hopes of the later Jews.
(See also Kuedeu’s argument from internal evidence, 0nd.P)
i 138, or Inntr. 1 s . 2963).
(c) On the other hand, several things must be
observed.
( I ) The disputed passages are written in the manner of
11. Isaiah, and contrast strongly with chaps. 58-66; (2)
they display an optimistic idealism which residence in the
Jerusalem of Haggai and Zechariah would have speedily
diminished :4 and (3) the address in 55 2, appropriate enough
for a preacher in Babylonia, would have sounded hollow and
insincere if spoken at Jerusalem.
Thus the evidence does not all point in one direction,
and a reconciling theory is required. Let us then
suppose that the passages in question were written in
Babylonia by a writer of the school of 11. Isaiah, but
with an eye to the circumstances of Judza. The
writer’s object was partly to induce Babylonian Jews
with severe reproaches addressed to his own contemporaries,
whom he conceived to have fallen back into obstinate unbelief
(see ‘ Isaiah ’ SBOT). Nor can we here consider the question
Where did 6 e author of chaps. 40-48 live? Probably the righi
answer is, at Babylon. See Intr. Zs. 273-276, 2 8 2 s
1 In 1880.81 the present writer began, not from a conservative
point of view, to set forth these phenomena on a large scale, and
to indicate the provisional conclusions to which they appeared
‘
to-lead (see Projkecies ofIsuia/i, and the art. Isaiah’ in Ency.
Brit.(@)).H e has lately (1895.97) summed up the results of a
second period of study in the Introduction io Zsaiuh and in his
contributions on Isaiah to SBOT. To these works and to
Duhm’s commentary (which has given the first complete ex-
planation of the historical background of most of Is. 56-66) be
must send the reader for a fuller treatment of the subject.
[Marti’s fine commentary can now be added.] See also the im-
portant critical notes on Isaiah in Stade’s GVZ, vol. I , which
really opened the subject to discussion.
2 49 1-11 50 52 13-53 12 be treats in another connection. See
farther on in this article ($ 18).
‘
3 Kosters also refers to D@?, from thence,’ in 52 I I , as proving
that the writer was not at the time in Bapylonia; but in
48 20 we have ‘ from Babylon ‘ from Chaldxa.
4 The words, ‘ the people ’in whose heart is my law’ (51 7),
would be strange indeed if written at Jerusalem.
2204
 ISAIAH, BOOK
to go to Judaea and assist in the regeneration of Israel,
partly to encourage sorely tried workers in Jerusalem,
such as Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.
Sellin (Seru66akl, ' 9 9 ) has endeavoured to show that
chaps. 4 0 - 5 5 were written, not in Babylonia, but at
Jerusalem between 515 and 500 B.c., to comfort the
Jews for the failure of the high hopes attached to ZERUB-
BABEL [P.v.]. Those passages which seem to refer to
the fall of Babylon heregards as having been written by
the same author at Babylon about 545 B . C .
The passages which are most certainly Babylonian are, Sellin
thinks 40 18-20 41 2-4 41 6-8 [41 17-20?] 41 25 42 14-16 43 1-8 43 14
449-1: 4426-28 45 1-13 46 ~ f 6-8 : 106 IT 47 48 14 ( z o f i ? ) . The
reference in various passages to 'the former things' (41 22 42 g
43g[?11 469) with which 'new things' (429 486) or ' a new
thing' (43 19) are contrasted is explained by this theory. The
successes of Cyrns are the 'former things' prophesied some
thirty years ago, the glorification of Israel and the accomplish-
ment of God's purposes for the world through Zernhbabel, as
the Messianic king of Israel, are the 'new things' now just
being aunounced.2 When the hopes attached to Zerubbabel
failed in one sense the prophet was still able to look forward to
their realisation i i a n o t h e r (see chap. 53).
It is absolutely impossible to accept this theory as a
whole. But to those who do not accept Kosters' theory
(that chaps. 4 9 - 5 5 are a later appendix to chaps. 4 0 - 4 8 )
it may seeni plausible to hold that chaps. 40-55 were
written at Bu6ybn with the object of encouraging the
community of Jerusalem to hope for a speedy regenera-
tion, and of stimulating patriots in Babylonia to go
to Jerusalem and help forward the cause of progress.
We say ' a t Babylon,' because certain passages pre-
suppose that Jerusalem is desolate, which, strictly
speaking, it was 'not. Only a writer living at a dis-
tance from Judaea can have indulged in such idealism.
Another difficult problem .relates to the four very
beautiful songs on the Servant of Yahwe (421-4 491-6
18. Servant of 504-9 5 2 1 3 - 5 3 12). It has been doubted
Yahwe songs. whether these songs are exilic or post-
exilic. A careful exegesis, however,
proves that they could be removed without material
injury to their surroundings, and that the tone of
thought differs from that of the prophecies among
which they are placed. They must have received
their present position from a later editor, who wrote
425-7 497-9a (or 9-12), but not 50103, which (cp
I n k Is. 3 0 2 3 ) is more recent still. These passages
were designed to link the songs with their prophetic
framework. The inserter and editor cannot be identified
with the Second Isaiah ; still less was he the author of
the songs. H e did his work subsequently to the
expansion of the origiual Book of the Second Isaiah;
in other words, he had before him the main part of
IS.4 0 - 5 5 .
The songs on the Servant of Yahwe have one general
object-that of exhibiting the highest Israelitish ideal in
accordance with law and prophecy. They are not,
however, without differences among themselves, which
require to be studied.
In the first three songs the Servant is ' an imaginative
fusion of all the noble teachers and preachers of the
Jewish religion in and after the time of Ezra,4 those of
whom the writer of Daniel says, " And the teachers shall
shine as the splendour of the firmament, and those who
make the many righteous as the stars for ever and ever "
1 But the text seems to be incorrect (see SBOT ad roc.).
a The 'new things' are here described quite cuirectly, except
so far as relates to Zernbhabel. It is possible that the writer of
chaps. 40-48 did mean to suggest that the successes of Cyrus had
been prophesied a good while before they took place. The
older prophecies were no doubt accommodated by interpreters
t o resent circ Umstances.
ZDuhm; S men$ (A,T ReZ.-gescir. 2605)' Che. Intv. Is.
204 K : SBO3 , Isa. : Schian, Die EJed>ahwe-Lieder in
~ .
.7ei.-4&66 ('95) ;'Kosters; :I"h.7'., '06., D . <88f.:, agree in holding
that the songs on the Servant were not O winally I - . ~ ~ intended for
their present position. On Laue Die E 6 e d Yahme ~.... Lieder im
11. Teii des Jes. ('97), see SBO'T (Heb.) 1 2 6 f : , and on the
views of Sellin, Kittel, and Bertholet, see p. ~ g g f :
4 Duhm rightly points out that the quiet concentrated
character, and the missionary and pastoral acti\;ty ascribed to
the Servant, will only snit the period opened by Ezra.
2205
ISAIAH, BOOK
(Dan. l23).' These the poet may have supposed t o
form a band, whose members would proceed in various
directions to 'bring the law to the nations' ( 4 2 r ) .
Their experiences were not uniformly favourable ; but
they knew that in the end their faith in the God who
sent them would be rewarded.
In the fourth song, however, the conception of the
Servant is somewhat modified. Looking back on the
sufferings of righteous Israelites both under Babylonia
and under Persia, the poet saw them irradiated by a
glorious divine purpose. ' H e fused the different name-
less martyrs into one colossal form, and identified this.
personage with the people of Israel, not perhaps without
a thought of Jeremiah, who certainly regarded himself
as representing the true Israel.' I t would seem that
the opening and closing stanzas (1-3 143,see emended
text in SBOT)were written after the description of the
fortunes of the Servant as a framework to receive it.
Schian and Kosters think that this last of the songs,
was written by a different writer from the rest ; it is the
oldest of the songs according to the former critic, the
most recent according to the latter. The grounds of
this view do not appear to be adequate. Already in the
third song there is an approach to the characteristics of
the fourth, and the phraseology of the latter is much
less obscure than has commonly been thought, if proper
text-critical methods are applied.
C p Budde, ' The so-called " Ebed-Yahweh Songs " etc ' A m .
J. Theoi., '99, pp. 499-540. See further SERVANT 0; T H ~ ~ O R D .
It would seem that after the insertion of the Songs in
Is. 4 0 - 5 5 , a -
prophetic
. writer did them the highest -
19. Soliloquies honour in his power by imitating them.
in Chaps. 61f. Three brief soliloquies of this ideal
personage ( 6 1 1 - 4 u 6 2 1 - 3 and 6 f . ) a r e
introduced in chaps. 6 1 3 (on which see below,"§'zo).
The writer evidently regards the Servant as a personifi-
cation of the company of prophets of whom he himself
is one, and gives vividness to his prophecy by introduc-
ing the Servant of Yahwe first as discoursing on his
delightful mission, and then as importuning YAW&to.
fulfil his promises.'
2o Present
At this uoint the Dresent writer may refer to the
writer,s
critic2 theory (based on-an earlier one
earlier proposed in 1881 in the article ' Isaiah '
in Ency. Byit.) which he put forward
theory' in TOR. Tulv and Oct. 'or.
H e divided the woikbf &e second Isaiah ;,to two books,
viz. (I) chaps. 40-48, and (2) a broken collection of discourses
consisting of chaps. 49 1-521 2 ; 52 13-53 12 (a later insertion b;
the Second Isaiah), 5 4 J , 56 5 7 2 1 (beginning with a long
passage from an older prophet!-and 60-62. The second book,
being left incomplete by the author, was well adapted to receive
additions from the Sophkim or students and editors of the
religious literature. Such gdditional passages were 56 1-8
58J 63-66.
This theory was in advance of the current criticism
of the time, but is now superseded by a more completely
defensible theory.
Chaps. 5 6 - 6 6 contain no works of the Second Isaiah,
but, with the possible (or probable) exception of 6 3 7 -
21. Chaps. 56-i6. 641s belong t o nearly the same
period-that of Nehemiah.
Duhm indeed assigns all these eleven chapters to a single
writer of Nehemiah's age whom he calls Trito-Isaiah (as the
successor of Deutero-Isaiah). The date is, on the whole,
correct, so far as regards 56-63 6 6 5 3 ; this portion gives a vivid
picture of the difficulties with which Nehemiah and Ezra con-
tended and throws fresh light on the dealings of the orthodox
Jews &th the Samaritans2 On the other hand the view that
the book bas anything like literary unity, and h tt: it is the work
of one man is not at all satisfactory. Cp Gressmann, Ue6er die
in Jes. c. ;6-66 vorausgesetzten Vev&Ztnisse ('98) ; Littmann,
Ueher die A6fassungszeii des Trito-jesaia ('99).
We' may hold it to be practically certain that chaps.
6 0 - 6 2 were written as an appendix to chaps. 40-55;
probably the original order was 61 62 60 (cp Duhm).
As to 5 6 9 - 5 7 1 3 ~ 2it, belongs indeed to the same period
1 So Che. I&. Is. 346- but cp Dnhm's commentary.
2 Ed. Meyer (Entst.Jdd. 122) recognises this ; c p also Che.
Jew. ReZ. Lzye, zj-zg, 45.
2206.
 ISAIAH, BOOK
as the surrounding prophecies ; but it shows in a special
degree the influence of Ezekiel.
We now pass to chap. 6 3 7 - 6 4 1 2 [II], which stands
in many respects alone in the prophetic literature. It
is at any rate later than the neighbouring prophecies,'
for though some illustrate it by Neh. 1 2 , the prayer of
Nehemiah there given, and his account of what he
found at Jerusalem, do not correspond to such a terrible
situation as we findin this strange work. That a date
in the age of Nehemiah is impossible cannot indeed be
said, considering how imperfect is our information.
But it is more probable that the work is a fresh monu-
ment (cp on chaps. 24-27, § 13) of the oppression and
persecution of the Jews by Artaxerxes Ochus. Pos-
sibly the opening verses ( 6 3 7 - 1 4 ) were added later to
soften the gloom of the passage (cp Ps. 89).
For objections to this view see G. A. Smith (Hastings' OB,
'2495). and Marti's commentary. (Marti has to account for
649-11 by making it a later addition.) The objections are not
insuperable.
I . The view under consideration separates 637-64 12 [IT] from
the other compositions which make up chaps. 56-06. I t is set
apart already, however, by its form and contents.
2. The passage expresses a consciousness of guilt not to he
found in Pss. 44 74 79, which, also, have been assigned to
the time of Ochus. But it was possible, even after the intro-
.duction of the Law by Ezra, to take different views of the rela-
tion of the people to its God, according to the extent given to
the conception of the people. The inner circle deserved to he
called pious and loyal tn the covenant (Ps. 44 17 [IS] 79 2 ) ; but
the people at large were far from correspondi,ng exactly to this
description. they were 'neither cold nor hot.
3. I n 63 & the possession of the Holy Land is said to have
lasted but ' a little while,' which points to an earlier part of the
posbexilic period. The text, however, is notoriously doubtful.
6 3 18 should be emended thus (see SBOT,' Isa:,' [Heb.] 202)-
Why do the wicked trample thy dwelling-place?
Our adversaries tread down thy sanctuary.
Marti's suggested emendation is hardly an improvement upon
this.
4. I n 64 I I [IO] the temple, over the destruction of which the
liturgical poet laments, is described as a our holy and our glorious
house where our fathers praised thee,' which points to the first
temple. But ( I ) the first and the second temple are regarded
by Haggai (2 3 9) as the same house, and can be so regarded by
another writer and (2) the second temple had no doubt been
enriched by okerings from the Jews abroad before the time of
Ochus (cp Zech. 5 1 0 s ) .
5. Ps. 74 points to the conviction that prophecy has ceased in
Israel. But Is. 637-64 betrays no such conviction. We must,
however, be quite sure of the correctness of the text of Ps. 749.
There is much corruption close by. ' There is no prophet any
inore' is, on more than one ground, to he regarded as a gloss on
.the corrupt reading pi)+,which should be on !,' ('sanctuary').
'There is no longer among us any sanctuary.
There is one alternative, no doubt. This is to suppose that
the authors of Ps. 74 and 79 and of Is. 63 7 etc threw themselves
back imaginatively into the time of the Cialdgan invasion. The
commemorative fast-days would provide a n occasion for this.
(So PSALMS, BOOK OF). This, however, is not quite such a
natural view as that here adopted. One may admit that there is a
general resemblance between most of the products of the later
Persian period ; but those which express the deepest misery can
hardly find a home except in the period of the insane cruelties
of that degenerate Persian king, Ochus. I t is remarkable that
there are parallels of thought, expression, and situation between
Is. 637-64 12 [II], and Ps. 74 and 79, to which Robertson Smith
has already given this date.
To a still later time belong two outbursts of bitter
animosity in 501oJ 6 6 2 3 3
The final redaction of chaps. 40-66 may be placed
with Drobabilitv
' in the earlv Dart of the Greek ueriod.
The first ha:f of the Book of'Isaiah
g & ~ ~ ~ (unless . a ~chap. ~ 33
~ be . of a later date)
was comnleted between 2co and 2 2 0
B.C. (cp § 15, end), and there appears to be no reason
why the second half may not have reached its final form
about the same time. On the redaction of Isaiah as a
whole see above, I (end).
T. Recent comnzentaries.-For college students ' no better
hook can be recommended than S k i n n a s comlpentary in the
Carnhriae Bihle (2 vols., 96, '98), with
23. Literature. which Driver's Zsaiah ('Men of the Bible')
may be combined. For special students the
commentaries of Delitzsch (4th ed., '89), Dillmann and Kittel
(6th ed. of the Jesasaja in KGH, '98), Duhm in HK ('gz), and
1 It could not be placed in its chronological order at the end
of the book because of the unmitigated gloom of the conclusion.
2207
ISHBAAL
hlarti in KHC (1900) arc indispensnLle hclpi; on thc whole
hlnrti's is a t present thc most hclpfirl cointncninry; liut it ncedn
suppleinenring. H. G. hlirihcll'a .>'fzdyo/'/s. 1-12(iXew Y a k ,
'97J-i~a good book for those who do not read German.
2. Among the well. known excellent introductions to the
whole OT, none is as critical from the point of view of 1900 as
was that of Kuenen (Ond.l21 2,['89]; German translation, '92)
ten years before. One special introduction has appeared
(Cheyne's Introduction, etc., 95 ; Germ. transl. '57).
3. Among dictionmy articles G. A. Smith's may be specially
mentioned (Hastings' DB 2 485.4-49sa). This writer's earlier
volumes on Isaiah ('Isaiah,' in Expositor's Bible, two separate
parts, 88, '50); stimulating as they are, are open to very
much adverse criticism. (English critics have lain too much
under the spell of Dillmann.) This scholar is now giving way
to the force of argument (whether his point ofview is quite clear,
careful readers of Duhm and Marti, and of similar hooks on other
prophets, will be able to judge). His article, however, is, to-
gether with Skinner's unpretending but learned work, one of
the most hopeful signs in English Bible-study, which a: present
in the O T department is too predominantly moderate. G. A.
Smith's inclusion of the 'theology' of Isaiah (a bad hut gener-
ally accepted term) limits the criticism somewhat unduly, and
leads him into statements which are not as securely founded as
one could wish. But he is true to himself; and what he says,
even when critically defective, is sure to be educationally most
useful. The bibliography which occupies over two closely
printed columns, is so full (hat it would seem like imitation to
give the like here. Besides it is really better for the student
to find out hihliographical d;tails for himself from the references
contained in first-rate books. C. H. H. Wright has a learned
article in Smith's DB(91 11450-1474, and Klostermann iu PRB(21
6 585-607. To learning Klostermann joins a singular independ-
ence of view ; but he often leads the student 011 rough, unpassable
ways.
4. Investigations of parts of Isaiah. Articles by B. Stade
in the ZA TW('81-'84) have left their impress on all later works
(cp Intr. fs.). Cornill, 'Die Composition des B. Jes.,' ZATLV
4 83-104 ['84]. Lagarde Semitica ('78, pp. 1 - 3 2 ) ; critical notes
on chaps, 1-17. Giesebiecht, Beitrage zur jesaiakritik ('go) ;
cp Siegfried's review T L Z 'go, p. 568. We find these words in
the preface, ' 1 can knd n i other epithet for Dillmann's treat-
ment of the text but "antiquated." It cannot be right for an
interpreter to put sentences into the mouth of such masters of
speech as the prophets, which by the awkwardness of their
form and ",e unnaturalness of their contents are nothing short
of offensive. Guthe, Das Zukunfts&iZd desJes. ('85). Winck:
ler, A T Unfersuch. '97; AZtorient. Forsch. '93, etc.; J. Ley,
Histor. ErkZamngdeszweifen TeilsdesJes('53); J. Memhold
Die Jeskja-er zahzungelt Jes. 36-39 ('98), valuable. Konig:
The Exile's Book of Consolation ('991, based o? two articles
in the Neue Kirchl. Zt., Nov Dec., 98 (exegetical and con-
troversial). Neubauer and Drk!er, The 53rd chapter of Isaiah
according to the Jewish intwpreters, 2 vols. '76, '77. See also
I SAIAH i.; IMMANUEL; M ESSIAH . S ERVANT OF THE LORD.
5. EarZier works. Among old& commentators Vitringa (z
vols. fol., 1714) stands out by his exemplary thoroughness. But
the reconstruction of exegesis produced its first great work in
%ius's I s a i a h p , '21); Hitzig ('33), Ewald (Die Prophete?,
40, 41 ; 2nd ed., 67, '68), Dillmann (5th ed. of Knohel'sles. in
KHG, 'go) worthily followed. C p Del. Jesn3b(4),3:-36, where
the titles of Cheyne's earlier works on Isaiah are given ; Che.
Proph. zs.(3) 2 268-286 ; Zntr. Is. 283-295.
6. Text of Isaiah. T h e greatest weakness in most commen-
taries on Isaiah is their too great dependence on the MT.
Among the older exegetical scholars of our day no one has
perceived this so clearly as Klostermann, as can he seen to
some extent from his article in PRE(B1 just referred to, and
still more from his indispensable work, Deuferosajkaja,Hebrc+=k
und Deutsch, m i f Anrnerkungen ('93). If the present wrlter's
Book oflsaiah in SBOT (Heb.),, 'gg (vp English edition, '98)
should be grouped by scholars with this little work, and wlth
the collections of critical emendations of other able workers, it
will be a recompense. For many specimens of the fine work
of Secker, Lagarde, Gritz, Duhm, etc., the reader 'pay be
referred to SBOT. Later results on several parts of Isalah wrll
be found in Crit. Bi&, T.IC. c.
ISCAH (n?p! ; iscxa [ADEL]), daughter of HARAN
i. I (Gen. 1129). The strong probability is that 'the father of
3 3 ~ '3is a variant of 'the father of 33Sn' (similarly Ball, Gen.
59, foot). But instead of comparing Web. Kasdirn and Ass.
KaZdu, we can now see that 3 2 ~ 7comes from ?h , was a
which
necessary emendation of n3Sn. See MILCAH. T. K. C.
ISCARIOT. See J UDAS ISCARIOT.
ISDAEL, RVmg.GIDDEL ( I c A ~ H [BA])
A I Esd. 5 3 3
=Ezra 256 G IDDEL, 2.
ISHBAAL (5p2$+ or 5,
man of Baal [=Yahw&] ; cp the Greek forms e~cBaah
[end of I], I C B A ~ A[end of 21, also the form ESHBA'AL
$ua$jK, in M T of I Ch. 8 3 3 9 3 9 : acaBah, isBaah [B]
iaBaah, Babh [AI icBaah [L. in 9391).
i. Most critics hold that the true name of Saul's
2208
 ISHBAAL
successor was, not ISHBOSHETH (nfa d*v),but Ishbaal,
and they account for the form Ishbosheth ( ' m a n of
shame'-ie., of the shameful idol), and for the faulty
pronunciation Eshbaal by re1;gious scruple ; see Hos.
216 [IS]$, and cp Hos.910 Jer.324 1113 and d of
I K. 1825 ; see also J ERUBBAAL ; MERIBAAL. Bosheth
for Baal gratifies the love of alliteration.
ii. Jastrow thinks .that Bosheth in Ishbosheth and Mephi-
hosheth is a distortion of Besheth, which is the name of a Bahy-
lonian deity, as inferred from such names as Mutibagti, 'man of
Bast,' and suggests that Bagt (powerful?-cp barfa, Am. Tab.
p i 5 ) may have been a designation of the consort of Baal (JBL,
94l.P. 19.63.
111. There is, however, still another explanation which may
seem to avoid some of the difficulties of both these views (see
MEPHIBOSHETH).
I. The youngest son of Saul,' and, under the tutelage
of ABNER [q.~.],his successor. His authority is said
to have extended over ' Gilead, the ASHURITES (Asher-
ites? Geshurites?), Jezreel, Ephraim, Benjamin, and (in
fact) all Israel' except Judah ( z S . 2 9 IO^). That his
capital was fixed at Mahanaim on the E. of the Jordan
shows that Saul's house felt itself safer in Gilead 2
than within reach of the Philistines, unless indeed we
suppose with Winckler that Ishbaal was gradually
pushed by the conquering David into trans-Jordanic
territory. So much at all events is certain, that Ishbaal
was a political nonentity ; the true chief of the house of
Saul was Abner. Ishbosheth or Ishbaal was too young
for his position (the statement as to his age in 2 S. 210
implies a wrong chronological scheme), and equally
devoid of shrewdness and courage. The precise amount
of truth in the story of the dispute concerning Rizpah
( z S. 37-12) cannot be determined ; Winckler indeed
hazards the conjecture that Abner murdered Ishbaal in
the hope of becoming king himself. The tradition or
legend, however, ascribes Ishbaal's death to two of his
captains. But the story is difficult. T o a man
'reckoned ' as belonging to the same tribe as theni-
selves (see B EEROTH, B EN J AMIN , § 3), who had also,
when they came upon him, the sacredness attaching
to a sleeper (see D AVID , § 11, col. 1032, n. 2 ) , and
who was above all ' the anointed of Yahwe,' they dealt
afatal blow ( 2 S. 4 ~ - 7 ) . ~
A plausible explanation has been given by Ewald
(Hist. 3118 136). The two reputed Benjamites may
have been descendants of the Canaanites, and have had
to flee to G~TTAIM ( g . v . ) from the Canaanitish town of
Beeroth, when Saul ' put to death the Gibeonites ' ( 2 S.
43, cp 21 2). The murder of Ishbaal would in this case
be the performance .of the sacred duty of avenging
bloodshed.4
The Greek forms of the name are i43wu805 [Jos.], LepouOBe [Bl,
[ e I i e p o u B a ~[AI, eiu/3aah [cod. 93 ; Aq. Symm., Theod.]. I n
2 S.* 3 s occurs the odd reading pcp&3&9e [BL], -Bat [A], hut DBP), 5.21.) with Yasbuk, a district in N. Syria men-
rQouBs [Al'f a ? in 3 7 and A ? bg.1 ib. SI : rsupaah [As., Symm.
Theod.]. If the view maintained elsewhere (MEPHIDOSHETH) (KB1159). Its king or chieftain was an ally of the
be adopted, the form 'Ishbosheth' has a better claim to he
adopted than Ishbaal.
2. Either Ishbosheth (or a name which may underlie
Ishbosheth ; see MEPHIBOSHETH) or Ishbaal seems to
be the true name of the first hero on the list of David's
mighty men, which is to be restored in 2 S. 238 I Ch.
1111 (see JASHOBEAM). If we may follow the prevalent
theory, Ishbaal is to be preferred; but in either case
the name of David's hero has undergone a strange
transformation. Anticipating the explanation given
1 Another corruption of the name appears to occur in ISHVI faint '), are very inappropriate in a description of a single
v.] in I s. 1449.
[b' Wi. (Gesch. 2 1 4 9 8 ) has tried to make out that Saul was
reallya Gileadite of Jabesh who conquered the tribe of Benjamin,
which had previously had the leadership of N. Israel on this
side of the Jordan. But see S AUL I .
3 The scene is vividly represendd in @, which in v. 6 is to be
preferred to M T (Driver Budde H. P. Smith etc.).
4 It should be observed, howder that 2 S. 4 ;b, 3 is a marginal
gloss of uncertain age and aulhority (We. TBS 161).
bas heen suggested that David's treatment of the two captains
is in a line with his treatment of the Amalekite who slew Saul
z S. 114. But is this tradition to be trusted 1 See SAUL, ISRAEL:
5 16 ; cp Wi. Gesch. ii. q5J:
2209
ISHBI-BENQB
under Jashobeam (see JASHOBEAM, I) we may remark
(I)that out of the final th in bosheth ( shame ' = Baal),
combined with 6 from den ( ' son of '), a syllable beth
has been produced in M T of 2 S. (the letters being
transposed), thus completing Joshebbasshebeth (cp
RV) ; ( 2 ) that, the final in (ix having been dropped,
the initial n in 9 ~ 3 n ; r , 'the Hachmonite') has been
corrupted into a n, thus producing the otherwise un-
known word '3~3nn(RV < aTahchemonite') ; and ( 3 )
that the name of the warrior's father can be supplied
from I Ch. 272. On the third point, notice the similar
designations of Eleazar and Shammah in 2 S. 2-39 11
(and cp Budde, SBOT,ad toc. ; Marq. Fund. IS$).
The corruption, however, of this passage reaches still
further. In 2 S. we are told that the hero was ' chief of
the captains' (so EV) ; from the sequel, however, it is
clear that we should, with Wellhausen, read n s h mi,
' chief of the three' (cp v. 176, 'these things did the
three mighty men '). ' The three ' was in fact the title of
David's noblest heroes, next to whom came the ' thirty'
(see DAVID, § I I ~ A ; BISHAI ). The verse continues
most tantalisingly with three meaningless words, for a
probable restoration of which see ADINO. At the close
we hear of 800 slain at once.' In Ch. the number is
put at 300 ; but the reading ' 800 ' (which bLboth in
Sam. and in Ch. increases to 900) is supported by the
obvious fact that it was by outdoing Abishai (cp w.. 18) that
Ishbaal obtained the first place. The account of Ishbaal
in 2 S. 2 3 8 should therefore most probably be read thus
-' Ishbaal, son of Zabdiel, a Hachnionite, chief of the
three. He brandished his spear against 800 men, slain
at one time ' (nnN).
The Greek renderings are cue,805 vlb5 axrparov [Jos. Amt.
vii. 1241 in S. rfpouB8e [ ~ e p o u B a r [AI,
] 6 x a v a v a ; ~[BAI, red3aaA
ulb5 Bs&aver .
[L] in I Ch. 27 2 u o p a h [B, rupoap A, rsupoap
L], 6 703 <ap6[e]biA; in I Ch. 11:1, muc/3a&a [probably a mere
textual error for ~.u+da], vib5 aXapaueL [B], Leuua@aSa uib5
axapavvb [4,.cupaap ulb5 axapaub [A], csuuq3aaA ([Dr. TBS
ad Zoc. mentions seven codices with the reading rfuepaah and
three with rupgaah] utb5 Berepiua [Ll).
3. A Korahite : I Ch. 126 ( O p & ; u o p o r a p [Bl,2 uopoap [XI,
m$aap [AL]). See ISSHIAH, T. K. C.-S. A. C.
2.
ISHBAH (ripe, 5 54), the clan to which the
people of Eshtemoa belonged, I Ch. 417 (~ecaBa[A],
Maps0 [B, i.c., Mered?], NAPE and I ~ c ~ & %[I-]).T
48 makes Ishbah a son of Jether ; MT, as it now stands,
mentions neither of his parents (see Be. ad Zoc.).
ISHBAK (P&, § 5 4 ; IECBOK [AL] ; I ~ C B O Y K [n
in Gen.]; IECOK [E in Gen.]; C O B ~ K [B in Ch.]), a
'son ' of Abraham by Keturah (Gen. 252 I Ch. 132).
Identified by Fr. Del. ( Z K F 2 9 r f : ) and Ball (Smith's
tioned by Shalmaneser 11. in his monolith inscription
Patinaeans, and Yasbuk must therefore have lain some-
where between the Euphrates and the Orontes. Yasbuk
suggests the spelling pr>a*.
ISHBI-BENOB (Ktb. 2j7 IW+,Kr. '3 +?@,;
I E C B I [BAL], E N N O B [A]), the supposed name of a
Philistine giant (see RAPHA),2 S. 21 16 (not mentioned
in z Ch. 20). The words so read, however (given more
accurately in Kt. with 1 instead of *), have to be taken
with their context. Notice first, with Wellhausen, that
the closing words of w. 15, iii qy.1 (EV 'and David waxed
combat. T h e verb should probably be q!, while iii
appears to conceal the name of the giant with whom
David fought ; thus we get the sense ' and ...
arose'
(cp I S.1748). The two opening words of w. 16 should
obviously be read 2j?. n @ . ~ , they ( L e . , David and
'and
It 1 I Ch,. 1111 reads 'chiefof the thirty'(Kt.), or 'chiefof the
knights. The former is read in S. by Be. and Gr.
2 K.itte1 (SBOT)suggests that the K a L V a uat U O ~ O K ~ J of
* @
stands for KaLYa, uo,l3orap=xar Lauopo(r)ap, whence we should
restore ' Ishbaal ; cp Marq. 17und. 16.
2210
 ISHBOSHETH ISHMAEL
his men) tarried in Nob' ; they should be replaced is driven forth together with her child Ishmael, an angel
either after iep 'with him,' or before 111 071(v. IS). appears to her in the desert of Beersheba (Gen. 21 14).
The latter position is that recommended by Kittel The other account places the appearance of the angel
(Kau. NS), who, appealing to the Gasou uIbs of QJL (see ' between Kadesh and Bered ' (Gen. 16 14). BERED
below), finds in in (end of ZI. 15), pronounced lis, the (q... ) is obscure ; but the site of Kadesh ('AinKudnis)
name of David's antagonist. At any rate it seems is no longer doubtful (see K ADESH, i. 5 I ). The state-
plain that the words rendered ' and Ishbi-benob ' should ment in Gen. 1614 agrees with the passage which
rather be read ' and tarried in Nob,' unless indeed we represents Ishmael as dwelling in the wilderness of
boldly correct Nob' into 'Gob,' and ' G o b ' into Paran (Gen. 21z1)-i.e., the N. part of the Sinaitic
REHOBOTH [q.~.]. peninsula. His mother was an Egyptian (Gen. 163
Wellhausen, Kittel, and Rudde read ' Gob ' for 'Noh ' com- 25 12 ; cp M IZRAIM, 0 26). The corresponding word in
paring w. 18 f: in MT. This is either, ioo much or too another account (Gen. 219) may perhaps be a harmon-
little. Wy know of no place called 'Gob ; but we do know istic addition by the compiler ; the same narrative,
of 'Noh. It remains worthy of consideration, however
whether the hold step mentioned above would not really be however, mentions that Ishmael's mother took him a
proof of true critical circumspection. wife out of Egypt (a.21). On the other hand Esau,
If ' Nob ' is correct it may mean the place called Nobe the ancestor of the Edomites, marries a daughter of
by Jer. and now known as Beit Nzida, which is on an old Ishmael (Gen. 289 363) ; in both passages she is
road from Ramleh to Jerusalem, a little to the NE. of expresdy designated as the sister of Nebaioth, Ishmael's
Aijalon and some 13 m. NW. of Jerusalem. Though firstborn : but whilst in the former passage she is called
really more than 700 ft. above the sea-level, it lies on Mahalath, she bears in the latter the name of Basemath.
flat ground. Twice in 1192 Richard I. stayed here In Gen. 2634, however, Basemath is another wife of
with his army, nor can it be denied that it was a natural Esau. How this confusion is to be explained we cannot
place for David and his men coming from Jerusalem say ; but it seems clear at least that the references to
(see D AVID) to tarry in, awaiting the Philistines (vv. Ishmael's connection with Egypt on the one side and
qj!, QJL Kul C&?dOv 6aut6 ai Ga6ou uibs t w a s K . T . ~ .; with Edom on the other, accord with the geographical
Pesh. has, ' and David and Joab and Abishai feared the position of the Ishmaelites in the N. of the Sinai desert.
giant '). T. K. C . This, moreover, is the region explicitly assigned to them
in Gen. 2518, though there we read that their domain
ISHBOSHETH (ne3
b+F), 2 S.2 8 3 41f EV extended much farther in the direction of Arabia, for
(following M T ) . . See I SHBAAL, I : MEPHIBOSHETH. such is doubtless the meaning of the phrase 'from
ISH-HAI, the son of ('il-E"K-p, yloy IECCAI [LI), Havilah,' whatever uncertainty there may be as to the
a title of B ENAIAH (q.v., I ) in 2 S. 2320 RVmg.--Hai precise position of H AVILAH ( T . v . ) , or as to the
is a fragment of @aiZ ('valour') ; the lost letter is author's conception of it. The idea that the Ishmaelites
supplied in the Kr. ( $ g - d y p ) , with which I Ch. 1 1 2 2 were actually spread over this wide territory agrees with
all that can be ascertained respecting the 'sons' of
(yioc ANAPOC AYNATOY [BAL]) agrees, and which Ishmael.
EV follows. ' The son of a valiant man ' (EV), how-
ever, is only half right ; -73 ' son (of),' which was added According to Gen. 2 5 1 3 3 ( = I Ch. 1 ~ 9 3 : Ishmael
)
had twelve sons ; these are to be regarded as eponyms
by a scribe's error, should be omitted with QJBA (dvhp of tribes or localities. In this case we
abrbs-i.e., [ ~ ] m ~ # yunless
, atr6s is a corruption of 2*~~~~ have even less right to attach a strictly
6uvur6s). After all, it may be best to read h n n i 3 W*N 11 literal sense to the number twelve than
'p, 'son of a Jerahmeelite of Kabzeel' (Che.). in the case of the twelve sons of Israel (cp I SRAEL, 5 2,
ISHHOD (?in b+e), I Ch.718 RV, AV ISHOD (9.v.). G ENEALOGIES, i. 5 5). Nor is it possible to ascertain
whether at any time there were twelve tribes forming
ISHI (+@by), in mg. of EV rendered 'my husband' some kind of religious confederation under the name
(so QdBAQ 0 A N H MOY), ~ the antithesis to Baali (Hos. of Ishmael-Le., ' God hears '-or whether the tribe of
216 [IS]). See H OSEA , 5 6. Ishmael, in consequence of its superiority, came to be re-
ISHI (+Vd+, abbrev. from I SAIAH (?); garded as the father of several smaller tribes, or whether,
. . . _ (i. 51,
. . . CFE~
finally, this classification be due to some other cause.
[a], iecei [AI). That the genealogy cannot be treated as the expression of a
I. A Jerahmeelite, representing the sons of Appaim, I Ch. 2 31
(iarpqh [B] LEU~JOUBL [L]). See J ERAHMEEL , z a. fixed political system is abundantly clear from the fact that in an
.-2: Mentidned in a Judahite genealogy; I Ch. 4 zo(es [A], CBWOL ancient narrative (Judg. 8 24) the Midianites are reckoned among
the Ishmaelites, whereas, according to the genealogical lists in
'"i!
[Bl,
Mentioned in a Simeonite genealogy;
Lcwoue [Ll).
I Ch. 442 (rewetlev Genesis, Midian was a step-brother of Ishmael.
The name of Ishmael must have played a considerable
4. A Manassite, I Ch. 524 (L6wu.L [L]). part in very ancient times. Soon, however, it fell com-
ISHIAH (@!), I Ch. 7 3 ; RV ISSHIAH, I. 3. Refer- pletely into the background. In I Ch. 2730
ISHIJAR (V@!),Ezra1031 AV. See ISSHIAH, 5. the chief overseer of David's camels is the
Ishmaelite Obil, which may be plausibly
ISHMA (Kpe,
5 51, abbrev. from ISHMAEL?), an explained as a Hebrew, or specifically Ishmaelite, form
obscure place- or family-name in I Ch. 43T (parma [B], of the Arabic E M , ' camel-herd ' (see A BEL ). Another
IECMA [AI, CAM&& paAaBaa [L]). Ishmaelite (but see ABIGAIL, 2 ; I THRA ) married a cousin
of David and was the father of the military chief Amasa
ISHMAEL (h&'p9, 'El
hears' ; [€]lCMaHA (I Ch. 217 : iupu?Xln/s [L], see AMASA). Moreover, J's
[BADEL]) and ISHMAELITES, ISHMEELITE, I Ch. 2 17 version of the story of Joseph describes the people who
Position. AV (')Kpp@.; ICMAHh[EIITHC [BAL]). brought Joseph into Egypt as Ishmaelites (Gen. 3725
I. Ishmael, the son of Abraham and 27286), whereas E. calls them Midianites (aE
renders 'in
HAGAR( q . ~ . is
) , the personification of a group of tribes by irpa~XTrutin v. 28). The Yahwistic narrator (8th
who were regarded as near kinsmen of the Israelites. century 8. c. ?) speaks of Ishmaelites carrying spices on
Their wild mode of life is admirably portrayed in the account their camels from Gilead to Egypt ; he must therefore
of their ancestor-' he shall be as a wild-ass among men :his hand have been acquainted with Ishmaelite caravans engaged
shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him ; in traffic of this kind. In subsequent times we hear no
and he shall dwell (as a dangerous enemy) over against all his
brethren ' (Gen. 16 12). Another passage states only that Ishmael more of Ishmael as an actually existing people ; for the
dwelt in the desert and was an archer (Gen. 21 20). mention of the Ishmaelites, together with several other
According to some statements the home, or original ancient peoples, in Ps. 837[8] (Maccabzan), is a mere
abode, of Ishmael was the wilderness to the S. of figure of speech referring to some hostile nation of the
Palestine as far as the frontier of Egypt. When Hagar author's own time.
2211 2212
 ISHMAEL
On the other hand, some of Ishmael's ' sons' are
*.mentioned later, and even very much later ; we find
Nebaioth, them, moreover, in several places separ-
ated by considerable distances. ( ) The I
first-born, Nebaioth, not unfrequently
appears as Nubaitu (not to mention slight variations of
spelling) in Assyrian inscriptions' (see Del. Par. 296f.,
Schr. KAT(*) 147). As an example may be cited
the great inscription of AHur-b51ii-pal (668-628 B. c. ),
KB2217T This fribe seems therefore to have dwelt
in the Syrian desert or farther S . Its name is not to be
confounded with that of the NABATACANS.
( 2 ) A considerable number of passages in the pro-
phetical and poetical books make mention of K EDAR
(p.. . ), which is invariably described as a desert people
in the fiill sense of the term.
The Assyrian inscriptions several times mention the Kidw or
Kadru (see Del. 0). cit. 299, Schr. KGF TOI A, KA Ti9
147 A). Once, in an inscription of Ah-hsni-pal, tlie name is
used even as a synonym of Arabia (seeKBZzrgL, with the
variants there given). Furthermore, Pliny (511, $ 65) refers to
the Ccdrei as an Arabian tribe in the neighbourhood of the
Nabatieans (cp also OSPJ 111 17).
From these passages we may conclude with tolerable
certainty that the tents of Kedar were pitched in the
Syrian desert, perhaps encroaching upon Arabia proper.
(3) Adbeel is identified by Del. (Par. 301f.) with
the / d i b a ' i h or Dibi'iCa (?) of Tiglath-pileser 111,'s
inscriptions. Their home, he states, was SW. of the
Dead Sea, towards the Egyptian frontier-it-., in the
ancient territory of Ishmael (but cp ADBEEL).
(4) Dumah is probably the eponym of the oasis of
Dumd or DzZrnat-eZ-/andaZ, now usually called aZ-@f
(about half-way between Damascus .and al-HGI, the
present capital of Nejd), on the S. border of the Syrian
desert.
In Pliny6z8(8 157) the place appears as Domatha, in Ptol.
518asSoiparl?a, and in Steph. Byz. on the authority of the well-
informed Glaucus, as 8odpaOa. Sek D UMAH .
(5) Massa seems to occur in Ass. as Mas'u (mentioned
with Tern%),a N. Arabian tribe (see Schr. KB 2 21, K G F
261 etc., KAT on Gen. 2514, Del. Par. 302). Cp
MESHA[i.] (Gen. 1030).
( 6 ) Tema (Timii', ' south country,' from the root Nn',
cp its synonym Teman from p)is doubtless identical
with the modern Teimk or Timd (in the N. of the
Hijaz). Tema was unquestionably one of the most
important stations on the ancient trade route from
Yemen to Syria. On its historical importance and on
other biblical references see TEMA.
( 7 ) Jetur
. was one of the tribes that waged war with the
Israelites settled to the E. of the Jordan ( I Ch. 519).
From v. IO it would seem that they dwelt there in the
times of Saul. This is, however, probably wrong ; but
the position may be right for the Chronicler's time. The
domain of Jetur must accordingly have been not far from
the Israelite Peraea ; somewhat fuller information on the
subject may be obtained from Strabo (753,755, 756),
who places the Ituraeans, a people doubtless identical
wtih Jetur, in the southern part of the Antilibanus, and
also, it would seem, in the eastern spurs of this monntain
range. The Iturcei or Ityraei* are not unfrequently
mentioned during the ages in question. They were
partially subdued by the Jewish king Aristobdus I.
(107 B.C.) and compelled to adopt the Jewish religion
(Jos. Ant. xiii. 113); buf it is scarcely probable that they
remained faithful to the Mosaic law. Afterwards this
country, like many other districts of Syria, served a
succession of masters, until in 50 A . D . , on the death
of the last Iturcean king Sohemus (Sohaim), it was
finally incorporated with the province of Syria (see Dio,
4 6 3 2 , Appian, Mithr. 106, BdZ. Cia 5, 7, I O ; Eutrop.
1 Quite' distinct from this are theAramiean Na6aiu (of
Tiglath-pileser 111. and his successors), who appear to belong
to a Babylonian subdivision (see KB 2 9 9 3 ) .
2 The spelling Eturrei occurs once in a military inscription
( C I L 3 3446). On two inscriptions IaToupaLos, see AIDPV, '99,
P. 83f:
2213
ISHMAEL
6 14 ; Strabo, Zoc. cit:; Diol 59 12 ; Tac. Ann. 12 23).
The Ituraeans were an unusually savage people, and the
neighbourhood of, Damascus suffered much from their
depredations (Strabo, 755) ; ' omnium gentium maxime
barbaros, ' says Cicero in speaking of them (PltiLz$$. 2 44).
See J ETUR, ITUREA.
Like the Ishmaelites of old, the Iturieans used the how as their
chief weapon ; several authors mention Ituraean archers in the
armies of Rome (see Cicero, Zoc. c i f . BdZ. Afric. 2 9 ; Lucan,
Pltars. 7 230, 514 ;. Vopiscus, Aureliai, I T ; and compare Vergil
Georc. 2448; Vibms Sequester in Riese's Gmc. laf. %in. 158))
Similarly, in Latin inscriptions dating from the time of the
Emperors we read of Ituriean soldiers (e.g. C I L 34367, 4368,
4371). In some of the passages above mentioned the Iturieans
are represented as Arabs (cp also Pliny, 523=5 81), whilst in
others the Arabs and the Iturieans are distinguished. In the
fourth century after Christ the name of this people seems io
have been obsolete. No genuine tradition as to Jetur or any of
his brethren is to be found in Arabian literature, and the sole
surviving traces of their existence are the geographical names
D o m i and Terns.
( 8 ) Naphish occurs in I Ch. 5 19 together with Jetur,
among the enemies of the Reubenites ; but nothing else
is known of this tribe. See also M IBSAM, M ISHMA,
HADAD,K EDEMAH .
Whether the language of the tribes who bore the
names of Ishmael and of his sons was more nearlv
6. Language. related to Hebrew or to Arabic remains
an open question. The former view
might seem to derive some support from the OT.
That a few of these tribes are occasionally described as
Arabs would prove nothing to the ccntrary, for in the
O T the term ' Arab ' does not necessarily convey the
precise ethnographical and linguistic sense which w e
attach to it at present (cp A RABIA , I , 3). In favour
of the hypothesis that the Ishmaelite language was a t
least closely akin to that which we call Arabic, it may
be mentioned that in an Assyrian inscription ( K B2 216)
the god of Kedar bears the name of Afar Samain;
here Atar is the Arabic ' A t h t a r , not the Hebrew 'Ashtar,
whilst Samaiit admits of being taken as an ancient
Arabic plural of Samd, 'heaven.' Of the Iturzean
proper names in the inscriptions ( C / L 3 4367 4371) some
are undoubtedly Aramaic, others probably Arabic ; but
from these facts no certain conclusion can be drawn
with regard to the original nationality of the people in
question, as niust be apparent to any one who is
moderately well acquainted with the personal names of
those times and countries. Still less can we build an
argument upon the Arabic name Suhaim, which was
borne by the last Ituraean king, for of the use of this
name there are other instances in Syria at that period,
and it is moreover quite uncertain whether this Suhaim
was himself of Iturzean extraction.
The occasional use of the name Ishmael in later
times, long after it had become obsolete in reality, as a
designation of the Arab race, and the theory of the
Muslim genealogists, who regard Ishmael as the
ancestor of one half of the Arabs, cannot be derived
from any independent native tradition ; it must be
mere speculation based upon the 01'. T. N.
2. b. Nethaniah b. Elishama; the murderer of
G EDALIAH (q... ), whom Nebuchadrezzar had made
governor of Judah after the captivity of Zedekiah (Jer.
40 8 41 [LXX, 47 8 and 48 ; iupaqA B" vid. in
4891). The terrible episode is briefly told elsewhere
(see I SRAEL, § 43). It is enough to mention here
that it was an act of vengeance on the Babylonians.
who had overthrown the family of David, to which
Ishmael himself belonged. This conjecture is not
only intrinsically probable, it appears to be proved
by the fact that not only Gedaliah and his Jewish
attendants but also the Chaldzeans who were there' ( i . e . ,
at Mizpah), namely, the warriors, fell victims to the
rage of Ishmael. Another person was not less eagerly
bent on this fell deed-this was the Ammonite king
Baalis-the same perhaps who, at the beginning of
Zedeltiah's reign, had sought to induce that king t a
head a confederacy against the Babylonians (Jer. 27 3).
2214
 ISHmIAH
With Baalis Ishmael designed to place the captives
whom he carried away from Mizpah, among whom
were relations of his own-certain ’ daughters of the
king,’ whom Nebuzaradan had left. The plan was
deeply laid ; but word of it had got abroad, and but
for his unsuspecting simplicity the honest and patriotic
governor might have escaped (Jer. 40 ~ j f . ) . Treachery
came t o the aid of revenge. First, Ishmael and his ten
companions were entertained at a meal by the hospitable
governor, and then, perhaps at night, they set upon their
host and all who were about him, and slew them. Even
certain pilgrims, who arrived the next day with offerings
forthe ‘houseofYahwB’ ( i . e . , thesanctuaryofMizpah?),
were nearly all cruelly Put to death, lest they Should
spread the news. Their dead bodies were thrown into
ISLE, ISLAND r
in 11 I Ch. 19 6 9). According to AV, it is the name of
a state (otherwise unknown) which furnished twelve
times as many warriors as Maacah. It appears certain,
however, that the words ‘ a thousand men ’ after ’ the
king of Maacah ’ (see RV of v. 6) should be omitted ;
they must have arisen, by corruption of the text, sub-
sequently to the time of the Chronicler (see I Ch. 19 7).
Kittel(in Kau. H S ) a n d Budde(in SBOT) preserve’and‘
before ‘ Ish-tob ’ ( 1 )d~’ ~ 1 ) . This, however, is hardly
natural ; it seems better to read iw) 21~)W’N nN ’ (the
king of Maacah) Ish-tob, and with hinl , .. (see
Klo.’s note). Ish-tob is apparently the name of tile
king (so Jos. Ant. vii. 6 I , Klo., W i . ) ; or rather, it is a
substitute for his name, for it only describes the king as
a man of Tob.’ RV renders ‘the men of TOB’ (4.v.),
6

the ‘ great cistern ’ (Jer. 41 9 ; we follow 6 )which ASA which is philologically quite possible, though here
( 4 . ~) . had long ago constructed in MIZPAH. This improbable. The second reference to Ish-tob ( 2 1 ~v(t”1, )
done, Ishmael and his caravan moved northward. v. 8) may be an interpolation from M T s version of V. 6.
They paused by the great waters that are in Gibeon’ T. K. C .
-possibly the ancient reservoir, the remains of which
,may still be seen on the W. side of the hill of el-lib
ISHUAH (q@),
G ~46~I7 AV
. RV I~~~~~( q ,v.),
(see GIBEON,$4). This gave time for Johanan (one of ISHUAI ($)@), 1Ch:730; a n d I s h u i ( ’ ! ~ ) , I S . 1 4 4 9 ;
,Gedaliah’s captains) to come up with them. Ishmael KV I ~I, 2. ~
~ ~ ,
and his ten warriors had to give way to superior force.
Two of them were slain ; the rest made good their ISHVAH (n$!o § 541 ‘ h e worthy,’ CP BARJESUS,
escape to the Ammonites. The seventh day of Tishri 1 a), one ofthe Sons Of ASHER: Gen. 4617 ( IECC&,I [A],
(the seventh month), the day of Geddiah’s murder, was Iscoy& [D], -0yp [L], AV Ishuah) ; I Ch. 7 30
long observed by the Jews as a fast-day (see S HAREZER , (I[€lCOY& [BA], lhCOY& [r;13 A v ISUAH). The name
is absent from the parallel list in Nu. 26 44.
’\. b. Azel of the family of Saul (1 Ch. 8 38 944).
4. Father’of ZEBADIAH (q.v.) (z Ch. 19 I T ‘ om. B). ISHVI ($)e,
4 2 ; cp I SHVAH ). I . b. ASHER
5. b.. Jehohanan, a captain who took ’part in Jehoiada’s [q.nP 41 Gen. 4617 (AV I SUI ; ~[e]oyA[ADL])=Nu.
revolution (z Ch. 23 I).
6. One of the b‘ne PASHHUR 26 44
among the priests in the list of JEsU1 ; Ifcoy [B*L1, lECOYl IECC.
those with foreign wives (see E ZRA i., $ 5 end). Ezra1022 [ F I ) = I Ch. 730’(AV IsHUAI ; I C O Y I [B], IeCoyl [A],
(uapa7A [B], -at+ [N])=I Esd. 922, ISMAEL leccoyo [L]). The gentilic Ishvite (AV JESUITES)
( ~ u p , ~ + o[BAI).
s
T.N . , no. I ; T. K. C., no. 2.occurs in Nu. 2444 ( ~ € c o y [ s ] i[BAL], IECC. [F]).
ISHMAIAH ($np#, 5 33, 8 Yahw& hears ;
1 Ch. 2719 c &[BAL]).~ 1. A~ Zebulunite, ~ an ~ in I
‘euulOU
3

~ IL1).
’‘
2. The second of the three sons of Saul mentioned
1449 (AV lsHul; teuuLouX LBI, luoUeL LA],
eAL
represents the form 1%”=1%’H which
overseer of David, I Ch., 27 ‘9 ; see DAVID, 1 1 c [i,].
I thirty,’ I Ch, 124 ( A v
is doubtless an alteration for h v (CP ~ 1 Ch. 8 33), see
2. A Glbeonite, one of
I SMAIAH , crapeas [N]) ; see DAVID, $ 1 1 a [iii.]. ISHBAAL, I. All four names are given by the Chronicler
( I Ch. 8 33).
ISHMEELITE (9 KYDP*)), $
.. :*. I Ch. 2 17 AV. See @ evidently read 9 after w, and Ewald (Hist. 3ro8), Well-
hausen, Driver, and others conclude that i ~ i ~ = or ~ ~ ~W s
i ~I m K ,
ISHMAEL, I . transformation of i y ~ w x ,Ishbaal (see ISHBAALI). This is
ISHIERA1 (97y&,abbrev. for 1 Y A W &keeps’ ; slightly forced and as Klostermann points out, Isdvi is replaced
in I S. 31 2. it is &rely obvious that the notice in 14 49 with
ChM&P€l [BIv l€C&Mhpl [A13 IhCCHM. LL1!: b. anatural kind of art prepares the way for that in 312.’ But
Elpaal in a genealogy of B ENJAMIN (q.v., § 9, 11. p) it would be rash to ’say with Klostermann that the two names
(I Ch. 818f) ; perhaps the same as Shemer or Shemed may be synonymous. ’1v’ is simply due to textual error. The
scribe wrote ‘Jonathan, Malchishua, and Melchishua’ instead
in v. 12 (see S HAMED). See JQR 11103, I. of ‘Jonathan, Ahinadab, and Malchishua. But of the first
v 1 V 3 > k all that remained was yiv’, which was corrupted into
ISHOI), RV Ishhod (l\T@,, as if T i n w q , I man ‘)a*.The first three letters became effaced. That Ishhaal
Of glory ’), one of the sons Of HAMMOLEKETH (4.V.) ; is not mentioned has already been accounted for. (He was not
I Ch. 7 r6T ( I C A A ~ K [B], coyh [A], IECC. [L] ; on the fatal battlefield. @’sreading is but a guess.)
Virum-decorum [Vg.]). T. IC. C.
As thelists of P a n d thechronicler sometimes seem tocontain ISLE, ISLAND (’8; d usually NHCOC, but
f ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ g a~ ~~ f; HAMMOLECHETH.
s 6~~~ , ‘ ~~ in ~Is. 41~ ~42 4, Bdhacua
~ ? in ~ Jer. ~
j25
~ zz Esth. 10 I [also Dan. 11 IS
~ ,
‘Jegar-sahadutha’ in Gen. 31 47 ; see GILEAD,
~ $ g

T-K. C.
~ ~ ~
~$$~~$~$,&
e::!
~
~ ~
~ $
2.
~ ~~~$~~~~
~ ~ ;
421% In Jer. 47qAV‘country’andin Jer. 25zzAVmk. ‘region.’
::: k ’
ISHPAH (?I@),I Ch. 8 16 RV, AV ISPAH[g;~.]. ~ v ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ : ??$
a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
sense we expect, and this could perhaps best he reached by read-
ISHPAN (\?$!* § 54. meaning obscure), b. shashak$ ing D’lrl(with Oort, D&m, Gritz, Kittel)or rather ni>$. ‘ Far
a Benjamite ; I Ch. 8 z d ( I C ~ A N[B], ec. [AI, IEC. countries’isnot a hadrenderingof Lowthinsomeotherpassages
ELI). of Is. 40-66-0’IN seems to connote distance.
ISHSECHEL, in R V w , represents the$$ $98 of The biblical writers draw within the circle of their
8 where AV has I a man of hopes and aspirations a number of countries which were
RV , a man of discretion (aNHp c b X w X[B],
9 c&xzaccessible by sea. ‘Islands’ for ‘far countries‘ is also
a common Phrase in Certain Egyptian records. ‘ Islands
[A], A. CYNETOC [L]). A proper name seems wanted.
Did the editor this phrase for an illegible in the midst of the sea,’ ‘ the lands of the sea,’ and ‘ the
name? More probably we should read i p k ; , Issachar end (Or, of the sea’ are Phrases used in the Same
connection with special reference to the coasts of Greece
(cp I Ch. 26s). T, c.
and Italy (WMM As. tl. Etlr. 334 359 363 369).
ISH-TOB (AV 3lPVvK, [ e ] l c ~ w B.[BAL], ISTOB The later O T writers constantly use the term, and we
find the ‘isles of ELISHAH’ (Ezek. 27g), the ‘isles of
[Vg.], e&&fiPesh.]) is mentioned with Aram-beth-
‘rehob, Aram-zoGah, and Maacah in 2 S. 10 6 8 (but not 1 Cp Saad.’s rendering of O’! in Is. 23 13.
2215 2216