ch. lix. 4, 14. Other places where the same sense may possibly be intended, or at least included, are xlv. 8, liv. 14, lvi. 1a, lix. 9, lx. 17. (2) The ethical idea of righteousness, as equivalent to the possession of a right moral and religious character, appears to be implied in ch. liii. II, lvi. 1a, lviii. 2. In these instances the subject is either Israel or the Servant of the Lord; of individual Israelites the word is used in li. 1, 7, lvii. 1, lx. 21, lxiv. 5, 6; in xlviii. 1 the word seems to have the narrower meaning of truthfulness. (3) On the other hand, the forensic idea (righteousness as a religious standing) predominates in xlvi. 12, liv. 17, lvii. 12. (4) Lastly, the forensic idea passes over into that of righteousness manifested in external prosperity and glory. This is the case in ch. lxi. 10, lxii. 1, where the parallel expression is “salvation" (cf. xlv. 8); in lviii. 8, lxii. 2 the parallel is "glory," in xlviii. 18, Ix. 17, "peace"; cf. xlv. 24, 25. In these passages "righteousness might be rendered "justification"; it denotes the blessings conferred on Israel in token that its right is acknowledged and declared by God (see under i. 4, above). To this class may be assigned two other passages, where righteousness is, as it were, hypostatised and spoken of as a state of things created on earth by Jehovah; viz., xlv. 8 (in parallelism with "salvation") and lxi. 11 ("righteousness and praise "). A somewhat peculiar use of the word is found in ch. xli. 2, where (if the translation given in the notes be correct) it is said of Cyrus that 'righteousness attends him at every step." Here righteousness must be equivalent to success or "victory"; the idea being that the remarkable successes of Cyrus on the battle-field were decisions by the Almighty in his favour and the demonstration to all the world that his was the right cause. A sense closely approaching to “victory” is implied in xlv. 24 ("righteousnesses and strength"; cf. v. 25: "all the seed of Israel shall have right, and shall triumph ").

66

66

NOTE III (p. lx).

SOME CRITICAL THEORIES OF THE COMPOSITION OF

CHS. XL.-LXVI.

In order to shew how complicated the problem of the literary structure of this prophecy has been felt to be, the views of some recent scholars may be briefly noticed. Ewald and Dillmann are the chief representatives of the school which recognizes the unity of the second Isaiah while admitting that the author has made use of earlier written material. Ewald holds that ch. xl. 1, 2, lii. 13—liii. 12, lvi. 9—lvii. II, are passages borrowed from pre-exilic prophets, while lviii. 1-lix. 20 is taken from an exilic predecessor of the author. The first edition of the prophecies contained two books, ch. xl.—xlviii., xlix.—lx.; ch. Ixi. 1-lxiii. 6 and lxiii. 7-lxvi. 25 are two additions made by the author himself.-Dillmann's position is somewhat similar. The influence of earlier prophets can be traced more or less clearly in the

language of lii. 13-liii. 12, lvi. 9-lvii. 13, lviii. and lix.; and in other passages the possibility of later alterations is conceded. The original prophecy consisted of two books, xl.—xlviii. and xlix.-lxii.; and there are two appendices, lxiii. 1-6 and Ixiii. 7-lxvi. 25. The whole, however, is held to have been completed before the end of the Exile.Cheyne, who had previously convinced himself of the post-exilic origin of certain portions of the prophecy (lvi. 1-8, lviii., lix., lxiii.—lxvi.), now accepts the conclusions of Duhm, with some important modifications. While Duhm assigns the whole of ch. lvi.-lxvi. to a single author (to whom he gives the name of Trito-Isaiah) Cheyne carries the analysis further, and finds evidence that several hands have been engaged in the compilation of these discourses. The collection as a whole, however, is still regarded as a product of the age of Ezra and Nehemiah, the only important exception being lxiii. 7-lxiv. 12, which is brought down to the troubled period under Artaxerxes Ochus (see Vol. 1. p. 204).-Kuenen (1889, Onderzoek, § 49) also divided the prophecy into two parts, one exilic and the other post-exilic. But to the exilic writer he assigned only ch. xl.-xlix., lii. 1-12, and possibly lii. 13-liii. 12. All the rest he considered to be the work of various prophets living in Palestine after the Return.-Cornill (1896, Einleitungs pp. 157-161) occupies a position intermediate between those of Dillmann and Kuenen. He holds that the two books, ch. xl.-xlviii., xlix. lxii. were both written by the second Isaiah, the former in Babylonia before the close of the Exile, the latter in Palestine after the Restoration. The remaining chapters (lxiii.-lxvi.) cannot, he thinks, be ascribed at least in their present form to the author of xl.—lxii.Kosters (Theol. Tijdschrift, 1896, pp. 577-623) agrees with Cheyne as to the composition of ch. lvi.-lxvi.; but differs from him with regard to xlix.-lv., which (following Kuenen) he considers to be another collection of prophecies delivered in Palestine. He advocates a very complicated theory of the origin of the four "Servant-passages"; and his view is partly influenced by his theory of the history of the restoration period (on which cf. Davidson, The Exile &c. p. 115).—A somewhat peculiar view is adopted by Bredenkamp (1887), of which the distinctive feature is that ch. xl.—Ixvi. contain a nucleus of genuine Isaianic passages, which have been amplified and published by a prophet of the Exile period. See further, Driver, Isaiah2 p. 211, and Introduction, pp. 244 ff.

Several of these theories suggest the enquiry how far the hypothesis of a post-exilic date for some of the chapters may be compatible with identity of authorship. If the writer of ch. xl.-xlviii. lived in Babylonia it is reasonable to suppose that he returned to Palestine with Zerubbabel and Joshua in 536; and if he was a very young man at the beginning of his work, his active career might nearly extend over the first half-century after the Restoration. Can the indications of post-exilic origin be satisfactorily explained on the assumption that the Palestinian discourses were written within that period and by the original author himself? The suggestion is not to be altogether disregarded, but the balance of probability would seem to be against it. Several of the passages appear to presuppose a longer experience of life in Palestine

than can be reasonably attributed to a contemporary of Zerubbabel; the division of parties suits the age of Malachi better than that of Haggai and Zechariah; and the corruption of the ruling classes is not likely to have proceeded so far in the years immediately following the removal of Zerubbabel and Joshua. On the whole, it may be said that if the arguments for post-exilic authorship be valid at all, they point to the conclusion that the last division of the prophecy was written on the eve of the great reformation under Nehemiah (444).

INDEX.