ARTICLE VI. AN EXAMINATION OF ISAIAH XIII. BY THE REV. WM. HENRY COBB, NEWTON CENTRE, MASS. THE following attempt to show the genuineness of this chapter, and to find its historical occasion in the circumstances of Isaiah's time, is exposed to an enfilading fire from two opposite fortresses. The ancient view understands the chapter to treat of the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, an event which Isaiah was inspired to foresee; the fulfilment being so minutely literal that the prophecy can only be explained as a supernatural revelation from God. This general theory is still held by eminent writers; for example, Rawlinson in the "Pulpit Commentary." A leading modern view-that of most German, and many English and American scholars-starting with the same reference of the passage to B. C. 538, finds in it a contemporary picture, or nearly so, by some unknown prophet. A preliminary standing-ground between these extremes is a desideratum, and may be gained by means of hypothe ses. Let us suppose, then, that the traditional theory is correct so far as this, that the prophecy was fulfilled in the days of Cyrus; we cannot stop there, and neither does the common view. For the prophecy predicts an utter desolation, so that Babylon should never be inhabited. Now the Persian conquest effected a change of rulers, but nothing remotely approaching the accomplishment of these conditions. The common reply is that prophecy is not subject to strict limitations of time. The prophet sees peak rising above peak, but cannot see the space between them. The condi tion of Babylon at present, and for many centuries past, is in striking accordance with this word of Holy Writ. The fulfilment began with the conquest by Cyrus, and was prosecuted under Darius Hystaspes, Xerxes, and the Seleucidæ. By the time of Strabo, some seven centuries after Isaiah, Babylon was almost a desert. Pausanias, in the second century of our era, says that nothing remained but the walls; since then, the literal fulfilment of the prophecy has never been interrupted. Now if this theory proves to be the best explanation of all the facts of the problem, it is sure of final acceptance. It is capable, however, of extension backwards as well as forwards; and if it appears that Babylon was taken in the age of Isaiah, in a manner at least as conformable to the prediction as the conquest by Cyrus, the traditional view will simply be supplemented by the statement that the prophecy began to be fulfilled in the eighth or seventh century instead of the sixth. Those who hold this view are therefore as much interested as any one in ascertaining whether such facts exist. The immense expansion of Babylon in the intermediate century or two no more contravenes the prediction on this hypothesis than the failure of the city to decline during the two centuries from Cyrus to Alexander contravenes it on the ordinary hypothesis. In fact, a fulfilment in the age of Hezekiah is a distinct advantage to the predictive element; for the common view needs correcting as well as supplementing. Whatever may be true of prophecy in general, this particular prophecy does not stand out of relation to the time of its fulfilment. It closes with the distinct statement, deliberately repeated, "Her time" (that is, the time of Babylon's overthrow) "is near to come; her days shall not be prolonged;"-but on the common explanation, her time was far to come, and her days were for centuries prolonged. We may be confident, then, that no objection from the standpoint of tradition will lie against the attempt to find an initial fulfilment of this chapter in or near the lifetime of its author. The preliminary defence against what I have called a leading modern view is obtained by means of other hypotheses. A critical glance at the entire passage, Isa. xiii. 1xiv. 27, divides it into four portions, which may or may not have been originally separate. The first is chapter xiii., which we will call a. It comes to a solemn and appropriate close in the sentence already quoted. Section b comprises xiv. 1, 2. It introduces the wholly new conception of Israel in exile, and predicts that they will hereafter rule over their oppressors. Section c extends from xiv. 3 to 23. This ode on the king of Babylon is very different from anything else in the book of Isaiah. Section d, xiv. 24-27, relates to the overthrow of Assyria in the land of Jehovah, whose hand is stretched out over all the earth. This last portion, by common consent, belongs to Isaiah, and alludes to the destruction of Sennacherib's host. The dominant critical view proceeds on the theory that the three previous portions belong together, and were written about the close of the exile. Thus the passage is divided as follows: abc exilian, d Isaian. Let us now make the supposition that each of these other three sections, as well as d, is a separate prophecy, a and b being joined mechanically by a redactor who simply inserted the particle for. Grant for the sake of argument that b and c will then be exilian, it does not follow that a will be. Babylon was certainly captured more than once in Isaiah's lifetime, and so he may have predicted its utter overthrow in chapter xiii. This hypothesis gives the formula: a Isaian, b exilian, c exilian, d Isaian. By another hypothesis, we may leave c unchanged, but 8 join b with a. The redactor made no insertion, we will suppose. The logical connection apparent is the real connection. Babylon falls because Jehovah has mercy on Zion and grants her deliverance from captivity. Why now must this particular captivity fall in the sixth century rather than the eighth? And why must the writer have been a captive himself instead of watching the situation from afar? How many things our critics read into the text which are not there! In Isaiah's time the northern kingdom of Israel had been broken up and in good part swept away; Tiglath-Pileser carried the captives to Babylonia among other countries. Now if the writer of xiv. 1, 2, might have formed the expectation that the positions of oppressor and oppressed would be exchanged by Israel and Babylon on the fall of the latter, and if Isaiah might have foreseen this last event, then we have a basis for grouping as follows: a b Isaian, c exilian, d Isaian. One more combination remains to be noticed: a b c d Isaian. This differs from what I have called the ancient, or traditional, view, in avoiding the necessity for Isaiah's miraculous foresight of Cyrus and his age. That view would permit the grouping: a b c Isaian, d Isaian, the two subjects being different; and so, after xiv. 23, the Revisers' "space" would remain (see the American Committee's note). But the theory before us understands the passage xiii. 1-xiv. 27, from first to last, to refer to the Assyria of Isaiah's time, for which Babylon stands, as one of its principal cities, and whose king repeatedly calls himself king of Babylon. If it be granted that in the midst of a lofty poetical characterization, such as Isaiah xiv., alternate expressions, like "the Assyrian" and "the king of Babylon," may refer to the same power, this hypothesis can be made quite forcible. Five different combinations have now been proposed, each not only possible, but possessing some measure of plausibility. As d is a constant quantity, we have (1) a b c Isaian, the traditional theory; (2) a b c exilian, the prevailing modern theory; (3) a Isaian, b exilian, c exilian, Bredenkamp's theory; (4) a b Isaian, c exilian, for which much might be said; (:) abcd Isaian, Strachey's theory. All these except (2) permit chapter xiii. to have been written by Isaiah. Hence we may proceed to investigate in its natural order the evidence for his authorship, hoping to secure unbiased attention to the facts which support the position chosen. The natural order, as I conceive, is as follows: prima facie statements, linguistic parallels, historical environment. I. The prima facie evidence is twofold. I. The chapter has come down to us in the book of Isaiah, a book which reaches us by a tradition (in the literal sense of the word) unbroken for more than two thousand years at any rate, i. e., from the time of the LXX. translation. Those to whom this evidence is a trifle would do well to reflect that on similar evidence we receive the great majority of all our ancient books. Be the evidence in the case great or small, there is nothing in this particular department to be put on the other side. 2. מַשָּׂא בְּכָל אֲשֶׁר חָזָה :Our chapter has a special title riore anyon. If the evidence requires it, we shall surrender the genuineness of chapters x1.-lxvi. and all the other antilegomena, including xiv. 1-23; but xiii. occupies a stronger position, behind the stubborn earthwork of its first verse. Dr. Rowland Williams and others may assert, as though it were a plain matter of fact, that the title was inserted at a late and unreliable period; but in so saying they speak what they do not know, and testify what they have not seen. It might be convenient for us to declare, in defence of the Isaian authorship, that the name Nineveh originally stood in place of Babylon in xiii. 19, and that it was changed by some later scribe; but we should be properly |