The Integrity of the Book of Isaiah

Rev. Wm, Henry Cobb


The Bibliotheca Sacra for April and October 1881, and for January 1882, contained Articles aiming to show a linguistic correspondence between the main divisions of the Book commonly ascribed to Isaiah too minute and undesigned to be accounted for on the hypothesis of a diversity of authorship. Since those Articles were written, the thirteenth volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica has appeared, with an Article on Isaiah from the pen of Rev. T. K. Cheyne, which may be regarded as giving the high-water mark of recent exegesis, as its author has written the latest, and in some respects the best, commentary on the prophecies of Isaiah.1 This commentary, especially its appended essays, should be read in connection with the Article in the Encyclopedia, as the latter is too brief to express justly the writer’s cautious, reverent, and thoroughly Christian spirit. It is gratifying to find him treating the conservative view with far more respect than was evinced in his earlier work.2 It is well to remind a certain class of critics that such epithets as “blind conservatism,” “hard-and-fast traditionalism,” fail to meet the present conditions of the problem. Professor Plumptre, for example, who cannot be accused of an orthodox bias, declares3 : “My own conviction is, that the second part of Isaiah bears as distinct traces of coming from the author of the first as Paradise Regained does of coming from the author of Paradise Lost.” The British Quarterly Review for last October, in a favorable notice of Dr. Bruce’s recent work, remarks: “He accepts the idea of a Deutero-Isaiah, which, on grounds of exact criticism, is, to say the least, a mere hypothesis, and, we think, a gratuitous one.” Professor W. S. Tyler, whose accurate and fair-minded scholarship is as conspicuous as his conservatism, stated a few months since that he considered the argument for the unity of Isaiah to come as near a demonstration as is possible in an investigation of this kind.

Mr. Cheyne is far enough from agreeing with the writers just quoted, but his progress during ten years is worth noting. In 1870 he held that Isa. 40–66 is the work of a single author, who wrote at Babylon in the time of Cyrus; he noted with evident satisfaction that “the principal passage (Isa. 56:9–57:11), which has been thought by some to imply the authorship of a resident in Palestine, is given up by Delitzsch as incapable of defense.” He also claimed, at that time, that four other anonymous prophets of the exile have contributed to 1–39: The vicarious fifty-third chapter was rationalized as follows: “The genius of Israel rises from the ashes of martyrdom to an undecaying supremacy, and the actual nation is so transformed in character as to correspond to its divine ideal” (pp. 176, 177). At present, Mr. Cheyne gives back to Isaiah the Babylonian prophecy in 21:1–10, because a lately-discovered cylinder shows this to refer to Sargon’s conquest of Babylon. He has also entirely reconstructed his theory of 40–66, making only 40-52:12 Babylonian; the rest he breaks up into nine different works, all of which were written in Palestine, some of them probably in the time of Manasseh, that is, close to Isaiah’s date, some by one or more Jews left in Palestine during the exile, and some as late as the days of Nehemiah. Isa. 53 is assigned to the age of Manasseh, but was “probably based on an older work.” At all events, he regards it as typical of the Christ who was to come.

These and similar changes of view are confessed with a frankness -which almost disarms criticism; but it is pertinent to remark that Mr. Cheyne’s assignment of so many disputed chapters to a Palestinian authorship rests not on the discovery of any cylinder or other antique, but upon the more careful study of the local allusions and historical references in the prophecy itself. He had denied these in his earlier work, but he now says (Vol. 2. p. 203):”Such references are really forthcoming as the elder traditionalists rightly saw.” The question of phraseology he examines in some detail (pp. 223, 224, 232–234), but speaks very disparagingly of this kind of argument (see p. 223), considering the evidence from style to be of much greater importance. It is chiefly the variety of style which leads him to dissect so mercilessly the latter part of Isaiah. But surely an author may vary his style to a great extent, without committing felo de se; no one has ever invented an instrument for defining the lawful limits of this power. Mr. Cheyne himself says (Vol. 2: p. 169): “To me, indeed, it is tolerably clear that 43:1–44:5 forms one section in itself, and 44:6–45:25 another. But when I find Delitzsch connecting 43:1–13 with 42., and Ewald not only accepting 44: as an independent section, but even forming 44:1–9 into a single paragraph, I am obliged to distrust my own insight.”

Mr. Cheyne gives us in the Encyclopedia Britannica a much clearer and very amusing, because unconscious, instance of the difficulties of dealing with “style” (p. 379): “No doubt an author may change his style, writing in a different mood; we must, at all events, suppose that the author, whoever he may have been, was in a different tone of mind when he wrote so hardly, obscurely, and awkwardly as in 53.” Again he mentions (p. 380) the “harsh, but strong style,” of 53., which all will recognize as the description of the Servant of Jehovah in his vicarious suffering. Passing on to the foot of page 381 we read (the italics are mine):”But what shall we say — what language is adequate to the divine beauty of such passages as Handel linked to music almost as divine: ‘Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God;’ ‘He shall feed his flock like a shepherd;’ ‘He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth’? Silver tones of which the ear is never weary; honied rhetoric which thrills like a subtile odor even those who have lost the key to its meaning.”

In view of this rhapsody, would it not be preferable to come back to the patient sifting of linguistic evidence, until we have laid a firmer foundation for the higher criticism?

In 1870 Mr. Cheyne states, as though there were no doubt in the matter4 : “With all his originality, our prophet [Isaiah A] was indebted for his most essential doctrine to Joel, Amos, and Hosea, his predecessors.” In 1880 he says, on the other hand5 : “I have no doubt that Joel belongs to post-exile times.” I repeat, I have no disposition to cavil at such changes of view when so openly avowed; but it is plain that a science with results so quickly shifting needs a broader base in the patient collation of those facts which lie open to the investigation of all. One who is obliged to confess repeatedly that “the complications of the problems of biblical criticism are only beginning to be adequately realized “ought not to waste his ammunition upon an ally like Mr. Urwick, whose Servant of Jehovah (pp. 29-50) contains extended specimens of the diction of Isaiah A and B. Had I seen this latter work before preparing my previous Articles, I should have recognized its helpfulness; it is due to myself to add that the results of the present Article were obtained before Mr. Urwick’s book had come to my notice. Mr. Cheyne dismisses him as follows (Vol. n. p. 223): “I am not a professor of philosophy, and cannot think that a valuable ‘cumulative argument’ is produced for the unity of Isaiah by counting up words like אבה and אביו, אות and אזר, which occur (how could they help occurring?) in both parts of the book; and it is with real sorrow that I notice a ‘tutor in Hebrew’ priding himself on the discovery that ‘ישע and its participle or noun occurs fourteen times in the later portion and seven times in the earlier.’”

Again, Mr. Cheyne speaks far too slightingly of the argument from diction when he declares6 that “the peculiarities of phraseology [in 40-46.] can obviously be explained by the profound influence which so great a prophet as Isaiah must have exercised, and demonstrably did exercise, on his successors.” Instead of a general statement of this nature, we ought to have a frank admission that the language of a writer is as important an element in determining his historical position as the coarser facts of scenery and allusion; an element so delicate that it should be examined with the greatest care, but capable of producing as high a degree of conviction as any other, when properly applied. No such rough-and-ready remark as that just quoted can sever the thousand philological tendrils which bind together the two parts of Isaiah.

Putting these aside for the present, I claim that the argument from incidental allusions is very much understated by the advocates of a double, or (as Mr. Cheyne would have it), a multiple authorship. According to their view Ezekiel was the great and only prophet in Chaldea during nearly the whole period of the Captivity; Isaiah B not having appeared till just before its close, and Daniel not till centuries later.

It is admitted on all sides that Ezekiel exercised a powerful influence upon both generations of the exiles, and kept alive their hope of a return to Babylon. His prophecies must have been the one fresh, living book of that period, far more pondered than the writings of those earlier prophets, whose word was so much less adapted to their circumstances, and therefore so much less “the word of God to them.” To quote the eloquent language of Dr. Stebbins7 : “His vision of God’s greatness with which he opens his prophecy; his denunciation of the nations which had been the most implacable foes of his people; his vision of the dry bones, and their restoration to life and activity; and above all, his glorious vision of the recovered land, and its division among the tribes; all this would solace the heart of the sorrowing captive, and his soul would be all aflame with a desire to recover the sacred soil of the fathers, and make such sacrifices as were necessary to gratify it.”

Whoever the prophet B may have been, on this theory he had grown up among the exiles; whether or not he had ever seen Jerusalem, the atmosphere he had breathed during the main part of his life was that of Babylonia. He must have eagerly devoured, and been, as it were, saturated with the prophecies of Ezekiel. If, then, Isaiah A could have made so deep an impression upon him as all grant that he did, could it have been otherwise with the influence of Ezekiel? If, again, the connection between A and B can be accounted for by the “profound influence which A must have exerted, and demonstrably did exert, upon his successors,” how much profounder must have been A’s influence upon Ezekiel than upon B; for Ezekiel was at least fifty years nearer the time of A, and he had been brought up in Judea before the Captivity. If, thirdly, the local allusions in Ezekiel leave no room for reasonable doubt that he wrote in Babylonia, although the formative period of his life was spent in Palestine, we should expect a fortiori to find such allusions even more numerous and clear in the case of the prophet B. While some purely abstract writer might use language free from any terrestrial costume, yet if local incidental references actually occur in B (and we shall find a multitude of them) then they must be allowed to speak honestly for themselves. On each of these three points we find precisely what we should not expect on the theory of the modern critics, and precisely what we should expect if the prophet B lived in Palestine. We will once more quote the critical canon of Hitzig, and this time without inserting any brackets.8That time, those time-relations, out of which a prophetic writer is explained, are his time, his time-relations; to that period he is to be referred as the date of his own existence.”

It is a singular fact that the critical school desert their own principles in the case before us. Mr. Cheyne admits with the utmost nonchalance :9 “Chapters 49–66: have one peculiarity: Babylon and Cyrus are not mentioned in them at all. True, there was not so much said about Babylon as we should have expected even in 40.-48.; the paucity of references to the local characteristics of Babylonia is one of the negative arguments urged in favor of the Isaianic origin of the prophecy.” As to the affirmative argument from Palestinian references he observes: “The only allusions greatly worth considering occur in masses in those portions only of the second part of Isaiah which, for a combination of causes, should most probably be separated from the remainder.” Whether this be true the reader will be in a better position to judge as we proceed to examine the facts in question.

First, as to the matter of local color. It would be difficult to find a greater contrast in this respect than is presented by Ezekiel, on the one hand, and the prophet B, on the other. The former has a general knowledge of the Holy land, and, as most of his prophecies relate to it, we find frequent references to its prominent features. The only minute knowledge of Palestine which he displays pertains to the Temple mount at Jerusalem, with which his priesthood would have made him familiar.

Mr. Urwick has called attention to the decided contrast presented in this respect by Isaiah 40–66, with special reference to agricultural terms.10 The argument has its force, manifestly, in the circumstantial detail with which it is carried out, in those incidental turns of expression which are so hard to counterfeit. I regret the occasion of citing another instance of Mr. Cheyne’s unfair treatment of this writer. “By a similar method,” he says,11 “it could be proved that the book of Jeremiah was written in northern Israel, because in 17:8 a figure is taken from perennial streams, which were unknown in the drier south; and even that the book of the exile-prophet Ezekiel is a forgery, because of his frequent references to the mountains and rivers of Israel.” Mr. Cheyne here quotes from his previous work,12 and we will turn to that. “A Semitic race, when transplanted to a distant country, preserves a lively recollection of its earlier home. The Arabic poets in Spain delighted in allusions to Arabian localities, and descriptions of the events of desert-life. Why should not a prophecy of the exile contain some such allusions to the scenery of Palestine, and at least one such retrospect of events, some of which had happened previously to the fall of Jerusalem; events, it should be remembered, which had left a deep impression on the religious condition of the Jews in Babylon? It will perhaps not be out of place to compare the allusions in this section to oaks and hills and torrent-beds, with the frequent and touching references of Ezekiel to the mountains and rivers of Israel.” The comical thing about this quotation is that the latter portion of it (all after the word Palestine) is suppressed; the whole having been intended in 1870 to show that “this section,” chaps, 56:9–57:11, is Babylonian, in spite of its Palestinian allusions, while in 1880 the writer has concluded, because of these allusions, that it was written in Palestine, and the quotation is intended to apply only to chaps, 40–48: If, now, whatever may have been true of the Arabic poets in Spain, it should appear from a diligent study of the texts that the local color of Ezekiel is decidedly Babylonian, and that of B decidedly Palestinian, the above inquiry of Mr. Cheyne (“why should not a prophecy of the exile,” etc.), will remind us of King Charles II’s famous question about the fish. “It will perhaps not be out of place to compare the allusions” in Ezekiel and in B more fully than Mr. Cheyne seems to have done. (In most of what follows, I omit references to chapter and verse, which can easily be supplied from the Concordance).

The stand-point of the Captivity is very manifestly that of Ezekiel. He dates his prophecies by the year, month, and day of “Jehoiachin’s captivity” (1:2), or of “our captivity” (33:21; 40:1). This phrase must be supplied in the many other passages where year, month, and day are specified. He uses a technical word for captivity, גּוֹלָה, which occurs eleven times in Ezekiel, and never in A or B. He also uses the common word שְׁבִי, and the rare words שׁבִית and גָּלוּת. He expresses this idea of captivity twenty-three times in all, not counting variants, while B expresses it only five times (שׁבִי four times, גָּלוּת once). Why did the latter, “the great prophet of the captivity,” say so little about it, and never even mention a date in connection with it?13

Ezekiel is a man of the city; his favorite illustrations are architectural.14 There is no mistaking their Chaldean origin. “He had wandered through the vast halls of Assyrian monuments, and there gazed on all that Assyrian monuments have disclosed to us of human dignity and brute strength combined, — the eagle-winged lion, human-headed bull.”15 His references to natural products are prevailingly commercial rather than agricultural. While Isaiah A depicts the farmer casting wheat (חִטָּה), barley (שְׂעיָה), or spelt (כֻּסֶּמֶת), into the ground, Ezekiel employs the same words in the plural only, to denote articles of produce to be found in the markets of Babylon or Tyrus.

Except the most common words, such as נָהָר, river, Ezekiel’s references to natural scenery are differently expressed from those of B, besides being very much fewer. He has nothing to say of the מישׁוֹר, plain, or the מֶק, valley, the מַעְיָן, fountain, or the אֲגָם, pool, which meet us so often in other writers. All these are in A and B alike. But Ezekiel uses בִּקעָה, for plain, גַּיְא, for valley, עַיִן, for fountain, גֶּבֶא, for pool. Now בִּקְעָה is properly a valley (lit. a cleft); and we frequently find it used with this signification. But the word is also applicable to a low plain, such as that in which Babylon was situated. The first occurrence of בִּקָעָה is in Gen. 11:2, where it describes this very plain of Shinar (A. V: vale). It occurs five times in Ezekiel, always referring to this same locality (A. V: plain, except 37:1–2, where valley; margin, Or, champaign). The writers of Palestine employ the word in both these senses, and so we find it in B (plain, 40:3; valley, 41:18 and 63:14). גַּיְא, the common word for valley, is found in A and B as well as Ezekiel.

The Hebrew language has several words for fountain, besides the two mentioned above; as ba, גַּל, גְּלּה, מַּבּוּעַ, מוֹצָא מָקוֹר. But Ezekiel in Babylon never has occasion to speak of a fountain, though the word occurs twice as part of a proper name in 47:10 (from עַיִן En-gedi even unto En-eglaim).

B has three different words for fountain, and it is a curious fact that two of these are found once each in A and B.

As to גֶּבֶא, which Ezekiel uses once for pool, it is a rare word, found only once elsewhere, viz. in A, where it means cistern rather than pool. So in this case also B agrees with A (אֲגָם), and both disagree with Ezekiel. The latter has a favorite word for river, which he employs seven times, אָפִיּק. It is found only eight times in other writers, three of which occurrences are in the prophets, viz. Joel2 A1. But A employs it (8:7) of the King of Assyria coming up over all “his channels” אֲפִיקָין. B does not use it at all, but has another rare word for river, יָבָל, found once each in A and B, and nowhere else. Let us pause long enough to take in the significance of such facts as these. We will imagine that B is a writer at the close of the captivity, and that he wishes to express the idea river. If he desires a common word, he will employ נָהָר, נַחַל, or יְאֹר. If an unusual word, he will most naturally choose אָפִיק. If he wishes a word derived from יָבַל, to flow, how strong is the probability that he will take יוּבָל, Jer. 17:8, or אוּבָל, Dan. 8:2, 3, 6, instead of going back nearly two centuries for Isaiah’s ἅπαξ λεγόμενον יָבָל. If the latter were a favorite with A, the theory of imitation, or unconscious saturation, would apply; as it stands, that supposition fails. If there were only one word found in A and B and nowhere else, the fact would have less significance; the truth is, יָבל is one out of eight such words.16

Coming back from rivers and fountains to terra firma, we observe that B has יַבָּשָׁה for dry land, a word not found in Ezekiel, who expresses the same idea by חָרָבָה, which occurs also in Haggai, but not in B, nor in any early prophet. The plural אְרָצוֹת, lands, in the sense of countries, is for the most part a late word. Ezekiel uses it twenty-seven times, Jeremiah seven times. It is found in A, chap, 36:20; 37:11–18; but it is noticeable that in the first two cases Rabshakeh the Assyrian speaks, in the third Hezekiah simply quotes his language. Now since B has frequent occasion for this idea of lands, or countries, is it not strange that he never expresses it by אֲרָצוֹת? The contrast between the two prophets is seen in the heavens as well as the earth. B uses שַׁחַק for sky; Ezekiel has no word for sky. From the radical idea to beat fine, to expand, the same word comes to mean the dust of the earth, as well as the expanse of the heavens. Hence שַׁחַק Isa. 40:15. Ezekiel has a different word for dust (besides עָפָי, common to all), viz. אָבָק 26:10, spoken of the dust raised by horses in running.

It will surprise no one to find שֶׁלֶג, snow, unnoticed by the writer in Chaldea. But B speaks as though describing a common phenomenon; “the snow cometh down from heaven.” Both Isaiahs agree in this, also in the use of חוֹל, sand, which is wanting in Ezekiel. בָּרָק and בָּזָק, lightning, are in Ezekiel, but not in A or B. אַלְגִּבִישׁ, ice, and קֶרֶח, crystal, are peculiar to Ezekiel. The former is interesting as prefixing the Arabic article אַל to גָּבִישׁ, which occurs only in Job. (I use the phrase “peculiar to Ezekiel,” here and elsewhere, to avoid the longer, though more strictly correct expression, “found in Ezekiel and not in B.” So “peculiar to B,” means the reverse).

צוּר, rock, is naturally left out from Ezekiel’s vocabulary, though very common in the Palestinian writers. A has it eight times, B four times. Ezekiel writes צֹר just once (A.V., harder than flint); the word occurs nowhere else. B has a different word for flint, חַלָּמִישׁ.

A very marked, and on the common theory a characteristic, difference between Ezekiel and B appears in their references to precious stones. B alludes to them in only one verse (54:12), where two are mentioned, אֶקְדָּח and כַּדְכד. The former is a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον of uncertain meaning; the latter, translated in the A. 5: “agate,” margin, “chrysoprase,” means probably the ruby. The whole subject of the minerals of the Bible is involved in obscurity. The word in question occurs elsewhere only in Ezek. 27:16. Here, of course, is a fact favoring a relationship between the two prophets, but before we give it too much weight, we should understand that this is one of forty-nine cases, in which a word is found once in B and only once elsewhere. Seven of these are in A, and this is the only one in Ezekiel, whose prophecy is about twice as long as A’s. Coming back to the matter of local color, we find just what we should expect if Ezekiel, and not B, was familiar with the magnificence of Babylon. The former has another word for ruby (or perhaps garnet) namely אֹדֶם. He mentions also the topaz, using two different words, תַּרְשִׁישׁ and פִּטְדָּה; the carbuncle, נֹפֶךְ; red corals, רָאמוֹת; jasper, יָשְׁה; onyx, יַהֲוֹּם; emerald, בָּרֶכֶת; sapphire, סַפִּיר; diamond, שָׁמִיר. All these are wanting in A as well as B. Of other minerals besides precious stones, B has none which are not also in Ezekiel, but the following are peculiar to the latter: שָׁשַׁר, red ochre, בַּרְזֶל עָשֹׂת, bright iron, עֹפֶרֶת, lead, בְּדִיל, tin, סיג, dross, הֶלאָה, rust, מֶלח , salt, גּפרִית, brimstone. Only two of these eight are in A, and none of them in B.

It may be well to observe at this point that the contrast we are drawing out between B and Ezekiel is not weakened by the fact that some of Ezekie’s peculiar words are found in A. At first sight, it might seem as though a parallel between A and B had no more tendency to take the latter out of the age of the Exile than a parallel between A and Ezekiel has to draw the former into it. But a little reflection shows the fallacy of this. The dates of A and of Ezekiel are known; they are fixed points; the question is simply toward which of these points the evidence before us would assign B. Now it is a matter of simple observation that the vocabulary of A is much more extensive than that of B; (1828 words to 1313). On the common view, this is accounted for by the theory that these last chapters were written in the prophet’s old age, when he had withdrawn himself from the bustle of life, and would naturally use fewer words. I grant that the presence in Ezekiel of a large number of B’s words not found in A would count against this theory; but we do not find this to be the fact. On the other hand, if Ezekiel coincides with A in a large number of words which are wanting in B, it counts nothing on either side. I shall show by and by that B is far more nearly related to A than to Ezekiel, in respect to the number of coincident words; at present we return to the examination of their character, with no presumption against our results arising from the parallels between A and Ezekiel.

We may group with inanimate objects, for purposes of classification, a few general terms denoting time, quantity, color, etc. Thus the word for noon, צֹהַר, appears in all the seven classes except the one to which Ezekiel belongs. A has it once, B twice. There is no other word to express this idea.

Night is translated by three words, neither of them in Ezekiel; but the most common, ליִל, is found in both parts of Isaiah. Of the seventeen Hebrew words for darkness, eight occur in B, six of which are also in A. Ezekiel has only three, חשֶׁךְ, עֲלָטָה, and עֲרָפֶל; the first and last of these are in B. A has three not found in B, אֹפֶל, מוּעָף and מָעוּף. The six common to A and B are מַחְשָׁךְ, אֲפִלָה נֶשֶׁף, חשֶׁךִ, חֲכָה, and עָב. The other word in B is קַיְרוּת. We gain a little light out of this “darkness” as regards the integrity of Isaiah; for we observe that the general conception appears under nine different forms in A, and eight in B; of which eight, only two occur in Ezekiel, and all but two in A. Or, confining the comparison to B and Ezekiel, the former has six peculiar words, the latter, one.

מָהָרּ, to-morrow, is in A and B, but not in Ezekiel. חֹדֶשּׁ, month, is common to A, B, and Ezekiel, while יֶרַח is peculiar to B. כֶּפֶל, double, is in B and not Ezekiel. רָבַב and רָבָה, to multiply, are in A and B; only the latter in Ezekiel, who also expresses the same idea by the peculiar terms עָתַר and שָׁרַחּ. קֶדֶם, the East, is in A, B, and Ezekiel; but קָדִים is peculiar to Ezekiel, and מזְרָח to B. קַדְמוֹן, Eastern, is in Ezekiel only; קַדְמונִי is also in B. דָּרוֹם, the South, is thirteen times in Ezekiel, but not in A or B. קוֹמָה, height, עק, deep, תְּלֶת, violet, אַרְגָמָן , purple, מִכְלוֹל, perfection,מעַט ִ, and קָטָן, little, are examples of words found in Ezekiel, but not in B. קָטֹן (little), occurs in A and B, but not in Ezekiel.

Ascending a step from the plane of inanimate creation, let us compare the allusions of Ezekiel and of B to the vegetable kingdom. A striking difference is immediately manifest. Ezekiel has very little to do with agricultural life, but this is the native element of Isaiah B. The latter lives among the farmers; the former among the merchants. The words for wheat, barley, and spelt, as already stated, are found in Ezekiel only in the plural, referring to the product, not the growing grain. B makes frequent mention of chaff or straw, קַשׁ, מֹחּ, תֶּבֶן, describing like an eye-witness its separation from the grain and subsequent dissipation or destruction. (See especially Isa. 41:2, 15; 47:14). None of these words, nor any similar one, is to be found in Ezekiel. So the verb רּוּשׁ, to thresh, is peculiar to A and B. On the other hand, פּוֹל, beans, עֲדָשִׁים, lentiles,) דֹּהַן, millet, only as used for food, and עֲרִיסָה, groats, סֹלֶת, fine flour, only as used in oblations, are in Ezekiel, but not in B. Among trees, only one is peculiar to Ezekiel, the plane-tree, עַרְמוֹן (Ezek. 31:8), a word mentioned elsewhere only as “pilled “by Jacob in this same Mesopotamia (Gen. 30:37). The common word rod, מַטֶה, is found in Ezekiel and wanting in B; but as it chiefly imports a means of chastisement, it hardly comes under our present head. The only other vegetable peculiar to Ezekiel is the vine גֶּפֶן, with its product, the sour-grape בֹּסֶר.

A few other vegetable products in Ezekiel remain to be mentioned, which confirm the distinction we are tracing; viz. ebony הָבנִי, balsam צֳרִי, cassia קִדָּה, and spice בֶֹּשׁם; also a few general terms, pasture מִרְעֶת, foliage צַמֶּרֶת, garden-bed עֲרוּגָה, and branch, for which Ezekiel has seven peculiar words: is, בַּד, דָּלִית, זְמוֹרָה, סְעַפָּה, סַרְעַפָּה עָנָף, ָֹפּארָה.

The above words, and all synonymes for them, are absent from Isaiah B, except in the case of the last word, branch, of which I shall speak presently. If I am not in error, Ezekiel has no. peculiar words (or rather, ideas) belonging to the vegetable kingdom, save those I have mentioned. Let the reader remember that his prophecy is nearly three times as long as B’s (83½ pages to 31½ ), and he will be struck with the contrast, not only in the number of words, but especially in their character. For when we turn to Isaiah B, we find ourselves among the herbs רוּעִים, the grass דֶּשֶׁא, חָצִיר (both these in A also, not in Ezekiel), the thorns נַעֲצוּחּ, and briers סִרְפָּד, of Palestine. This word נַעֲצוּחּ may serve to show how the subject before us invites and repays careful study. I find no less than twenty-two Hebrew words for thorn, some of frequent occurrence, others rare. נַעֲצוּחּ occurs only twice, Isa. 7:19 and 55:13; i.e. once in A and once in B. But סַלּוֹן or סַלּוֹן, as it is variously pointed, is found only in Ezek. 2:6 and 28:24. How almost inevitable the inference that Ezekiel knew the Babylonian thorn, Isaiah the Palestinian, and hence that A = B. A superficial observer might reply by instancing another word for thorn, שָׁמִיר, which though almost peculiar to A, appears once in Ezekiel, and not in B. But this would show the folly of drawing philological inferences from the concordance alone. שָׁמִיר in Isaiah has strictly and always the meaning thorn; in Ezekiel. and the other later prophets the meaning diamond. Hence the above argument from נַעֲציּחּ and סַלּוֹן is strengthened rather than weakened; and if any one will calculate the probability that these two words among the twenty-two would occur just as we find them, on the hypothesis that B lived in Babylon after Ezekiel, he will find that this probability diminishes to a vanishing point.

Returning to the botany of B, we observe next the oak תִַּדְהָר, and תִרְזָה, for which Ezekiel has אַלוֹה. אַלּוֹן is common to both. תִּדְהָר is perhaps specifically the holm-oak. B writes תְּאַשּׁוּר, cedar, but in Ezekiel’s day the word has become worn down (it would seem) to אֲשוּר. שּׁטָּח, acacia, and הֲדַס, myrtle, are pecular to B.

One of the most interesting words is willow, which Isaiah expresses by עֶרֶב, a word occurring once each in A and B, once each in Leviticus, Job, and Psalms, and nowhere else. Ezekiel’s word for willow is צַפְצָפָח, whose derivation points to places overflowed by water. One would naturally suppose that this would correspond to the famous Salix Babylonica; and so Forskal takes it, cited by Houghton in Smith’s Bible Dictionary, s. v: “Willows.” The common opinion, however, identifies the Salix Babylonica with the עֶרֶב, on account of the beautiful allusion in Ps. 136: “By the rivers of Babylon we hanged our harps upon the willows.”

But if this Psalm, as many scholars believe, was written in Palestine after the exile, we should expect its Palestinian color to be betrayed by just such minute indications as the word עֶרֶב. If this conclusion is probable, it becomes highly improbable that a prophet in Babylonia at the close of the Exile would write עֶרֶב rather than צַפצָפָה. When we bear in mind also that the former word is used once each by A and B, and only three times elsewhere, we find the evidence for the integrity of Isaiah materially strengthened.

From trees the transition is easy to branches. Besides the seven words already mentioned which Ezekiel employs for branches, we find צֶר in A and B, elsewhere only Dan. 11:7. Isaiah A has a word for branch peculiar to himself, סְעִיף, but in the sense cleft it occurs in both A and B, elsewhere only Judg. 15:8, 11. הָמָס, twig, is peculiar to B. Ezekiel uses זְמוֹרָה sometimes in this sense. יוֹק, sucker, is peculiar to B; ינִיקָה to Ezekiel. Among general words, גַּנָּה, garden, is found several times in A and B, but not at all in Ezekiel; the more usual word גַּן is in B and Ezekiel, but not in A. שָׂדַי, field, and אַשְׁמַנִּים, fertile fields, are peculiar to B. Ezekiel has only בּוּל which is common to all. צַח, juice, is found only in B. בּוּל, produce, occurs twice; once each in B and Job. There seems no reason for assigning different meanings to these passages, as Gesenius does. Besides the two occurrences in question, the word is found once as a proper name, בּוּל, the eighth Hebrew month. It comes from יָבִל, to rain, hence the rainy month, and, as a common noun, produce, the effect of rain. Ezekiel expresses the same idea by a peculiar word from the same root, יְבוּל. Another word for this concept is נִיב, peculiar to B, while תְּנוּבָה, from the same root is peculiar to Ezekiel. Still another, which A and B both use for vegetable, as well as other produce, is צֶאֱצְאִים, which is wanting in Ezekiel. On the other hand, תְּבוּאָה, with the same signification, is in A and Ezekiel, but not in B.

We have next to compare Ezekiel and B with respect to their fauna. We shall have fewer specimens to examine than we found in the vegetable kingdom.

Of domestic animals, the following are peculiar to Ezekiel. Cattle, מִקְנֶה notice that the idea of property is prominent in this word, as contrasted with the common בָּקָר or בְּמָה, failing מְרִיא, lamb כֶּבֶשׂ, calf גֶל, he-gout עַתּוּד.

Of wild animals, he alludes to the lion אֲרִי, young lion כּפיד, lioness לָבִיא, and whelp גּוּר. None of these are in B, who (with Ezekiel) has אַרְה. שׁוּעָל, the fox or jackal, and עַקְרָב, scorpion, are the only other animals peculiar to Ezekiel.

Turning to B, we find three words for camel, of which גָּמָל, the common word, is also in Ezekiel, while כֶר, young camel, and כִּרְכָּרוֹת, swift camels or dromedaries, occur only in B. טָלֶה, lamb, and רָל, ewe, are peculiar to B; שֶׂה, sheep, is in Ezekiel also. The only word for swine, “Pin, is peculiar to B. The only word for bear, דֹּב, is in A and B, not in Ezekiel. The same is true בַּת יַעֲנָה, ostrich. תּוֹא, antelope, is in B; נָחָשׁ, serpent, is in A and B; so also אֶפעֶה, viper (upon which see a further remark below); תּוֹלַעַת, worm, is once in A and twice in B; חָגָב, grasshopper, is once in B. None of the five last words are in Ezekiel, and among ten words meaning grasshopper, not one is in Ezekiel. עַכָּבִישׁ, spider, is one of B’s peculiar words on which I shall remark further, under another head. B has two peculiar words for moth, סָס and עָשׁ, and one for gnat, ן (according to the interpretation of Isa. 51:6 which I prefer on the whole). This finishes the list of animals, unless we include יצָה, egg, which is once in A and twice in B, but not in Ezekiel. The Hebrew has no other word for egg.

I have no doubt that the reader who has followed without prejudice this analysis of the terms used by Ezekiel and by B to express objects in the inanimate, the vegetable, and the animal world is persuaded that the environments of these two prophets were very different, and that the latter has close affinities with the great prophet A. When we rise from the lower animals to the field of human activity we find an embarras de richesse. The human body with its parts and organs; food and raiment; occupations and conditions of life; artificial objects of all kinds; commercial, military, and religious terms; are among the subjects which present themselves for examination. Space permits little more than a mere list of the contrasts here, though the occasions for comment are tempting. Let it be understood that all words mentioned as found in Ezekiel are wanting in B, and vice versa.17 Taking up the first of the above categories, we find that Ezekiel has a special word for body, גְּוִיָּה. He expresses back by גַּב, while A and B have ו. B has חֹצֶן, arm, which in later Hebrew means bosom. שַׁד is B’s word for breast; שׁד Ezekiel’s. B has שׁוֹק, leg; Ezekiel יָךְ, thigh. עֹרֶף, neck, is in B; while Ezekiel has גָּרוֹן and אֶפֶס םצַוָּאר means the sole of the foot in Ezekiel; while in B it occurs as a noun only in the phrase אַפי אֶרֶחּ, the ends of the earth. Similarly, אַצִּילִים is joints (of the hands), i.e. knuckles in Ezekiel; the same word with a slight change in the pointing אֲצִּיִלִים is found in B with the sense sides (of the earth), שֹׁר, navel, דַּד, teat, ן, tooth, שָׂפָם, moustache, זָן, beard, are in Ezekiel; אֶגְרֹף, is in B, חָפְנַיִם, the two fists, in Ezekiel. אֶצְבַּע, finger, is twice in A, and twice in B.

We come next to words for food and clothing, of which there is not a great variety to present. Besides the general words, צוּם, to fast, צוֹם, a fast, רָב, to hunger, צָא , to thirst, צָא, thirsty, in B; and כָּפַן, to thirst, in Ezekiel; we have in B יָנַק, to such, צָלָה, to roast, צְלִי, roast, פָרָק , soup, תִּירוֹשׁ, new wine, מִמְסָךְ, mixed wine, כָי, strong drink, and עָסִיס, new wine; in Ezekiel, עוּג, to bake, בָּשַׁל, to boil, רָקַח, to spice, and עֻגָּה, a cake.

As to raiment, we find יָעַטּ and עָטַף, to clothe, and כְּסוּת, a covering in B, for which last Ezekiel has גְּלוֹם, מְכַסֶּה, and מְסֻכָּה, while לְבוּשׁ, מַעֲטֶה, and תִּלְבּשֶׁת, a garment, are peculiar to B. The latter has עָרוֹם, naked, to contrast with the ירֹם of Ezekiel, and his עֶרְיָה,. nakedness. צַמָּה, a veil, שֹׁבֶל , a train, and צָנִיף, a turban, are in B; the last once each in A and B. Ezekiel’s words for turban are מִצְנֶפֶת and טָבוּל. He has a number of other words more or less closely associated with clothing; תָּפַר, to sew together, חָתַל, to swaddle, טָלָא, to patch, כְּסָתוֹת, pillows, מִסְפּחוֹת, cushions, רִכְמָה, embroidery, מְאוּזָּל , yarn, מֶשִׁי, silk, זוֹר, girdle, מִכְנְסַיִם, drawers, מִכְלְלִים, splendid garments. The reader will perceive a tendency to simplicity in B, and to variety in Ezekiel, confirming our theory of their respective points of view. The contrast comes out more clearly as we pass to the remaining categories.

Of occupations and conditions of life B mentions זִקְנָה, old age, עֲלוּמִים, youth, נַעַר, boy, יֶלֶד , son, חָתָן, son-in-law, צֶאֱָֹצאִים, offspring, (Ezekiel מוֹלֶדֶת), לְאֹם and לָשֹׁן, people (Ezekiel אִישׁ, מִשְׁפָּחָה), עוּל, suckling, אִכָּר, husbandman, מַסְר, smith, חָרָשׁ, workman (Ezekiel once as an adj. meaning skilful), אַסִּיר, prisoner (A1 B2 only), טָחַן, to grind (A1 B1), שָׂכַר, to hire, עָרַג, to weave, סָרִיס, eunuch, גְּבֶרֶת, mistress, שָׂרָה, princess, יִר, blind, אִם, dumb, שׁ deaf, תַּרְלָה, reeling. Most of these words are in A also. Ezekiel not only has none of them, but has no words for these ideas, except as mentioned above. On the contrary he has the following which are wanting in B; טַף, little children, עֶרֶב, mixed multitude (A and B use this word for willow, see above), יָתוֹם, orphan, סבָאִים, drunkards, שָׁטִים, rowers, חֹבֶל and מַלָּה, sailor, גַּלָּב, barber, פָּדָשׁ, horseman, פֶּחָה, governor, נָשִׂיא, prince, עַם־הָעָרֶחּ, common people. This last is a kind of foreshadowing of the Rabbinical Am-arits. The above word for governor is of frequent use in the later Hebrew, coming probably from the old Parsee pakha, a provincial prefect, the modern pasha. It occurs once in A, but only in the speech of Rabshakeh the Assyrian. The similar word סגָנִים, occurring once in B and three times in Ezekiel, has been often pointed out as establishing a Babylonian origin for Isa. 40–66: But the analogy of פֶּחָה shows us how to account for this word on the theory that B=A. In fact Schrader seems to have proved that סְגָנָים is Assyrian rather than Babylonian.

The next point in order is artificial objects, bringing out a new and very effective contrast between B and Ezekiel. The best comment on this is an attentive study of the catalogue itself. The following are peculiar to B: מַיֲצָד, axe (Ezek. חֶרֶבּ once, of a military axe; B uses מַעֲצָד of a carpenter’s tool; see more below), מַקצֻעָק, chisel, שֶׂרֶד, graver, מְחוּנָה, compasses, מַסְר, nails, דֶּבֶק, soldering, פּוּךְ, paint, דְּלִי, bucket, זִקִּים, chains (Ezek. עֲבֹתִים), מַקָּבָה, hammer, מוֹרַג, threshing-sledge, חַיִם, hand-mill, אַשְׁפָּה, quiver, מִכְמָר, net (Ezek. רֶשֶׁת, מָצוֹדָה, and רֶם, which last A. and B use in the sense of curse), פּוּרָח and גַּת, wine-press (see more below), צָב, litter, זְבֻל, dwelling (Ezek. מוֹשָׁב), אֲרֻבָּה, window (A1, B1; Ezek. חַלֶּוֹן twelve times), דֹּק, curtain, חֲדֹם, stool, פִּשְׁתָּח, wick (cf. Ezek. שֶׁת, linen cloth), קֻבַּעַת, goblet.

Over against these simple implements of the carpenter, the farmer, and the household — a list which excludes only a few words like קֶשֶׁת, bow, common to both Ezekiel and B, we meet with a bewildering variety in the Babylonian prophet; viz. צָמִיד, bracelet, תֹּרֶן, mast (A1 in the sense of signal-pole), מָשׁוֹט and מִשּׁוֹט, oar, ס, flag, כִּנּוֹר, harp, סוּגַר, cage, תַּחַשׁ, badgers’ skins, בִּגי חֹפֶשׁ, carpets, מְגִלָּה parchment-roll, קֶסֶת, inkstand, סִיר, pot (A, as above, in the sense of thorn), מַטֶה, staff, מַחֲבַת, pan, תָּל, whitewash, חִשְׁמַל, smooth brass, ן, ivory, חָח, ring, שְׁפַתִּים, hooks, אוֹפַן, wheel, גַּב, rim of a wheel, רָקִיעַ, pavement, מִגְרָשׁ, i, מַעֲלֶה, ascent (artificial; A1 natural, i.e. a cliff), מַהְלָךְ, walk (a place for walking; elsewhere it means journey), גָּג, roof, אוּלם, porch, אַיִל, post (A, B al. in the sense of ram), גַּב and לָם, arch, מַעֲלָה, stairs (A of degrees on sundial), תָּא, chamber, סַף and עָב, threshold (A and B have the latter in the sense of cloud, which is not in Ezekiel), עַמּוּד, pillar, אַתִּיק, gallery (five times in Ezekiel, nowhere else), פְּתַח, i, פִּנָּה, corner, עֲזָרָה, ledge (six times in Ezekiel, nowhere else in this sense), שְׁחִיף, board. Ezekiel has several words for wall, viz. בִּנְיָן (seven times, all in Ezekiel), גָּר, חוֹמָה, חיִחּ, גֶּרֶר, טוּר (elsewhere this means row), טִירָה, גְּדֶרֶת, קִיר. Of these B has only the common words חוֹמָה (A8 B5 Ezek.10), and קִיר (A3 B1 Ezek.25).

A more striking contrast than any of the previous ones meets us as we enter the commercial department. Our drag-net brings in from the prophecies of B only a few words in this category; שָׁבָר, to buy grain, סָחָר, profit (cf. Ezekiel’s סְחרָה, merchants, lit. merchandise, below18 ), מְִחִיר, price, כִּיס, purse, פֶלֶס and קָנֶה, balance (מאזְנַיִם common to both).

Ezekiel has מִשְׁקָל, weight, מְשׂוּרָה, מִדָּה, and תֹּכֶן, measure (מִדָּה B1 in sense stature), קנֶה, buyer, מֹר, seller, רְכֻלָּה, merchandise (four times, all in Ezekiel), רֹל and סְחֹרָה, merchant, רָכַל, to traffic, מוּר, to exchange (B has יָמַר, but not as a commercial term; see below), קִנְיָן, goods, תְּבוּאָה, increase, נֶשֶׁךְ, interest, חרב, debt, חֲבֹל and חֲבלָה, pledge, עִזָּבוֹן, a fair (Ezekiel also uses this word in the sense of gains, profits), חֹסֶן, treasure (B has מַטְמוֹן, Aid treasure), שָׁרָה, caravan, שֶׁקֶל, shekel, יפָה, ephah, בַּת, bath, הִין, hin, חֹמֶר, homer, רָה gerah, כֹּר, cor, מָנֶה, pound, אַמָּה, cubit.

Of military matters B has nothing to say, though how could this have been had he lived at the time and place supposed by the modern critics? Aside from the two comparisons of righteousness to a coat of mail, שִׁרְיָן, and to a helmet, כֹּבַע (the latter is Ezekiel too), also of strong arguments to bulwarks, עַצֻּמוֹת, the whole “field” is left for Ezekiel.

An observer so keenly alive to his environment as our previous lists have shown that B was, would hardly, if stationed at Babylon, have overlooked the military terms which Ezekiel has preserved to us; viz. מָצוֹר, siege, דָּק, tower, סֹלְלָה, rampart, כַּר and מְחִי קָבְָלּוֹ, battering-ram, מְצד and מְצֹדָה, fortress, מַהֲנֶה , host, גַּמָּדִים fierce warriors, שָׁלִישׁ, chariot-warrior (B1 in the sense tierce), הֹצֶן, weapons, חֶרֶב, sword (this very common word is in B, but only five times, while Ezekiel has it eighty-five times), צִנָּה, shield, מָן, small shield, קוַֹבַע, helmet (for כּוֹבַע see above), רֹמַח, lance, מַל, javelin, תַּעַר, sheath, תָּקוֹעַ and שׁוֹפָר, trumpet. This last word is once in B, and four times in Ezekiel. One more class remains among the words expressing human relations, viz. religious terms. I reserve the names of God to be considered afterwards. We find in B the following: סָגַד, קָרַס, and שָׁחַח, to how down, קָטַר, to burn incense (Ezekiel in the sense to close), סָלַח, to pardon, אָמַן, חָסָה, and קָוָה, to trust (these are Isaian words, found in both parts), תְּפִלָּה, prayer, תְּהִלָּח, praise, תּוֹדָה, thanksgiving, לִיחּ, intercessor, מָשַׁח, to anoint (Ezekiel has סוּךְ, not a religious term, see Gesenius, s. v.), מָשִׁיחַ, anointed (Ezekiel נָסִיךְ, but only of the “princes of the north”), נָאַל, to redeem, כֹּפַר, and פְּדוּת, ransom, פְּדוּיִים, the ransomed (A1 B1), לִמּוּד, disciple, שׁובָב, apostate, סָבָר, apostasy, מִצְוָה, commandment, אָדַר, פָּאַר, and הָדַר, to be glorious, הֶבֶר, enchantment, כְּשָּׁפִים, sorceries, אָוֶן, עֹצֶב, צִיר, idol.

Ezekiel has a word corresponding to these last which merits more than a passing mention. It is גִּלּוּל, literally something rolled up, applied to an idol as a mere block. It occurs forty times in Ezekiel, and only nine times elsewhere, never in A or B. But how admirably it suits B’s ground-tone of sarcastic contempt for idolatry, and how morally impossible it is that he should have avoided it, had it become familiar to him through the prophecies of Ezekiel. There are several other religious terms in Ezekiel (not in B except as specified), viz. נָבִיא, prophet, כְּרוּב, cherub (see Stanley, as quoted on page 526), יחַ נִיחוִֹחַ, sweet savor, חָמָּנִים, sun-images, מִקְסָם, divination, חֹל, profane, תְּרזּמִה, oblation, מִקְדָּשׁ, sanctuary, כֹּן, priest. The last three words, being very common, occur in B, but the contrast as to their frequency in the respective prophets is very noticeable. תְּרוּמָה, Ezekiel20 B1 A wanting. (It should be noticed that Ezekiel has also the peculiar form תְּרוּמִיָּה). מִקדָּשׁ, Ezekiel30 A2 B2. כֹּן Ezekiel24 A4 B2. The frequency of these words in Ezekiel is accounted for by their recurrence in his vision of the temple, chaps, 40–48: We are told now-a-days that this was the plan of a ritual which he sketched for the use of the returning exiles. How then can we explain the fact that B passes it over in all but complete silence? He prophesied of the return of the exiles, and Ezekiel’s ritual was thenceforth to be the only method of acceptable worship; but B scarcely alludes to oblation, priest, or sanctuary. If he preceded Ezekiel, all is clear; if not, the puzzles multiply.

The higher criticism has always laid great stress upon the different names for God, as marking different writers or periods. A, B, and Ezekiel make frequent use of the name “Jehovah”; but Ezekiel in just half the number of occurrences has the form אְדֹנֱי יֱחוִֹה (A. V. Lord God). This is a very favorite expresion with him, occurring two hundred and seventeen times, while in all other parts of the Bible it is found only eighty-eight times. A has it twelve times, B thirteen times. Now if B immediately followed Ezekiel in the prophetic line, it is a very strange circumstance that he should use יְהוָֹה alone so frequently, and אֲדֹנָי יֱהוִֹה so rarely, in both cases agreeing closely with A, and differing from Ezekiel. For while the latter has יְהוִֹה alone two hundred and eighteen times, still, in proportion to the length of his prophecy, the name occurs only half as often as in either A or B.

When we examine the other names for God, we find in both parts of Isaiah as contrasted with Ezekiel, a much greater variety, and a higher spiritual tone. “Elohim” occurs but sparingly in all these.19 Ezekiel never uses it in the construct state, except in the phrase “God of Israel” (seven times); nor with pronominal suffixes, except “your” and “their.” But it is characteristic of both parts of Isaiah to speak of God in terms of personal appropriation. A has the following expressions with Elohim: God of Israel, God of Jacob, God of thy salvation, God of judgment, God of David, my God, thy God, his God, our God, your God, their God. B has God of Israel, God of eternity, God of the whole earth, God of Amen, my God, thy God, his God, our God, your God, their God. To regard these coincidences as merely accidental argues a scepticism which borders hard upon credulity; especially as there are many other such facts in this same class, אָדוֹן, Lord, is in both A and B, but not in Ezekiel. אֲדוֹנָי is never used without יֱהוִֹה following, in Ezekiel, but occurs alone in both A and B. שַׁדַּי, Almighty, is twice in Ezekiel, but not in B, though once in A. The only other word for God used by Ezekiel is the primitive ל which occurs four times, against twenty-two in the shorter book of Isaiah (A7, B15).20

It is very remarkable that the phrase יְהוָֹה צְבָאוֹת; which recurs so often throughout the prophets should be wanting in Ezekiel. Although the question is still debated as to the original force of the word “hosts” in this connection — whether referring to the stars, the angels, or some other idea — still it is evident that in common use the phrase is often descriptive of God as commanding the armies of Israel, leading forth their hosts to victory. “Jehovah Sabaoth” occurs most frequently by far in the prophets. It is a favorite expression with Isaiah and Jeremiah, but we meet it also in Hosea, Amos, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Yet throughout the eighty-three pages of Ezekiel it never occurs. Is not the reason for this clear, that Israel in exile, her armies defeated and brought under the yoke, did not find it natural to call upon God by this victorious name יְתוָֹה צְבָאוֹת? The conjecture becomes almost a certainty when we compare Ps. 44:10. “But thou hast cast off, and put us to shame; וְלאֹ־א בְּצִבְאוינוּ, and thou goest not forth in our hosts.” No wonder, then, that Ezekiel, and Daniel employ other names for the God of their fathers, but refrain from the glorious “Jehovah Sabaoth.”21 To return to Isaiah; this name occurs oftenest, as is natural, in the first part, among the prophecies against God’s enemies; but it is by no means absent from the second part; see 44:6; 45:13; 47:4; 48:2; 51:15; 54:5. A consideration of no mean force is therefore added to the many which have been accumulating, to difference our author from the writers of the Exile.

It has been strangely urged, as an argument for the late date of Isaiah B, that no mention is made of the Messiah as a King; the conception of a suffering victim being supposed to be more consonant to the circumstances of the Captivity. The best answer to this is undoubtedly the fulfilment of both ideals in the person of the Christ. But the thought of God as King lay at the foundation of the Jewish body politic, and recurs in narrative, psalm, and prophecy. We trace it through the prophets Hosea, Isaiah, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, to the Captivity, when it suddenly breaks off. With the overthrow of the temple, and the destruction of the regal forms of the theocracy, the instinct of worship makes a natural selection among other titles of God, and we hear no more of מֶלֶך יה or מֶלֶךְ גָּדוֹל till Zechariah and Malachi renew the ascription in the second temple (Zech. 14:17; Mai. 1:14). Isaiah A had given the precious assurance (33:22), “Jehovah is our lawgiver, Jehovah is our King”; Isaiah B designates the Lord as “King of Jacob” (41:21), “King of Israel” (44:6), and “your King” (43:15).

Evidence which many will regard as yet stronger comes from the divine title קָדוֹשׁ יִשְׂרָל, the Holy One of Israel. This phrase, being almost peculiar to Isaiah, has been rightly urged, ever since the beginning of this controversy, as of great weight in favor of the unity of the book. It occurs fourteen times each in A and B.22 It so happens that none of these references belong to disputed parts of A’s prophecies. Outside of Isaiah, the phrase is found only six times; viz. 2 Kings 19:22, where Isaiah himself is the speaker, (the passage being identical with Isa. 37:23); Jer. 50:29;51:5, chapters which seem to be founded on Isaiah’s predictions against Babylon; Ps. 71:22; 78:41; 89:19. These psalms are usually regarded as later than the time of Isaiah, who may therefore have originated the phrase in question. The nearest approach to it in Ezekiel is in chap, 39:7, “Jehovah, Holy in Israel,” קָדוֹשׁ בּיִשׂרָל. Another parallel appears in the rare word for God, אָבִיר; rendered “mighty one,” “strong one.” It is used only of God, while with the pointing אַבִּיר it is confined to men and animals, אָבִירּ יִשׂרָל occurs in Isa. 1:24 only; אָבִיר יַעְקֹב in Isa. 49:26 and 60:16, also in Gen. 49:24, Ps. 132:2, 5; אָבִיר is found nowhere else. Thus the only prophets who use this name for God are A and B, and the evidence is constantly accumulating that A = B. One more link in the chain is the description of God as . Maker, יוֹר. We find this in 27:11, יֹצְרוֹ, A.V. “he that formed them;” Again, in 29:16, A.V. “him that framed it.” The same form occurs twice in 45:9. A careful comparison of 29:16 with 45:9 in the Hebrew makes it highly probable that there is no quotation of one from the other, but that both have the same author, whose originality is seen in varying the expressions while the thought remains the same, יֹוֹצְרִוֹ recurs in 45:11, יֹצֶרְךָ in 43:1; 44:2, 24, and יֹצְרִי in 49:5. The kindred word בֹּא, Creator, is almost peculiar to Isaiah B. It appears in 40:28; 42:5; 43:1, 15; 45:7, 7, 18; 57:19; 65:17, 18. Elsewhere only in the sublime passage Amos 4:13, and in Eccl. 12:1, where we are bidden to remember our Creator. מוֹשִׁיעַ, Saviour, as applied to God, is in 43:3, 11; 45:15, 21; 49:26; 60:16; 63:8. Elsewhere in the prophets only in Hosea 13:4; Jer. 14:8. גֹּל, Redeemer, is fourteen times in Isaiah B; nowhere else in the prophets except in the Isaian passage Jer. 50:34. One sacred name for God remains to be mentioned; the name the Christian child first learns, “Our Father,” אָבִינוּ, which first appears in Isaiah B (63:16, 16; 64:7), and elsewhere only in 1 Chron. 29:10; which with the following verse seems to have suggested the beginning of the Lord’s Prayer, and the doxology at its close. Jeremiah has “My Father” (chap. 3:4, 19).

I have now substantiated my statement that both parts of Isaiah, as contrasted with Ezekiel, manifest in the several names for God, “a much greater variety and a higher spiritual tone.” Another point of resemblance and contrast which should not be overlooked pertains to the grouping of these names. Both A and B join together several divine titles, while Ezekiel stops with “Jehovah” or “Adonai Jehovah,” repeating these hundreds of times, as we have seen, with scarcely a variation in the epithets. This is characteristic of the later period of prophecy when the divine name Jehovah was used so specifically as almost to exclude the variety of epithets which prevailed in the earlier and freer times. As Ezekiel is all but constant in his interchange of “Jehovah” and “Adonai Jehovah,” so is it with Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi in their use of “Jehovah” and “Jehovah Sabaoth.” The only longer combinations are “Jehovah Sabaoth their God” (Hag. 1:14; Zech. 12:5), “the King, Jehovah Sabaoth” (Zech. 14:17), and “Jehovah, God of Israel” (Mai. 2:16). Going back towards the time of Isaiah we find only three such instances among the many repetitions of the divine name in Joel, Nahum, Obadiah, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, viz. “Jehovah, my God, my Holy One” (Hab. 1:12), “Jehovah Sabaoth, God of Israel” (Zeph. 2:9), and “the King of Israel, Jehovah” (Zeph. 3:15). Even in Jeremiah, by far the longest of all the prophetic books (ninety-five pages, against eighty-three in Ezekiel, and seventy-five in Isaiah), there are very few variations. Whatever date we assign to B, all agree that A exerted a great influence over Jeremiah. The latter has borrowed a few of Isaiah’s names of God, but uses them with far less spontaneousness than we shall find to be characteristic of A and B. The name “Jehovah “must occur in Jeremiah more than six hundred, perhaps seven hundred times. “Jehovah, God of Israel,” which occurs five times in A, and “Jehovah Sabaoth, God of Israel,” twice in A, are repeated with very great frequency in Jeremiah, especially in the latter half of the book. The only other combinations exceeding two words are “Jehovah, God of all flesh” (32:27 only), “Jehovah, God of Sabaoth, God of Israel” (38:17; 44:7), “Adonai Jehovah Sabaoth” (46:10, 50:13), “the living God, Jehovah Sabaoth, our God” (23:36), and “the great El, the Mighty, Jehovah Sabaoth” (32:18). Contrast with this the freedom in the use of these names which is manifest in the brief prophecy of Amos (nine pages), who ministered just before Isaiah. We find the following variations: “Jehovah, God of Sabaoth” (5:14-15; 6:14), “Adonai Jehovah Sabaoth” (9:5), “Adonai Jehovah, God of Sabaoth” (3:13), “Jehovah, God of Sabaoth, Adonai” (5:16), “(saith) Jehovah, God of Sabaoth his name” (5:27), “Adonai Jehovah hath sworn by his soul, saith Jehovah, God of Sabaoth” (6:8), and especially the wonderful array of titles in 4:13, “Former of the mountains, and Creator of the spirit, and Revealer to man what his thought is, who maketh the morning darkness, and walketh upon the high places of the earth, Jehovah, God of Sabaoth his name.”23

I would not be understood to assert that all the older prophets employ such a diversity in the names of God; but as we find it in none of the later prophets, and as this fact corresponds with the natural development of the religious instinct, the probability becomes strong that B belongs with the earlier prophets. The very fact that A differs in this regard from his contemporary Micah creates a probability that, among the earlier prophets, B belongs with A; while the further fact that A and B agree in the most intricate blending of these divine names, without any such servile correspondence as to favor the theory of imitation, raises this probability to a very high degree. This last assertion I will now justify in detail.24 Isaiah A has the phrase “the Lord (הָאָדוֹן) Jehovah Sabaoth” four times, viz. 3:1; 10:16, 33:19; 4. “Adonai Jehovah Sabaoth” six times, 10:23, 24; 22:5, 12, 15; 28:12. “The King Jehovah Sabaoth” once, 6:5. “Jah Jehovah” twice, 12:2; 26:4. “Jah Jah” recurs in 38:11, but this peculiar name יָץ is nowhere else in the whole prophetic literature. The reader should bear in mind that the last two passages cited belong to the antilegomena, and hence help on our theory of the unity of Isaiah. “Jehovah, God of Israel,” four times, 17:6; 21:17; 24:15; 37:21 (the last remark applies to 24:15 here). “Jehovah, God of David,” once, 38:5. “Jehovah, the Mighty One of Israel” once, 30:29. “Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel” once, 10:20. “Jehovah Sabaoth, God of Israel” twice, 21:10; 37:16. “Jehovah, our God,” followed by “Lord,” as an implied epithet, once, 26:13. “The Lord Jehovah Sabaoth, the Mighty One of Israel,” once, 1:24. Most of the passages in Isaiah B occur once only. “God of Israel, the Saviour,” 45:15. “Thy Lord Jehovah, and thy God,” 51:22. “God of Israel, Jehovah Sabaoth,” 48:2. “El Jehovah, the Creator,” 42:5. “God of Eternity, Jehovah the Creator,” 40:28. “Jehovah, thy Redeemer and thy Maker,” 44:24. “Jehovah, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One,” 49:7. “Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker,” 45:11. “Jehovah, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel,” 43:14. “Jehovah, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel,” 41:14; 48:17. “Jehovah, our Father, our Redeemer,” 63:16. “Our Redeemer, Jehovah Sabaoth, the Holy One of Israel,” 47:4. “Jehovah, thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour,” 43:3. “Jehovah, King of Israel and his Redeemer, Jehovah Sabaoth,” 44:6. “Jehovah, your Holy One, Creator of Israel, your King,” 43:15. “Jehovah, thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob,” 49:26; 60:16. “Thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, God of the whole earth,” 54:5. It will be seen that Isaiah B has taken expressions peculiar to himself, “Creator,” “Redeemer,” “Saviour,” etc., and combined these, in almost every variety of permutation, with the phrases already used by Isaiah A. The vividness, richness, and independence of these names are a strong testimony to the common authorship of the two sections.

The ministry of Isaiah covered a period probably exceeding fifty years. If we imagine him to have received, in his old age, a new revelation of God, as promising to deliver his people from the exile which both Isaiah and Micah had foretold; if we remember that each new name of God expressed a new conception of his character — we shall then see how naturally the aged prophet would blend גֹּל, מוֹשִׁיעַ, etc., with his previous thoughts of God; and we shall be persuaded that this theory embraces far more readily than any other, all the facts of the case now before us.

Thus far, in this investigation, we have been comparing the language of Ezekiel, the only undisputed writer of the Exile, with that of the prophet B. We have noted a marked contrast between their incidental allusions, extending through every department of thought, from inorganic nature through the vegetable and animal world, and through the various branches of human activity, to the names and appellations of the Divine Being. I trust it is now made evident that Isaiah B does not belong to the time of the Exile. But the recent view which would dissect our author into ten or more different fragments has also been incidentally refuted, for the testimony has come from all parts of these disputed chapters. I doubt if half a dozen consecutive verses can be found which have not contributed their quota of evidence to the preceding pages. Mr. Cheyne holds that chaps, 40.-52:12 constitute the only positively Babylonian section. But it is just here that we find the very indications which point most positively away from Babylon; e.g. five out of the six occurrences of “Jehovah Sabaoth,” and all the cases where the title “King “is ascribed to God.

Subjected to the microscope, and viewed in every possible- light, these chapters bear consistent witness to their unity, whoever their author may have been. Our investigation has also thrown much light on this last point. A hundred minute rays have converged to a single focus; one place, one period, one author, alone satisfy the conditions of our problem. That place is Judea; the period, that of Hezekiah; the author, Isaiah himself. If those who are accustomed to lay stress upon the matter of local color are convinced that this conclusion is at least probable, the probability will become a practical certainty if they will candidly weigh certain philological indications of a more delicate nature. The writer published in this Quarterly, in April 1881, an Article (“Two Isaiahs or One?”) in which the attempt was made to establish the unity of the book by tracing the coincidences in point of vocabulary between A and B, and the decided contrast between B and the later writers. Some of the facts which were grouped in general terms there, deserve to be examined singly and attentively.

I must first call attention to the patient and thorough work in this same department which has been accomplished by Nägelsbach, author of the Commentary on Isaiah in the Lange series. That Mr. Cheyne should speak so appreciatively of Nägelsbach’s “invaluable list,” and so depreciatively of Urwick’s similar labors aroused my curiosity at once; and upon examining the book, as I should have done sooner, I found at its close, a full table of words in Isaiah B, with references to all their occurrences in both parts of the prophecy; bearing a strong family likeness to my “Index” in two previous numbers of this Quarterly. I must concede the priority to Dr. Nagelsbach, who will see, however, that my work is as independent of his results, as his of mine. The two in fact supplement each other; for while he omitted to classify occurrences outside of Isaiah, I omitted to classify the words of most frequent use. The diligent student of the Isaian vocabulary will be glad to have both lists before him.

Let us now look at this matter of vocabulary as a whole and in detail. Exclusive of proper names, the entire number of words used by B is 1313.25 In preparing my Index, I omitted three hundred and sixty-eight of these words, regarding them as so common at all periods of the language that they would prove nothing to my purpose. It was a matter of convenience to be spared the great labor of classifying words of such frequent occurrence; but no word was left out of the Index unless it occurred in all five of the classes into which I had distributed the books of the Hebrew Bible. Now it is an important fact that A and B agree so closely in their use of common words that among these three hundred and sixty-eight words, all but six occur in A. Those six are (of those common words) most seldom used; viz. תְּרוּמָה, רָצָה, רוּחּ, שׁ, טָר, חֲצִי. If B belongs to the time of the Captivity, whatever might be true of his peculiar words, we should expect to find his common words nearly identical with those of Ezekiel. Even though we should allow that he had consciously or unconsciously borrowed many of Isaiah’s characteristic expressions, yet we could not allow (for it would be a psychological impossibility) that in the vocabulary of daily life he could agree with Isaiah as closely as the above enumeration shows, unless he agreed as closely in this respect with the writers of his own period. Let the reader have the case clearly in mind. Here are two prophets, A and B, separated by an interval of from one hundred and fifty to two hundred years, and writing amid surroundings as diverse as those of Jerusalem and Babylon. “We take out from B’s vocabulary three hundred and sixty-eight words, not those peculiar to himself, but the commonest words, used at all periods of the language, and opening the forty-four pages of A’s prophecy we find all but six of these words there. If this fact seems surprising, we conclude, at first thought, that the Hebrew writers may be wonderfully uniform in their employment of common words. When therefore we turn to Ezekiel, who on this theory preceded B by so short an interval that their lives probably overlapped, and who lived in this same Babylon, we hardly expect to find six of these commonest words missing, especially as we have nearly twice as many pages in this case to draw from. But the fact is that twenty-five words are wanting, viz. אָדוֹן, אָמַן, בִּין, בּוֹר, תֶסֶד, שׁ, כֹּתַ, לוּן, לָחַם, לַיִל, מָהַר, מִצְיָה, נוּס, נַעַר, עִם, פֶּן, צָבָא, צוּר, צֶרַר, קָטֹן, II. קָרָא, רוּחּ, רִיב (verb), רָעַע, תְּפִלָּה.

It will be perceived that many of these are very common words; hence we must reject the notion that there is any special uniformity among Hebrew writers in the use of such words. The facts before us are just what we should expect if A and B are the same individual, and just what we should not expect on the Babylonian hypothesis.

An independent argument may be also drawn from the less common words which compose the Index referred to above. There are nine hundred and forty-five of these words, of which four hundred and eighty-six occur in Isaiah A. (On p. 132 of this volume, the number given is four hundred and eighty-five. The additional word is גּזַר, which as printed on p. 672 of the previous volume, should have the sign of equality).

Of Ezekiel’s words, only three hundred and seventy-three are found in the Index. To compare the two, we must not forget that Ezekiel contains eighty-three pages, A only forty-four. Hence A’s vocabulary has fifty-one per cent of the words in the Index, while an equal number of pages in Ezekiel has only twenty-one per cent. Not only is this general result obtained, that A’s language coincides with B’s two and one-half times as often as Ezekiel’s does, but when each division of the Index according to the letters of the alphabet is taken separately (as in the Summary, p. 132 of this volume, where the whole class e was compared), the majority is always on the side of A, except in the case of the letter כ.

Facts like these must be interpreted in some way. They show the carelessness of Mr. Cheyne’s assertion that “the peculiarities of phraseology can obviously be explained by the profound influence which so great a prophet as Isaiah must have exercised, and demonstrably did exercise, on his successors.” This attempted explanation is not so “obvious” as it would be if the coincidences in diction related only to certain favorite or striking words in Isaiah A. When we have proved that the common words of B are found with very few exceptions in A, while the exceptions in the case of the only undisputed writer of the Exile are four times as numerous; and also that a majority of all B’s other words occur in A, but only a fifth of them throughout an equal space in Ezekiel, we have proved our point.

It is the beauty of a scientific proof that it admits of test and verification by different methods; I therefore proceed in the last place to call the reader’s attention to some special words.

In the Bibliotheca Sacra for April 1881, pp. 241, 242, will be found a list of fifty words, which occur in B and just once elsewhere. Among these II. שׁוּר, to go about, was given, on the authority of the Vade Mecum, as occurring once in B and once in Ezekiel. The best lexicons, however, make it a noun in Ezekiel, meaning caravans, and bring its occurrence in B under I. שׁוּר (to go about, hence, to behold). This leaves forty-nine words in the list, seven of which are in A, and only one in Ezekiel. That is to say, one seventh of all the rarest words in B, leaving out ἅπαξ λεγόμενα, are also met with in A, and only one-seventh of that number in Ezekiel. The single parallel with Ezekiel is כַּדְכֹּר, the name of an uncertain gem, probably the ruby. The seven in A are גִּילָה, joy, חוּר, a hole, יָבָל, a stream, נַעֲצוּחּ, a thorn, עֹנֶג, delight, שָׁרָב, heat, and תַּעֲלוּלִים, vexation.

Little need be said of גִּילָה and שׁרָב , for they occur in chap, 35, which is generally allowed to have been written by B. But if there be any doubt in the matter, it ought to be dispelled by an examination of the above parallels with their context. The subject in each case is the same, while the language varies enough to rule out the hypothesis of borrowing. Compare 35:2, 10 with 65:18, 19; 35:7-8, with 49:10-11. When we come to חוּר, a hole, we find a parallel of the greatest interest. The word is found in Isa. 42:22, where Israel is said to be snared in holes, בַּחוּרִים; also in 11:8, where it is defectively written; the sucking child shall play upon the hole of the asp, עַל־חֻר. The best commentators and lexicographers agree with the A. V. in regarding these words as the same, including Nägelsbach, though he has accidentally omitted the word from his list above-mentioned.26 The value of the parallel rests on the following circumstance. There are four words spelled exactly alike in Hebrew, except as distinguished into pairs by the punctuation. One pair (Tin and Tin) come from Tin, to become white, and mean white linen. The other pair (חוֹר and חוּר again), come from חָוַר, to hollow out, and mean a hole. These roots are entirely distinct. Isaiah A uses Tin for white linen, and חוּר for a hole; the later writers (Ezekiel, Zechariah, Canticles) use on the contrary Tin for a hole, and (this last in Esther only) חוּר for white linen. Isaiah B has occasion for only one of these words, but renders himself unintelligible (if he belongs with the later writers) by writing חוּר, a hole, the word occurring once in A, once in B, and nowhere else.

יָבָל, a stream, and נַעֲצוּחּ, a thorn, have been spoken of in the early part of this Article. As to עֹנֶג, delight, there are fifteen other words in Hebrew for expressing the same idea. We should have expected חָמוּד, חֶמְדָּה, or יְדִידוּת, if a writer of the Captivity had wished to use a rare word for delight. Unless B = A, it is very singular that he should employ among this multitude of words, one found elsewhere only once, and that in A. It should be added, that at the time assigned to B (the close of the Exile), the ritual feeling was strong among the Jews. A prophet who had the following idea to express, “and call the Sabbath a delight,” would hardly have used at that time a word so light, almost mirthful, as עֹנֶג. Compare תַּעֲנוּג from the same root.

תַּעֲלוּלִים is a difficult word, meaning vexations in 66:4, and boys in 3:4. It occurs nowhere else. The root to be petulant, accounts for both senses; a fearful warning for boys! When we compare this word in 3:4 with the corresponding מְעוֹל in 3:12, we see that the radical idea of vexing is retained in both; q.d. “vexations shall rule over them,” vexations oppress them, women rule over them;” i.e. their rulers are like teasing boys and petulant women. As the author of chap. 66. is not quoting from this passage, his use of this strange word is an indication of his identity with the author of chap. 3.

If Zephaniah quotes from B, the question of the unity of Isaiah is practically settled. But it is almost certain that this is the case; see remarks on אַפְסִי עוֹד in Bib. Sac, April 1881, pp. 243, 244, Another instance in point is גִּדּוּף, reproach, found only in Isa. 43:28; 51:7, and Zeph. 2:8. In all three passages taken in their context, the thought is the same; also (in Isa. 51:7 and Zeph. 2:8), the common word for reproach, חֶרְפָּה, precedes the rare גִּדּוּף. One of the two writers is evidently quoting from the other; and that this one is Zephaniah appears not only from his well-known habit of taking spoil from his predecessors, but also from the fact that in the time of the Captivity the word in question was written with a final ה, see Ezek. 5:15. A writer of that period who wished a rare word for reproach would have used גְּדוּפָה or נֶאָָֹצה, which last forms a perfect contrast with נִּרּוּף, being found twice in Nehemiah, and once in Ezekiel, while the latter is twice in B and once in Zephaniah. Another clear instance of quotation by Zephaniah from B, and the only other case, among these rarest words, in which the two agree, is צָרַח, to shout, Isa. 42:13 and Zeph. 1:14. In this case several models seem to have been before Zephaniah, e.g. Joel 2:1–11; Isa. 22:5; but also B (l.c.), since Jehovah is introduced as גִּבּוֹר צֹחַ. Compare the word מְשִׁסָּח in Zeph. 1:13 and Isa. 42:22–24.

I take up next the parallel between Isa. 44:12 and Jer. 10:3, מַעֲצָד, an axe, occurring in these two texts only. Here, as in the case of Zephaniah, the sole question is, which is the original? That one must have suggested the other is plain from the fact that the subject is the same, and also the three words וּבְמֶקָּדוֹת, חָרָשׁ, and מַעֲצָד. Now the passage in B has a coherence and majesty which stamp it as the product of original genius; while in Jeremiah the whole context (10:3–16) is a compend of many thoughts from Isaiah and elsewhere. The parallel is obscured in the A. V., but much plainer in the original.

The same is true of the other passage from Jeremiah in this list. יָמַר, to change, Isa. 61:6 and Jer. 2:11 only. It is difficult at first to see any resemblance here, but there are three words common to both, גּוֹי, כָּבוֹד, and יָּמַר. Jeremiah cannot be the source of both, but Isaiah may be. He had said that faithful Israel should eat the riches of the “nations,” and in their “glory” they should “change,” i.e. come into their place (Gesenius). Jeremiah says that no “nation” had “changed” their gods, though they were no gods; but Israel (as if reversing Isaiah’s prophecy) had changed (almost the same word) their “glory” to that which did not profit. The reader should not fail to note that if Jeremiah makes reference to B, the latter could not have lived at the close of the Exile.

נָדָה, to put away, is found only in Isa. 66:5 and Amos 6:3. There are several cognate verbs with about the same meaning; נָדַד, נָדָא, נָדָה, נָדַח, which last is allied to דָּחָח, and its numerous family. It is quite singular that נָדָח occurring only twice, as above, neither writer quoting from the other, should be found in Piel part, plural both times. It looks as though this expression was in use at a certain ‘period, when both Isaiah and Amos lived. כָּוָה, to burn, occurs in Isa. 45:2 and Prov. 6:28 only. (צָרַב, with the same meaning, is in Ezekiel only). The connection between the passages in Proverbs and Isaiah seems too close to be purely accidental. In the latter: “When thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned.” In the former: “Can one walk upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? “Compare כִּי־תַלַךְ with אִם־יְהַךְ; לא תִכָּוֶה with לא תִכֶּיֶינָה. Apparently Proverbs is the original here; but the date of this book is so uncertain that it cannot help us much. More important is תַּרְלָה, reeling, Isa. 51:17–22 and Ps. 9:5 only. B mentions the cup of reeling; the Psalmist the wine of reeling; both are speaking of the same thing, viz. God’s judgments. The only other word for reeling is רַעַל, which also occurs twice; once in Zechariah (12:2), in this same sense of reeling from intoxication, and again in Isa. A (3:19) in the entirely different sense of a veil. Hence B agrees with an early writer (Ps. lx.), while A and B agree to disagree with a late writer (Zechariah). (רַעַל and reel have probably no etymological connection.)

A still stronger case is presented by פּוּרָה, a wine-press, Isa. 63:3 and Hag. 2:16, only. A wine-press consisted of an upper receptacle, in which grapes were trodden, and a lower one, in which the juice was received. פּוּרָץ, as the connection shows, must mean the former in Isaiah, the latter in Haggai. In each case a parallel word is given; גַּת in Isaiah, יֶקֶב in Haggai. These three are the only words in the Old Testament for wine-press or vat. Dr. Bevan in Smith’s Bible Dictionary seems to be right, against Gesenius, in claiming that יֶקֶב refers to the whole arrangement, not simply to the lower part; but seems also to be somewhat confused with regard to the three words. A careful study of their occurrences shows that Gesenius’s distinction between גַּת as the upper vat, and יֶקֶב as the lower, is pretty closely adhered to in later Hebrew; but in earlier, this is sometimes reversed. Whenever the whole arrangement is mentioned, the word is פּוּרָח יֶקֶב, from its etymology, to bruise, must have first meant the upper press; but in Haggai it clearly means the lower, in Isaiah as clearly the upper. This indicates that B belongs with the earlier writers. A curious confirmation of the difference between earlier and later Hebrew as to these words is shown by יְקָבִים in Jer. 48:33 as compared with Isa. 16:10. The former verse is taken almost bodily from the latter, both being prophecies against Moab. But Isaiah had said: “the treaders shall tread out no wine in their presses” ( ׃ְֹיקָבִיםJeremiah, being later, instinctively feels that this word is more appropriate to the lower vat, and so alters the expression to “I have caused wine to fail from the יְקָבִים.”

Leaving now the forty-nine rarest words to which reference has been made, a few remarks seem called for upon some of the words found twice outside of B. A list of these can be easily made out from Tables n. and in. of my Article in the Bib. Sac, for April 1881.

אַסִּיר, a prisoner, occurs only in Isa. 10:4; 24:22; 42:7, — the first being a passage of undisputed genuineness, the other two disputed. The same word with a different pointing, אָסִיר, is found fifteen times, and in all of the seven classes of writers. Several of these last passages give as a variant אָסוּר, which also occurs without variation in Isa. 49:9; 61:1; Eccl. 4:14; Ps. 146:7. In view of these facts, the occurrence of אַסִּיר solely in three passages of Isaiah is a singular phenomenon, unless they are really in Isaiah. The chains of this “prisoner “serve to bind together what man had put asunder. A corroborative fact is that the rare word מַסְר appears in two of these verses (24:22; 42:7) with the meaning prison, while in the time of the Captivity (Jeremiah and 2 Kings) it meant smith. These are not two different words; the root, “to shut up,” accounts for both. As fashions sometimes change, we find the old meaning “prison” in still later Hebrew, Ps. 142:7.

אַבֶר, a wing, Isa. 40:31; Ps. 4:7; Ezek. 17:3 only. In Isaiah — “they shall raise wing as the eagles.” In Psalms — “who will give me wing as the dove? let me fly and let me rest.” In Ezekiel — “the great eagle, great in the wings (הַכְּנֶפִים), long in the pinions (חָבֶר, lit. the pinion), full of feathers (חַגּוֹצָה, lit. the feather).” Here the superficial resemblance between B and Ezekiel must not mislead us. Each speaks of an eagle with an בֶר, it is true; but B and Psalms use בֶר in the same sense as כָּנָף, from which Ezekiel expressly distinguishes it. The distinction would seem then to be later than Isaiah’s time.

חָרֵל, forsaken, ceasing. Isa. 53:3; Ps. 39:5; Ezek. 3:27 only. There is an important difference here. In B and Psalms the word is passive, in Ezekiel active. B says, “he was despised and forsaken of men”; the Psalmist, “I shall know how frail I am”; Ezekiel, “he who forbeareth shall forbear.” Here again B agrees with an early writer, and differs from a late one. (The distinction however seems doubtful; cf. Näglesbach’s critical note.)

אֶפְעֶה, a viper, Isa. 30:6; 59:5; Job 20:16 only. There is no connection between the Isaian passages, which strengthens the evidence for unity drawn from incidental agreement. B has in this same passage another word for viper, צִפְעוֹנִי, found nowhere else fully written except in A. Note also זוּר, to press out, Isa. 1:6; 59:5; Job 39:15; Judg. 6:38 only. Hence B uses in this verse three of A’s rare words, but without quoting from him.

בָּרִיחַ, a fugitive, Isa. 27:1; 43:14; Job 26:13 only. So the Vade Mecum; but Gesenius, while quoting בְּרִיחֶיהָ, Isa. 15:5, under the word בְּרִחַ, a bar, prefers to derive it from the above word for fugitive. Davies’s Lexicon makes a separate form, בְּרִיחַ, a fugitive; but this is not necessary, as Gesenius has shown. The word in Isa. 15:5 is a perfect parallel to 43:14, being a substantive in the plural, while in the other two cases, it is an adjective in the singular. Ezekiel has a different word for fugitive, coming from the same root, מִבְרָח. Had B lived at Babylon in the time of the Exile, he would probably have used that word.

I add a list of miscellaneous words, which illustrates still further the difference between the vocabularies of B and Ezekiel. Those marked as found in B do not occur in Ezekiel, or at least, not with the meaning given; the converse is also true. It is not necessary to indicate the agreements between A and B, as these may be found in the Index previously published.

Words B Has Ezek. Has Words B Has Ezek Has
Abhorrence רָאוֹן נִדָּה Break forth, to פָּצַח גִּיחַ
Affliction עְָנִיּ צַר   פָּרַחּ  
צָרָח   קָצַף  
Agitated, to be גָּרַשׁ רָעַם Bring, to אָתָח קָרַב
סָעַר   יָבַל שָׁשָׁא
Angry, to be זָעַם חרַר Cast out, to נָחַג דּוּחַ
קָצַף   נָוָה  
August רָזַן נוֹרָא     טוּל
Besides בַּלְעַד לְאֻמַּת     נָטַשׁ
Comely, to be נָאָה יָפָה Rebuke, to גָּעַר יָכַח
Crush, to דָּכָא פָּרַק Reproach, to חָרַף גָּדַף
Defile, to גָּאַל טָא Rich עָשִׁיר שׁוֹעַ
Depart, to מוּשׁ אֶזַל Set, to יָסַד נוּחַ
סוּג   רָגַע עָמַד
Despise, to נאַחּ קָלַל Shake, to זָלַל שָׁפַתּ
  שׁוּט   בָּחַל
Destruction חְרִיסוּת יד Shame Shout of joy Shut up, to מוּט קָלַל
מְחִתָּה דֻּמָּד נָעַר רָעַשׁ
מִשְׁחָת כָּלָה בּשֶׁת בּוּשָׁה
  מַשְׁתִית רִנָּת יד
  מַשְׁת עָצַר סָתַם
  חּ צָרַר עָמַם
Empty, רִיק יק Sigh קָפַחּ קָטַר
יקָם אֱלִיל אֲנָחָה הִי
From תֹּאַר גִּזְרָה Slumber, to Spoil, to נוּם יָן
  צוּרָה שָׁסָה בָּצַע
Fear, to דָּאַג


נָתַר     שָׁרַד
Fear מְגוּרָה דְּאָגָה Stay, to Stone, to Terror אָחַר שׁן
  פַּלָּצוּת סָכַל רָגַם
  קְפָדָת בֶּחָלָה בַּלָּחָח
Gathering, a קִבּוּחּ קְבֻצָח     חַלְחָלָח
Gird, to אָזַרּ חָגַרּ     חֲרָדָה
Grieve, to יָגָח כָּב Thrust down, to דָּהָה תָיַת
עָצַב כָּאָח   חָדַף
Hide, to חבא סָכַךְ     נָגַח
  עָמַם   נָדַח
  צָפַן   תָּקַע
Hold up, to תָּמִךְ כּוּל Tread, to דָּרַךְ רָפַשׂ
Love אַהֲבָה עְגָבִים Tumult שָׁאוֹן הָמֹן
Multiply, to רָבַב עָתַר     הֲמֻלּה
  שָׁרַחּ   מְהוּמָה
Pain בֶל חִלחלָח Turned back, to be Vanish, to סוּג רִעַשׁ
כּב   מָלַח תְּרוּעָה
אַכאוֹב     פָּנָח
מַעְבָה     מָעַט
Perish, to כָּרַת גָּזר Vanity חֶבֶל אֱלִיל


I would not be understood to rest the chief weight of the argument on this list; it simply adds one more to a series of independent inferences. The present Article endeavors to prove that the scenery and allusions of Ezekiel, as also his vocabulary, are germane to the place and time assigned him in the Canon, and that the same is true of Isaiah B, as evinced by the contrast with the former prophet, and the agreement with Isaiah A, which he presents at every point of comparison. This appears in inorganic nature (pp. 526-529); in the vegetable and animal kingdoms (pp. 530-533); in the sphere of human activities, domestic, social, military, and religious (pp. 534-537); being strikingly manifest in the names for God (pp. 538-543). The same result is confirmed by the very grouping of the vocabularies in question. Both in respect to common and uncommon words (pp. 544-546), the agreement is close between A and B, while the disparity is wide between B and Ezekiel. Independent evidence results from the careful study of about twenty among the rarest words in B’s vocabulary (pp. 547-552), and the nail is clinched by a list of seventy miscellaneous words found in B, but wanting in Ezekiel, who expresses the same ideas by eighty-three other words, foreign to B’s vocabulary. Thus it will be seen that the evidence for the integrity of Isaiah is not a chain which must fall if any link be broken; it consists rather of a multitude of pillars, each and all supporting the conclusion that the second part of Isaiah is rightfully placed with the first.

In view of all this, it may not be presumptuous to express the hope that when Professor Kuenen revises his “Religion of Israel,” he will not begin by asserting (p. 15 English translation), “we know for certain that the last twenty-seven chapters of Isaiah are the productions of a later prophet, who flourished in the second half of the sixth century B.C.” Be it so that this is a result “of the entire intellectual work of Europe during the last century” (p.7), still the present century has something to say on that topic. Mr. Cheyne, for example, so far from knowing for certain any such facts, professes to know but in part.27


1) London: C. Kegan Paul and Co. 1880–1.

2) The Book of Isaiah chronologically arranged. London: Macmillan and Co. 1870.

3) Contemporary Review, Aug. 1881.

4) Introduction, p. 10:

5) Vol. 2:p. 219, note 1.

6) Encyl. Brit., 13:383.

7) Christian Register, Jan. 5,1882.

8) See Bib. Sac, April 1881, p. 251.

9) Encyclopedia Britannica, Art. “Isaiah.”

10) “Servant of Jehovah,” pp. 40-49.

11) Vol. 2: pp. 202,203.

12) The Book of Isaiah chronologically arranged, p. 201 f.

13) Strictly speaking, B expresses the idea captivity only once; viz. 46:2. In the other cases the meaning is either captives or captive (adj.). Ezekiel’s twenty-three instances, however, all signify captivity.

14) See Art. “Ezekiel,” in Smith’s Bible Dictionary.

15) Stanley, Jewish Church, Vol. 2:p. 623.

16) See Two Isaiahs or One? Bib. Sac, Vol. 38:p. 246.

17) Words common to both are omitted, unless the contrary is stated.

18) See also עִזָּבוֹן in Ezekiel’s list.

19) The singular אֱלוֹתַּ is once in B, not in A or Ezekiel.

20) For the epithet in Ezek. 39:7, see below.

21) Whenever the book of Daniel was written, it at least purports to emanate from the time of the captivity. The argument above is much strengthened by the incessant repetition of “Jehovah Sabaoth “in the brief prophecies of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, after the return from captivity.

22) In one of these passages (29:23), “Jacob” is substituted for “Israel,” as the phrase “God of Israel,” follows in the same verse. קָדוֹשּׁ without יִשְׂרָל also occurs five times each in A and B; in four of the former instances, and three of the latter, it is an epithet of God.

23) The occurrence of both forms “Jehovah Sabaoth,” and “God of Sabaoth,” in the early prophet Amos, and again in the late prophet Jeremiah, would seem to refute Mr. Cheyne’s theory that “Sabaoth” became a proper name, not to be translated. אֱוֹּהי צְבָאוֹחּ can only mean “God of hosts,” the first word being in the construct state. By parity of reasoning יְהוָֹה צְבָאוֹת is “Jehovah of hosts.”

24) The list which follows does not include the phrases already mentioned, containing only two words in the Hebrew, e.g. “The Lord of Hosts, “The Lord thy God,” etc.

25) In Bib. Sac, Oct. 1881, p. 659, it was given as 1310; add the two words in the note p. 686, also לָחַם, which was inadvertently omitted from the table, p. 663, and the number becomes 1313, as above. Deduct וְ and כְ . which are not in the Vade Mecum, and the remainder 1311 tallies with the count independently obtained from that Concordance, as stated in the Bib. Sac, April 1881,. p. 236.

26) A careful comparison of this list with the one published in the Bib. Sac, brings out the great superiority of the Vade Mecum, in point of accuracy, over other Concordances. Cf. my Article in The Independent, May 25, 1882.

27) As these closing pages go to the press, I find that a new edition of Mr. Cheyne’s Commentary on Isaiah has just appeared. I regret that I have had access only to Vol. i., in which I find nothing which would lead me to modify the views above expressed.