One Isaiah 71 Delitzsch, who for years previous had defended the genuine- ness of the entire book, finally yielded to the modern critical position, and in the new edition of his commentary pub- lished in 1889, interpreted chapters 40-66, though with con- siderable hesitation, as coming from the close of the period of Babylonian exile. About the same time (1888-90), Canon Driver and Dr. George Adam Smith gave popular impetus to similar views in Great Britain. Since 1890, the criticism of Isaiah has been even more trenchant and microscopic than before. Duhm, Stade, Guthe, Hackmann, Cornill and Marti on the Continent, and Cheyne, Whitehouse, Box, Glazebrook, Kennett and others in Great Britain and America, have questioned portions which hitherto were supposed to be genuine. THE DISINTEGRATION OF " DEUTERO-ISAIAH” Even the unity of chapters 40-66, which were supposed to be the work of the Second, or “Deutero-Isaiah,” is given up. What prior to 1890 was supposed to be the unique pro- duct of some celebrated but anonymous sage who lived in Babylonia (about 550 B. C.), is now commonly divided and subdivided and in large part distributed among various writers from Cyrus to Simon. At first it was thought sufficient to separate chapters 63-66 as a later addition to “Deutero-Isaiah’s” prophecies; but more recently it has become the fashion to distinguish between chapters 40-55, which are alleged to have been written in Babylonia about 549-538 B. C., and chapters 56-66, which are now claimed to have been composed about 460-445 B. C. Some carry disintegration farther even than this, especially in the case of chapters 56-66, which are subdivided into various fragments and said to be the product of a school of writers rather than of a single pen. Opinions also conflict as to the place of their composition, whether in Babylonia, Palestine, Phoenicia, or Egypt.
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker