Anti-Parsic Sentences in Deutero-Isaiah.
A PAPER READ BEFORE THE MINISTERS CONFERENCE AT PHILADELPHIA, DECEMBER 4.TH, 1888, BY DR. ALEXANDER KOHUT.
Since the time when Koppe, in the additamenta to Lowth's German edition of Isaiah, laid out the path to a higher criticism of the prophet whose lips the seraphs touched and thus poured a consuming fire into the hearts of his people, ever since the above-mentioned scholar showed that much of the book of Isaiah does not in fact belong to the prophet because of historical reasons, since that time a proper understanding for the exegesis of the Isaiahic prophetism was laid bare, and it is remarkable to what gigantic dimensions these researches have grown.
Gesenius's commentary on Isaiah marked an epoch, which proved that a considerable portion of Isaiah was not genuine. Most striking is the assertion as far as the last twenty-six chapters (xl.-lxvi.) of Isaiah are concerned.
That these so-called Deutero-Isaiahic chapters originated from the latter part of the Babylonian exile is a statement which students of ninety years ago, such as Hensler, Piper, Beckhaus, Jahn, and Dereser rejected, but one which no thoughtful and unprejudiced Bible scholar of to-day dare deny. Even Jewish scholars having the rank of Ben Zeeb and Nachman Krochmal gave their unstinted approval to the assertion that the second part of Isaiah belongs to the period of the exile.
A cursory glance at the style of this second part convinces us of the fact that the last twenty-six chapters refer to a second Isaiah. Berthold says, most properly, that the language in these chapters most frequently becomes a dull prose, and never soars to that lofty height which we so often meet with in the first indisputable part of Isaiah, crowding all and carrying
away omnipotently all, so that hereby difficulties arise which are unexplailiable. Quite another aspect those other chapters present, in which all is clear, the dictum quiet, single figures arise boldly only to sink the speech into depths, and in which speeches we hear, not so much the poet rushing forth with impetuous fire upon fanciful and aesthetic feelings of his reader, as, on the contrary, the thoughtful teacher and admonisher who offers hope and consolation and trust.
The political circumstances of the nation, which are not so much predicted as supposed, as De Wette says, also point to a prophet in exile. All the prophecies in Deutero-Isaiah can and must be understood only from one point of view, namely, from the time when Cyrus made his appearance.
We shall not dwell on details, but only say in general that the result of historical criticism need not alter, not even one particle, our reverence for the holiness of God's Word. With Eichhorn we may apostrophize the reader unbiased by prejudice : " Imagine the author of the portions referred to as living in the exile ; the oracles remain then as they were, only the doubts disappear, the difficulties vanish, and the origin of the prophetic pictures strikes the eye, feature after feature. The figures and descriptions, as in the other prophets, grow from age and individual situation, the host of doubts not capable of solution, losing balance, fall and disappear, the oracles alone remain true to the teachings of God. May every one ask and answer himself, as his heart prompts him to, whether he cannot by these conceptions put Isaiah out of his hands with2
quieter feelings." It would, to say the least, be unreasonable to turn back the proceedings so truly reflected by our exile prophet to the time of Uzziahjotham, Ahaz, and Hiski'a, when the first Isaiah flourished and when ideas and political opinions quite different held sway.
In order to show that to eyes of deeper investigation an altogether new world of ideas present themselves, thoroughly different from, and without any analogy to, the ideas prevailing in proto-Isaiah, I would offer a striking instance, I mean one in which I hereby anticipate the result of my research, namely, the numerous polemic dicta versus the Parseeism and the belief in Ormuzd, which occur almost in every chapter of Deutero-Isaiah. We renew thus our study on this subject, set fortft more than twelve years ago in the Z. D. D. M. G., part 30th, because of the flimsiness with which the author of the article on Isaiah in the thirteenth volume of the " Encyclopaedia Britannica '' has treated this subject. The author, Mr. T. K. Cheyne, holds it " unnecessary to do more than chronicle the singular attempts of the Jewish scholar, Dr. Kohut, in the Z. D. D. M. G. for 1876, to prove a Zoroastrian influence on chapters xl.-lxvi. Were this proved, of course the date of these chapters would be determined." What the quoted M. de Harlez in the Revue des questions historiques, and Dr. Matthes in the Theologish Tijdschrift have to say against the "carelessness of this hypothesis," the author of that mentioned article failed. to show, although it would have been far more interesting to know, than the manner in which he prefers to solve the question of the disputed part of Isaiah, " the evangelical prophet," as he determines it most ridiculously. Mr. Cheyne could not have read even superficially our essay above mentioned, otherwise he could not impute to us that we endeavored' to prove a Zoroastrian influence on the second part of Isaiah; on the contrary, we proved an antagonism of our prophet, his most powerful pro-
test against Zoroastrian teachings—a fact, on the basis of which the origin of the authorship is made known, a fad, furthermore, whieh failed to be made known up to the recent time on account of the defective state of Zend studies.
Now to the point.
I. In the soul-stirring sermons of Deutero-Isaiah, consoling and admonishing his listeners, picturing to them the golden era of the new future with most gorgeous and brilliant coloring, with a "monotony that is never monotonous," constantly returns the emphasis laid on the unity and eternity of God.
Notice the following sentences :
'' Who hath wrought and done it ? He who called the generations from the beginning, I the Lord, the first, and with the latest, I am the same." (Isaiah xli. 4.)
'' I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God." (Ibid. xliv. 6.)
" Hearken unto me, O Jacob, and Israel my called one, I am he, I am the first, I also am the last." (Ibid, xlviii. 12.)
'' I am the Lord and there is none else, besides me there is no God." (Ibid. xlv. 5.)
'' In order that they may know from the rising of the sun and from its setting that there is nothing without me, I am the Lord and there is no one else." (Ibid. 6.)
'' Turn unto me so that ye may be helped, for I am God and there is no one else." (Ibid. 22.)
'' Remember the former things of olden times, for I am God and there is no one else ; I am God and there is nothing like me." (Ibid. xlvi. 9.)
" I am the Everlasting One, that is my name, and my glory will I not give to any other. (Ibid. xlii. 8.)
" For my own sake, for my own sake will I do it, and my glory will I not give unto another." (Ibid, xlviii. 11.)
'' Ye are my witnesses : Is there a God besides me ; yea there is no rock I do not know of." (Ibid. xliv. 8.)
Discounting the quotations, let us ask why did the prophet emphasize3
with such repeated force the unity of God ? We cannot help thinking of the strong protest of monotheistic Judaism against the Parsic dualism of Ormuzd and Ahriman, a protest which the great unknown prophet thus points out:
'' I am the Lord and there is no one else. Forming the light and creating darkness ; making peace and creating evil, I the Lord do all these things." (Ibid. xlv. 67.)
There is no doubt that the great anonymous pointed with this sentence to the Persian dualistic principle, the characteristic substance of which is the contradiction of good and evil, and the unceasing battle in which light and darkness fight each other. The Bundehesh, containing old elements of this ancient belief, teaches us in the first chapter the following : (1) " It is duly revealed in the Maz-daya^nic law that Ormuzd as the highest dwells with omniscience and purity in the eternal light; the seat, the abode of Ormuzd, is called the light without beginning." (2) "Ahriman dwells in darkness, in after-knowledge and passion. This darkness is the abode that is called darkness without beginning." (11) "Ormuzd said to Ahriman : ' Set apart a time for battle,' thereupon Ahriman in his blindness and ignorance agreed, just as two men appoint the time of a duel, ' on that day we shall fight.' "
Against these two deities, who on account of their appearance at the same time are called the twins (y6m^), and who representing good and evil, light and darkness, are in everlasting combat with each other, Deutero-Isaiah speaks polemically, by repeating in so many and many variations the Jewish idea, there is only one God, the Everlasting One, whose glory is not given to another, who, "shapingthe light, at the same time controls the darkness, and though calling evil into existence, makes peace between opposing elements, being the Lord who does all these things."
It is for the same reason that our prophet puts forth emphatically :
" Every one that is called by my name I have created for my glory, I have formed, yea I have made " (Ibid, xliii. 7), pointing out here the Parsic idea, the consequence and the vitality of the belief that wicked creatures are subjects of Ahriman, whom the true adherers of Ormuzd must persecute and destroy. Jewish monotheism says, no! all that is created by God is made to his glory-, and must therefore have an aim in life.
II. In Deutero-Isaiah 1 we often meet with the emphasis on God as the only creative power of heaven and earth. For example compare :
'' To whom then will ye liken me, that I should be equal to, saith the Holy One. Lift up your eyes on high and see who hath created these. He hath brought out their hosts by number, that calleth them all by name, from him who is great in might and strong in power, not one is missing." (xl. 25,26.)
" Thus hath said God the Lord, he that created the heavens and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth and the things which come out of it." (xlii. 5.)
"Thus hath said the Lord thy Redeemer, I am the Lord that hath made all things, that hath stretched forth the heavens by myself alone, that hath spread the earth from my own self." (xliv. 24.)
The aim of these and similar sentences is likewise directed against the Persian cosmogony, in accordance with which the seven Amesha-fpentas (immortal saints) after their creation co-operated in the creation of the world.
Aferin Gahanb&r tells us (§ 14) clearly : " In forty-five days did I work with the help of the Amesha-fpentas, i. e., created the world." Furthermore (§ 15), " Sixty days did I work with the help of the Amesha-fpentas. i. e., created the water." The same co-operation is mentioned (§§ 16-19) in reference to the creation of earth, trees, beasts, and men. It is for this reason that the Amesha-fpentas are in the Zend text (Vendid&d 19, 34) called hukh-shatra hudh&vgho : the good rulers4
and the wise ones.
III.	As at the creation so are at the resurrection (freshokereta, frashe-g&rd: new making of bodies) certain helping spirits, by means of whose co-operation Ormuzd performed the new creation of the bodies. The epitheion ornans of these helping genii is Caoshyanf—Healer or Saviour. We have dwelt on this subject at length in our essay, '' Was hat die talmudische Eschatologie aus dem Parsismus aufgenomynen "(Z. M. G., part 21, 570 ff.),giving there all the quotations in which they are called " Friends and helping Comrades of Ormuzd." In the face of this widespread Parsic dogma, it is certainly not merely an accident that Deutero-Isaiah, so well acquainted with Persian ideas, laid such forcible stress on the idea that God alone is the true Saviour. With obvious anti-Parsic tendency does he say :
"lam the Lord the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour." (Isaiah xliii. 3.)
" In order that ye may know and believe me and understand that I am he . . I am the Lord and besides me there is no Saviour.'' (Ibid. 10,11.)
" And all flesh shall know that I the Eternal am thy Saviour and the Redeemer, the mighty one of Jacob.'' (Ibid. ylix. 26.)
" My salvation shall exist forever . . my salvation irom generation to generation." (li. 6, 8.) Compare furthermore xli. 14 ; xliv 6 ; li. 6, 8, and many other passages, where God emphatically is called the Redeemer.
The expression Stow' tsmp ddSnj or simply SKity wnp, or with the addition m*oy n so repeatedly used (cf. li. xli. 16, 20; xliii. 3, 14; xliv.6 ; xlv. 11 ; xlvi. 4 ; xlviii 17 ; xlix. 7; liv. 5; lv. 5; lvii. 15; lviii. 13; lx. 9, 14) refers decidedly to God the Holy Tetragrammaton as the exclusive Saviour, in antagonism to the Parsee-ism, which assumes besides Ormuzd yet many "helping Healers and Saviours."
IV.	According to the Persian idea the Amesha-9pentas constitute the counsel of Ormuzd. Such passages (for instance, Tobith 12, 15; Apoc.
4, 5 ; 8, 2 ; Targum Jerushalmi to Genesis n, 7 ; cf. Job. 1, 6 ; 2, i Daniel 4, 15) in which the counsel of angels is mentioned owe their origin to such influence. Ormuzd asks for their counsel at the creation. The genius Ashavahista made strenuous objections to the creations of some things, and it is against such notions that Deutero-Isaiah protests when he says :
" Who hath meted out the spirit of the Lord and who was His counselor that he could have given Him information? With whom did He take counsel that he gave Him understanding and taught Him the path of justice and taught Him knowledge, etc." (Isaiah xl. 13, 14.)
" Declaring from the beginning the end, and from the earliest days the things that have not yet been done, saying : my counsel shall stand firm and all my pleasure will I do." (Ibid. xl. 10.)
V. The Zend text assumes at the end of time there will be a new creation, the resurrection, which will take place chiefly by the help of Ormuzd's co-operators, the so-called Healers, as mentioned above. Ormuzd himself will be idle. It is said : Ahura will be seated on a gorgeous throne, and cease , to create. At the time of the new creation (resurrection) he will work no more. This mythological feature is preserved for us by Plutarch (Isid. and Os. chap. 47), also saying: " The God who performed all this is now quiet and rests for a time, which though it be a long time, for God, however, as for a sleeping man, it seems a moderate (short) one." Our prophet protests against this narrow comprehension of a deity when he says :
"Doest thou not know ? hast thou not heard ? The God of Everlasting-is the Lord, is the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not be faint, and He will not be weary, unsearchable is his understanding." (Ibid.xl. 28.)
'' And even unto old age I am the same, and even unto the time of hoary hairs will I bear I have done it and5
I will carry (I will do it)." (xlvi. 4.) Though Ormuzd be at the end idle, Israel's God knows not rest, His assistance is ever ready.
As a caustic antithesis our prophet proclaims: "Lift up your eyes to the heavens and look upon the earth beneath, for the heaven shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wear out like a garment, and they that dwell thereon shall die in like manner, but my salvation shall exist forever, and my righteousness shall not be stayed.'' (li. 6, 8.)
That the idea of as new creation was not strange to our prophet the following apostrophe shows :
' Behold I will do a new thing, now it shall spring forth." (Ibid, xliii. 19.)
1' For behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth." (lxv. 17-)
'' For as the new heavens and the earth which I will make shall have permanence before me," etc. (Ibid, lxvi. 22.)
These sentences have also an anti-Parsic tendency as far as the prophet does not apply the figure of the new creation to the proceedings at the end of earthly time, but to the approaching new and great .event of Israel's redemption by Cyrus. If we remember that the prophet apostrophizes his listeners, who lived in the exile and who were well versed with the current ideas of the surrounding people, and, so to speak, converses with them in the tougue of vernacular conceptions, and dwelling on these generally known topics of the day he suddenly, turns the meaning and changes the heathen idea into a Jewish and sublime hope of the near future, if we remember that quid pro quo, we can easily imagine how overwhelming the impression might have been on the minds of the despondent Israelites. Such polemics and such biting sarcasm with which our prophet ridicules for instance the follies of idolatry (xl. 18-25;	12-20;
xlvi. 6, 7) could not have failed to have the desired effect.
VI. The commanding power of this sarcasm on' the part of our
prophet is duly shown by the last verses of the fiftieth chapter. These verses are to the interpreters, Gesenius included, verily a crux interpreting,, because they failed to grasp the sarcastic allusions to the Persian superstitions, which the prophet illustrates and appropriates so masterly for his own purposes.
It is namely a fundamental belief of the Persians, that no sooner is one dead than the corps demon (Drukhs Nafus) takes possession of the body. In order to drive the demon away from the body a dog is set before it, in the firm belief that the gaze of the dog (Cag-did) has the power to banish the unclean spirit. This superstition, mentioned also by Herodotus (I. 140), is of old Indo-Germanic origin. It is written thus in Rig Veda (x. 14, 12) with regard to the interment of the Brahmans (Z. D. D. M. G., ix., page 14).
" Encircle him, O Yama, protecting from the dogs,
Thy watching guardians, the keepers of thy way."
After having performed the dog-gaze on the body, the latter was placed on a height, previously determined upon, called dakhma, to lie there as food for birds and beasts. On account of this demon-driving power of the dog, it was revered by the ancient Persians, yea, it was considered as one of the sacred animals. The pious Mazdaya^nit is taught by innumerable commandments in what manner he should treat the dog (vide Spiegel's Avesta Translat. III., 263 art. Hund.).
The above-mentioned is sufficient for a proper understanding of such difficult verses as the following : "All ye beasts of the field come to devour, yea, all the beasts of the forest. Their watchmen are all of them blind, they know nothing ; they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark ; watchers lying down to loving slumber. The dogs are of a greedy disposition, they know not how to be satisfied, and like them—are the shepherds, who do not understand, they all turn to their own way, everyone after his gain from all quarters. Come ye, I6
will fetch wine and let us swallow abundantly of strong drink. Like this day shall it be to-morrow," etc., etc. (lvi. 9-12.)
There is no doubt, in my opinion, what these sentences mean. They ridicule the Persian . superstition, which, very possibly, many of the Israelites might have upheld. The prophet sarcastically tarries a moment at the idea of the people only to show its absurdity. Truly poetic is his invitation to the beasts of the field to devour the bodies.
The ear of the listeners was caught and it struck their mind as to the remembrance of the body devoured by the beasts. The allusion is continued for a while with the well-chosen words: "Their xvatchmen are blind altogether" (referring to the staring gaze of the dog); "they are all dumb dogs." The dogs chosen to watch don't answer the expectation, for they are blind (a sharp contrast to the original calling of the Cag-did). They ought to be watchful seers, D'3Dity D'rn, that lie down immovable in the place where the corpse lies, instead of that, duS onx, are they lovers of slumber. These dogs also are not watchers and guardians, they are as all other dogs, WQ2 of a greedy disposition, unsalable ; and now comes the application of the satirized superstition : D'j'n non, such are the shepherds, who ought to be the watchmen and guardians, the teachers of the people (cf. Isaiah Hi. 8 ; lxii. 6; Jeremiah vi. 17 ; Ezekiel iii. 17 ; xxxiii. 7), but they have no understanding, cannot watch over the people, nor look after their welfare. Instead of watching, they are like dogs loving sleep, mindful only of their individual welfare, are greedy, each going the way of his own personal gain, unsatiable, immoderate, choosing as their watchword. "Come ye, I will fetch wine and let us swallow abundantly of strong drink," etc., etc.
VII. In this way the great unknown tried to censure the superstition of the Parsees, in which, undoubtedly, a great part of the Jews shared, whom he often scourged
(cf. 1. 1, 2 ; lix. 3-8, 14, 15 ; Ivii. 3-10; lxv. 1-15, ii.; lxvi. 3-6,17, 24) in order to win back the unfaithful to the fold of Adonai, and to threaten the stubborn sinners who adhered to the Persian ideas with the punishment of God. This is the sense of the following verses, 1. 10, 11 : "Who is among you that fear-eth the Lord, that hearkeneth to the voice of his servant ? He who has walked in darkness and had no light let him trust in the name of the Lord and lean for support upon his God. Behold, all ye that kindle fire, that urge on the brands, -walk by the blaze of your fire, and by the brands ye have kindled, from my hand hath this been bestowed on you, in pain shall-ye lie down."
The prophet discriminates hereby three classes among the Jews : (1) the fearer of God, whom he admonishes to hearken to the voice of His servant (to be guided by the prophet) ; (2) those who walk in darkness and have no light, may they at least trust in the name of God ; (3) those, however, who follow the Persian worship, kindling the fire, urging on the brands, may they find their punishment.
VIII. But not only against the Persian superstitions of the people of the exile does the prophet energetically protest, he is zealous also in regard to the impurified religion of Cyrus, whom he attacks in disguised polemics. Verses 19-21 of the forty-second chapter are logical only in reference to Cyrus.
After scourging the idolators (v. 17), whom he calls deaf and blind, he sadly remembers that Cyrus, too, whom he calls " My shepherd" (xliv. 28), "Anointed" (xlv. 1), is not free from some prejudices. In this light let us read these verses:
" Who is blind but my servant, or deaf as my messenger whom I send? Who is blind as the messenger and deaf as the servant of the Lord ? Thou seest many things but observ-est not. Thy ears are open but thou hearest not. For the sake of his righteousness the Lord will magnify the Law and glorify it."7
In other words, even Cyrus, although bright in many respects, is in religious knowledge blind ; though his ears be open, id est, susceptible, yet he doesn't hear the voice of God the only one. Not for the sake of his piety, but for the sake of God's mercy is he a heaven-sent messenger to bring to final triumph the Law. The prophet fears not to give full sway to his convictions that, though with due respect to Cyrus, he is chosen only because of God's mercy to fulfil His will, and not; because of the purity of the religion he confesses. He was chosen as a political messiah, to further the holy cause of Israel, but he should acknowledge soon its truth and abandon his own prejudices. All this is made clear by carefully reading the verses, chapter xliv. 24-28 ; xlv. 1-7. In order not to weary you I shall read only the following, which contain polemics against Cyrus, or rather, his religion :
(xlv. 3-7.) "And I will give unto thee concealed treasures and riches hidden in secret places ; in order that thou mayest know that I am the Lord who called thee by name —the God of Israel; for the sake of my servant Jacob and Israel my elect have I designated thee, though thou hast not known me. I am the Lord and there is none else; besides me there is no God. I assisted thee, though thou hast not known me. In order that they may know, from the
rising of the sun and unto its setting that there is nothing without me, 1 am the Lord and there is no one else. Forming the light and creating darkness, making peace and creating evil, I the Lord do all these things.''
Although disguised, the polemic is transparent. It was wise of the prophet not to sharpen the expressions against Cyrus, the redeemer of the Israelites, but on the other hand, to keep back with the truth on account of fear would have ill become the man "whom the Lord has given a tongue for teaching to strengthen the \yeary with word."
Looking back upon the result of these polemic sentences contained in Deutero-Isaiah, and seeing how familiar he was from personal experience with the Persians and their belief in the dualism of their deity, we can not fail to appreciate the aim of the historical critic when he says that the authorship of Deutero-Isaiah dates back to the latter period of the Babylonian exile. On the other hand, the result found indirectly, that in the time of Deutero-Isaiah the Ormuzd belief already flourished, and there was danger of its influencing the minds of the Jewish exiles, so much so that the great unknown prophet felt it necessary to protest against it. This result, too, I believe deserves to be emphatically pointed out