Division 
 
 Sccti 
 
 oil 
 
DEC 19 19: 
 
 DR. DRIVER ON THE AUTHORSHIP 
 
 OF 
 
 ISAIAH XIII-XIV. 
 
 BY 
 
 W. M. McPHEETERS. 
 
 FROM PRESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY, 
 APRIL, 1894. 
 
DEC 19 1925 
 
 %flCfAL 11'^^ 
 
 II. DR. DRIVER ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH 
 XIII. AND XIY. 
 
 On first reading Dr. Driver's argument for the non-Isaianic au- 
 thorship of these chapters, one is apt to find himself saying, in 
 the words of Agrippa, " Almost thou persuadest me." This is 
 the more likely to be the case if he has read the preceding pages 
 of Dr. Driver's able book ; for then he will come to the considera- 
 tion of the discussion of this particular question, impressed not 
 only with the extent of Dr. Driver's learning and the accuracy of 
 his scholarship, but, what is of much more importance, impressed 
 also with his candor and evident intention to deal reverently with 
 God's word. Further, he can scarcely fail to perceive that there 
 is not a little justice in the views advanced in regard to the rela- 
 tion between a prophecy and its historical genesis, and that these 
 views, judiciously applied, are capable of yielding the happiest re- 
 sults. This favorable impression, moreover, will remain and 
 exert its powerful influence, notwithstanding the fact that the 
 reader may have observed all along that Dr. Driver habitually 
 overlooks or discards considerations which may seem to liim to be 
 of prime importance. If, under such circumstances, the " almost " 
 fails to become an " altogether," the fault may lie in tlie preju- 
 dices or the unreasonable fears of the reader, but it is also at 
 least possible that it may lie in some weak link in the argument 
 that has been overlooked by Dr. Driver. 
 
 Now, the present writer, after patient and candid study, finds 
 himself unable to accept Dr. Driver's conclusion as to the non- 
 Isaianic authorship of these chapters. He at least persuades him- 
 self that his abiding conviction that Isaiah, and not some unknown 
 writer of the time of the exile, is their author, is due not to pre- 
 judice. On the contrary, it seems to him that Dr. Driver's own 
 principles and formal admissions demand a conclusion the very 
 opposite of that at which that distinguished scholar has arrived. 
 Let us see 
 
188 THE PRESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY. 
 
 The following extract ' will put the reader in possession of Dr. 
 Driver's statement of the case : 
 
 " The first of these prophecies is one on Babylon (xiii. 2-xiv. 
 23), which differs from all the other prophecies of Isaiah which 
 have hitherto been reviewed, in the remarkable circumstance that 
 it stands unrelated to Jsaiali's own age. The Jews are not 
 warned, as Isaiah might warn them (xxxix. 6), against the folly 
 of concluding an alliance with Babylon, or reminded of the disas- 
 trous consequences which such an alliance might entail ; nor are 
 they even represented, as in Jeremiah, as threatened with im- 
 pending exile ; they are represented as in exile, and as about to 
 be delivered from it (xiv. 1, 2), It is of the very essence of pro- 
 phecy to address itself to the needs of the prophet's own age ; it 
 was the prophet's ofiice to preach to his own contemporaries, to 
 announce to them the judgments, or the consolations, which arose 
 out of the circumstances of their own time, to interpret for them 
 their own history. As far as we have hitherto gone, this is what 
 Isaiah has uniformly done. His prophecies have been replete 
 with allusions to contemporary history — to Ephraim, Damascus, 
 and the Assyrians. That history is the foundation upon which 
 his grandest predictions rest. Here, on the other hand, the allu- 
 sions are not to Assyria, but to Bahjlon; not the Babylon of 
 Merodach-Baladan, who sought Ilezekiah's friendship, which was 
 known to Isaiah (xxxix.), but the Babylon of the exile, which held 
 the Jews in cruel bondage (xiv. 2, 3), and was shortly to be de- 
 stroyed by the Medcs (xiii. 17). To base a promise upon a con- 
 dition of things not yet existent, and without any point of contact 
 or association with those to wlioin it is addressed, is alien to the 
 genius of prophecy. . . . With the long invective against Babylon 
 contained in these chapters of Jeremiah {i. e., chapters 1., li.), the 
 present prophecy is, indeed, in temper and spirit, remarkably 
 akin; whilst, on the other hand, it exhibits few or none of the 
 accustomed marks of Isaiah's style." 
 
 Again, in another place," he says : 
 
 " The first of these prophecies consists of an announcement of 
 the approaching fall of Babylon (xiii. 19), and of the subsequent 
 
 > Isaiah : His Life and Times. By Rev. S. A. Driver. D. D., p. 85 f. » Ibid., p. 126 f. 
 
DK. DRIVER ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH XIII. AND XIV. 189 
 
 release of the Jews (xiv, 1, 2) from the land of their exile. The 
 reasons which forhid onr attributing it to Isaiah have been stated 
 briefly already (p. 86). The prophet is, in the first instance, tlie 
 teacher of his own generation ; lience it is a fundamental principle 
 of prophecy that the historical situation of the prophet should be 
 the basis of his prediction. Isaiah lived during the Assyrian su- 
 premacy ; and it is the faihire of a pur th alar Astiyrian king to 
 destroy or sul)jugate Judah which he uniformly foretells. In the 
 present prophecy Babylon is re))resented as holding the empire of 
 the world (xiii. 19 ; xiv. 6f.), which it exercises in particular (xiv. 
 1, 2) hy holding the Jews in exile ; and it is the city and emjnre 
 of Babylon whose overthrow is announced in it. By analogy it 
 will have been written during the period of the Babylonian su- 
 premacy ; for it is arbitrary to suppose (as has been done) tliat 
 Babylon may have been mentioned by Isaiah as the ' representa- 
 tive ' of Assyria. Not only does Babylon appear here as the sole 
 and supreme seat of the world empire, but Babylon, in Isaiah's 
 day, so far from being the representative of Assyria, was its an- 
 tagonist, ever struggling to win independence (pp. 45, 55, 96). 
 Moreover, the two empires of Assyria and Babylon are quite dis- 
 tinct in tlie old Testament ; the role which they play in iiistory is 
 very different; they are never confused, still less 'identified,' by 
 the prophets. The embassy of Merodach-Baladan, tlie temporary 
 king of Babylon, to Hezekiah, afforded Isaiah a substantial motive 
 for announcing a future exile to Babylon. It could supply no 
 motive for such a promise of subsequent return from exile as 
 these chapters contain. The circumstances of the exile — wliile 
 the Jews were still in bondage, and the power of Babylon seemed 
 yet unshaken — constitute a suitable and suflicient occasion for the 
 present prophecy, an occasion of exactly the nature which tlie 
 analogy of prophecy demands. On the other hand, the circum- 
 stances of Isaiah's age supply no such occasion It only 
 
 remains to add (for tlie purpose of obviating misconception) that 
 in assigning the prophecy to a date during the exile, we do not 
 divest it of its /?re<//6'^a'e character; it becomes no vaticiniuni ex 
 eventu. The language of chapter xiii. makes it certain that it was 
 written prior to the capture of Babylon by the Medes in 538. 
 13 
 
190 THE PRESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY. 
 
 Written some few years before this event, it would be as fully and 
 truly predictive as were Isaiah's prophecies of the failure of Sen- 
 nacherib (chaps, xxix.-xxxii.), wliich, indeed, as we have seen, pre- 
 ceded the event by not more than a single year." 
 
 This is substantially Dr. Driver's latest word upon this subject. 
 It is unmodified by anything that he has said in his recent work 
 on Old Testament Literature. We have quoted thus at length in 
 order that Dr. Driver might have the full benefit of his argument, 
 and we, the full benefit of his admissions. 
 
 I, In considering the above extracts, we desire tlie reader's 
 attention, first of all, to some things wliich do not constitute the 
 grounds upon which Dr. Driver feels constrained to reject the 
 Isaianic authorship of these chapters. Attention to this point is 
 a matter of justice to Dr. Driver. It may also prove to be a 
 matter of importance in justifying the conclusion at which we 
 hope to arrive as against Dr. Driver. 
 
 (a.) Let it be carefully noted, then, that Dr. Driver does not 
 deny the Isaianic authorship of the chapters in question, because 
 tiie recognition of it would carry along with it the recognition of 
 the siipernatural in history and revelation. If we understand 
 Dr. Driver, he admits not only that God may interpose in human 
 afi^airs, but he distinctly atfirms that God did interpose, and that, 
 too, directly and immediately, in the afiairs of Israel. He believes 
 not only in the supernatural in general, but also in the super- 
 natural in the form of miracles. If we do not misconceive him, 
 lie has no more diflficulty about admitting a miracle in the sphere 
 of mind than one in that of matter. What he insists upon, and 
 this is scarcely a matter for censure, is that before a divine inter- 
 position be admitted it should be shown that there is " dignus 
 vindice nodus.'''' It is much to be regretted that Dr. Driver, and 
 other of his fellow-workers, should so express themselves as to 
 create the impression upon many minds that they either have 
 already, or else are just about, to surrender their belief in the 
 supernatural. Such, however, is not the case. Dr. Driver 
 believes in the supernatural. Ho is entitled to credit for this 
 fact as a matter of personal justice, and we are entitled to the 
 benefit of it as a matter of argument. For proven the " noduSy'* 
 
DR. DRIVER ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH XIII. AND XIV. 191 
 
 then, Dr. Driver cannot, upon his own principle, refuse to admit 
 the ^^vindexy 
 
 {h.) He does not deny it, because to admit it would be to admit 
 that there is such a thing as predictive prophecy in the strict and 
 proper sense. Dr. Driver himself believes in predictive pro- 
 phecy, and that, too, in the strict and proper sense, namely, as 
 involving the announcement of an event still future, the occur- 
 rence of which could only be foreseen by God, and the announce- 
 ment of which, upon the part of the prophet, is only to be 
 explained upon the ground that he has learned it by a direct 
 revelation from God. We say that Dr. Driver believes in pre- 
 dictive prophecy in this sense. Our warrant for the statement is, 
 that he himself says that he does. 
 
 (c.) lie does not deny it, l)ecause to admit it would be to admit 
 that a prophet might predict a definite event belonging to the 
 distant future, that is, lying entirely beyond his own time's hori- 
 zon — lying beyond it, we mean, in the sense that there was no- 
 thing in the political or moral situation, as it presented itself to the 
 natural eye of the prophet or his contemporaries, to suggest, still 
 less to justify, the prediction of the occurrence of the particular 
 event predicted. Dr. Driver himself believes in the prediction of 
 just such events by both Isaiah and Jeremiah. He admits, for 
 instance, the Isaianic authorship of Isaiah xxxix. 5-7; but this 
 passage contains a prediction of the deportation of the Jews to 
 Babylon. Now, this event did not occur for more than one hun- 
 dred years, and so belonged to the distant future. And let it be 
 noticed further, tliat there was nothing either in the political or 
 moral situation to suggest, still less to justify, the occurrence of a 
 deportation to this particular place., though that was evidently of 
 the very essence of the prediction. Again, Dr. Driver admits 
 that Jeremiah xxv. 11-12, is from the hand of Jeremiah.' This 
 contains a prediction of the return from the Babylonish captivity. 
 It was uttered something like seventy years before that event, 
 and so belongs to the distant future. And here again, as in the 
 previous case, there was nothing in the political or moral situa- 
 tion, as it presented itself to the eyes of Jeremiah or his contem- 
 
 ' Introduction to tlie Literature of the Old Tettament, page 244. 
 
192 THE PRESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY. 
 
 poraries, to suggest, still less to justify, the expectation of the 
 occurrence of such an event.. The language is either a ^^vaticm- 
 iurn ex evening'' or a prediction of a definite event belonging to 
 the distant future, and in the sense above defined, beyond the 
 time's horizon of the prophet who uttered it. Dr. Driver holds 
 it to be the latter. 
 
 (c7.) He does not deny it upon the ground that the proplietic 
 writings "supply no analogy for such a sustained transference to 
 the future as would be implied if these chapters were by Isaiah, 
 or for the detailed and definite description of the circumstances 
 of a distant age." He urges this as an objection against the Isai- 
 anic authorship of Isaiah xl.-lxvi., but not against that of these 
 chapters. Doubtless he had a reason for this, and certainly the 
 most obvious reason is that he himself perceived that, if laid, the 
 objection could not be sustained. 
 
 {e.) He does not deny it because his scholarship has led him to 
 the discovery of any deficiency, defects, or conflicts in the exter- 
 nal evidence for the genuineness of these chapters. He admits 
 that the external evidence, such as it is, is wholly in favor of the 
 Isaianic authorship of these chapters. He admits that in this re- 
 spect, at least, they stand upon exactly the same footing as that 
 of the first twelve chapters, the Isaianic authorship of which he him- 
 self allows. Hence, his rejection of the genuineness of chapters 
 xiii. and xiv. is confessedly in the face of the external evidence. 
 
 These points are negative in form, but, unless we are greatly 
 mistaken, they will be found to be full of positive significance. We 
 bespeak for them the careful consideration of every reader. We 
 have been at the pains to state them — First : merely as a matter of 
 justice to Dr. Driver. If any merit attaches to retaining one's 
 belief in the supernatural and in predictive prophecy ; if any merit 
 attaches to the bold avowal of such a belief in the face of the op- 
 positions of this naturalistic age, then this distinguished scholar 
 should have the credit for it. Conservative writers who for any 
 reason misconceive or misrepresent his position here only injure 
 their cause and themselves, as well as do a gross injustice to Dr. 
 Driver. It matters not that Dr. Driver is not always self-consist- 
 ent. Few of us are. It matters not that he holds views aud 
 
DK. DRIVER ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH XIII. AND XIV. 193 
 
 adopts methods upon other points that are dangerous. Upon the 
 particular point now under consideration he has, in his latest book, 
 put himself upon record in utterances of unmistakable plainness, 
 which commit him to the position we have indicated above. He 
 is unquestionably entitled to the credit of his position, and we to 
 the benefit of it. Second : In order to emphasize a point which 
 seems to us of prime importance, and yet one which is only too 
 frequently overlooked, and that, too, by those who can least afford 
 to do so. It is a sad fact, and yet one that cannot be denied, that 
 many eminent Old Testament scholars have lost, or are fast 
 losing, their faith in the supernatural, properly so called, and 
 along with it their faith in the existence of any such thing as 
 predictive prophecy. Many of the younger and less discriminat- 
 ing minds among the so-called progressives and radicals are apt 
 to attribute this loss of faith in the supernatural upon the part of 
 their leaders to the vast oriental learning, the superior methods 
 of historical criticism, together with the greater intellectual acu- 
 men, freedom, and boldness of these trusted leaders, and to at- 
 tribute their own loss of faith in the supernatural to the fact that 
 they are, at least relativel}^ to their youth and opportunities, far 
 in advance of the conservative herd in these same respects. But 
 as regards the leaders, such a case as that of Dr. Driver, even 
 standing by itself, would suggest that there is some mistake 
 somewhere in this conclusion. Few will be disposed to challenge 
 the extent and accuracy of liis learning in the Old Testament 
 field, or his intellectual acumen and discipline. He follows, too, 
 the most approved methods of criticism, and yet he retains his 
 faith in the supernatural. As regards the flattering view which 
 these neophytes take of their own attainments, it will be enough, at 
 present, to say that it is more soothing to their vanity than indi- 
 cative of their self-knowledge or their discrimination. This above 
 all others is a time for every honest-minded, brave-hearted lover 
 of truth among our younger scholars to distrust himself and to 
 search into his motives. When the announcement, "Ze roi est 
 mortf'' has gone forth, it is easy enough to shout, " Yive le roif^ 
 This, however, is not the shout of freemen, but of those who ex- 
 change one master for another. For ourselves, we see no advan- 
 
194 THE PRESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY, 
 
 tage that the new traditionalism has over the old. The essential 
 characteristics of each are the same. They are indolence, cow- 
 ardice, and a cringing subservience to authority. Better to follow 
 the counsel of the fearless old apostle, " Prove all things. Hold 
 fast that which is good." But, third : we have been at tlie pains 
 to call attention to these points in order, if possible, to eliminate 
 certain irrelevant issues from this discussion. If we are to judge 
 intelligently of the soundness of Dr. Driver's conclusion, we 
 must be willing to take whatever pains are necessary in order to 
 get clearly before us the ground, the only ground, upon which 
 that conclusion rests, or can rest. Let it be constantly borne in 
 mind, then, that — AYlien Dr. Driver admits that God did from 
 time to time reveal the future to his servants the prophets, he 
 virtually admits that, looking merely at the abstract possibilities 
 of the case, apart from the evidence as it relates to this particular 
 case, God might have put these chapters in the mouth of Isaiah. 
 This is not all. Dr. Driver's admissions here would seem to com- 
 pel him to go further, and to admit that, proven a need for such a 
 message as the one contained in these chapters, upon the part of 
 the contemporaries of Isaiah, then, in connection with the exter- 
 nal evidence, we would have strong, or, rather, unimpeachable, 
 grounds for admitting their Isaianic authorship. At least, that is 
 the way in which he himself seeks to establish the Isaianic au- 
 thorship of chapters i.-xii. What he denies is not the possibility, 
 but the propriety, of God's putting such a message as that con- 
 tained in these chapters in the mouth of Isaiah. This, as we shall 
 see, constitutes the very core of his oV)jection to the view that 
 they proceeded from Isaiah. Some may think that this raises a 
 question of no less diflBculty tlian delicacy. Certainly, in view of 
 the fact that so many of God's ways are absolutely inscrutal)le to 
 finite minds, it becomes us to be slow and cautious in asserting 
 that the impropriety of such a message as this in the mouth of 
 Isaiah is so great that God could not have put it there. Mucli in 
 such a case depends upon one's standpoint, and it is not always 
 easy for us to ascertain, or even duly to appreciate, the divine 
 standpoint. True, Dr. Driver might say tliat the question, after 
 all, is not of any great difficulty or delicacy, but resolves itself 
 
DR. DRIVER ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH XIII, AND XIV. 195 
 
 into striking the balance between two probabilities, a task to which 
 even ordinary minds are equal. Is it more probable that the falli- 
 ble human tradition which assigns these chapters to Isaiah is in 
 error, or that the indications in the body of the prophecy itself, 
 which seem to make it only suitable to a later age, are mislead- 
 ing? It will be observed, however, that, even when the question 
 is stated thus, it resolves itself into one as to the suitableness or 
 propriety of such a message as this in the mouth of Isaiah. Let 
 the reader bear this in mind as we proceed. 
 
 Let him also bear in mind the fact that Dr. Driver does 
 not allege the length of time which elapsed between the utter- 
 ance of the prophecy contained in these chapters and its fulfil- 
 ment as an objection against their Isaianic authorship. If at 
 times Dr. Driver seems a little confused and vacillating in deal- 
 ing with this point, it need not disturb us. For even if he were 
 disposed to base an objection upon the matter of time, he is, by 
 his own admissions, debarred from doing so. As we have seen, 
 he admits that Jeremiah predicted the return from captivity sev- 
 enty years before its occurrence. He also admits that Isaiah 
 predicted the exile more than one hundred years before it took 
 place. How, then, could he reasonably maintain that Isaiah could 
 not have predicted the return from exile, when that event lay 
 only seventy years farther in the future. Seventy years — why, 
 what are they among so many ? The time factor can only enter 
 into our problem as it bears upon the question of thneliness. Let 
 it be remembered, then, that Dr. Driver's objection to the Isaianic 
 authorship of these chapters hinges not upon the question of 
 time, but simply and solely upon that of timeliness. He maintains 
 that in the mouth of Isaiah these chapters would have been " born 
 out of due time"; and, so, would have served no useful purpose. 
 
 While many would urge the definiteness and detail of descrip- 
 tion of these chapters as against their Isaianic authorship, let it be 
 remembered that Dr. Driver does not, and, we may add, cannot. 
 True, the objection, if urged, would be utterly destitute of weight. 
 The prophecy does not contain a definite and detailed description 
 of the things predicted. On the contrary, while the picture pre- 
 sented is vivid, the terms employed in painting it are of the most 
 
196 THE PKESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY. 
 
 general kind. Granted tliat the event of a return from exile 
 bad been revealed to Isaiali in its naked simplicity; granted 
 that lie had poetic genius at all commensurate with his reputa- 
 tion, and the picture here drawn of the downfall of Babj-lon 
 might easily have proceeded from him. The reference to the 
 Medes as the instruments in executing the divine vengeance 
 (xii. 17) is the only thing approaching definiteness of detail in 
 either chapter. But, if any one think that it is inappropriate for 
 God to descend to such definiteness of detail in revealing the 
 future, if any regard such definiteness of detail as doing violence 
 to the " analogy of prophecy," we should not forget that there 
 ■ lies ready to our hand that ever-easy to be invoked hypothesis of 
 an interpolation. We confess that we do not admire the haste 
 with which many resort to this suspiciously subservient hy- 
 pothesis. To us it looks too much like quack criticism.- Still, it 
 is the vogue just at present, the panacea of those who have 
 foregone conclusions to establish in the face of stubborn facts. 
 Why then, if need there be, should it not be applied to this single 
 verse rather than to the prophecy as a whole ? What surgeon in 
 his senses would think of cutting off a healthy arm in order, 
 foi-sooth, to get rid of a small wart upon the extremity of the 
 little finger ? Whatever may be thought of such a procedure in 
 criticism, in surgery it would be pronounced wanton butchery. 
 But, we say again, that whatever objection others might urge 
 upon this score, Dr. Driver can offer none. For, has he not 
 admitted that a prediction of the distant future may be definite 
 as to the event predicted, definite as to the place wliere the event 
 is to occur, definite as to the time within wliich it is to occur ? 
 How, then, can he deny that it may also be definite as to the 
 ])er6ons througli whose instrumentality it is to be effected? No, 
 Dr. Driver's objection might be summed up in two words — cui 
 lo7w? Wliy sliould Isaiah reveal to the men of his generation 
 an event that was not to occur until after they and their children 
 and their children's children had all gone to their long home? 
 What profit is there in such prophecies for those to whom they 
 are primarily addressed ? The event predicted is too remote, and 
 the persons mentioned by name too utterly unknown even to 
 
DR. DRIVER ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH XIII. AND XIV. 197 
 
 awaken tlie curiosity of Isaiah's contemporaries. The historical 
 situation being what it was in Isaiali's day, Dr. Driver holds that 
 the terms of tliis prophecy would have been meaningless, and 
 hence necessarily useless, had it been uttered in the ears of 
 Isaiah's contemporaries. 
 
 In order that we may have the real issue, the single issue, 
 involved in Dr. Driver's objection clearly before our minds, it will 
 be useful for us to press our analysis one step further. Let it be 
 understood, then, that Dr. Driver's position as to the non-Isaianic 
 authorsliip of these chapters is not to be referred to amj light 
 which he, more than another, has upon this special point, such as 
 might be supposed to belong to him in view of his admitted pre- 
 eminence in Semitic studies, and his acquaintance with the results 
 of modern archaeological research. It cannot be traced to any 
 new translation of the Hebrew. No more can it be traced to any- 
 thing new in his statement of the historical environment. We 
 should not, then, permit our judgment to be blinded by the halo 
 which Dr. Driver's eminent ability and learning are apt to throw 
 around any opinion to which he may lend the sanction of his 
 name. It should be understood that we have to do mainly, if not 
 merely, with certain preconceptions of Dr. Driver as to the pro- 
 priety, the timeliness, the utility, of such a prediction as this, if 
 attributed to Isaiah. 
 
 The real centre and core of his objection to the Isaianic author- 
 ship of these chapters is, that " no intelligible purpose would be 
 subserved by Isaiah's announcing to the generation of Hezekiah 
 an occurrence lying like this in the distant future, and having no 
 bearing upon contemporary interests." It is true that he appeals 
 to the analogy of prophecy, and to the internal evidence which the 
 prophecy is supposed to furnish of its exilic date. It is true, also, 
 that he undertakes to show that the Babylon of these chapters is 
 not the Babylon of Isaiah's day, and further, that Isaiah had no 
 motive for such a prediction as they contain. But all of these 
 points are, after all, merely subordinate and ancillary to the posi- 
 tion noted above. They derive their significance from the sup- 
 port which they are supposed to lend and the weight they are 
 supposed to give to that position. We shall, as we proceed, notice 
 
198 THE PRESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY. 
 
 these points, but we wish the reader to understand in advance 
 that, though Dr. Driver spends his main strength upon them, they 
 do not constitute the cutting edge of his contention against the 
 genuineness of the chapters. Dr. Driver, we will not say art- 
 fully, but unfortunately, gives such prominence to these subordi- 
 nate points that the reader is apt to overlook the fact that Dr. 
 Driver's real difficulty lies not in the external evidence, nor in any 
 specific tangible feature of the internal evidence, but rather in 
 this, that it is contrary to his own internal sense of the fitness of 
 things that Isaiah should bother himself or his contemporaries with 
 events that were not to occur until they and their children had 
 been long dead, events, accordingly (let the reader mark tlie vo7i- 
 sequitur)^ which could have no bearing upon contemporary in- 
 terest. 
 
 II. "We proceed next to notice certain propositions which Dr. 
 Driver lays down, and upon which he seems to lay great stress, 
 propositions which, while they are in the main correct in them- 
 selves, yet lend no support to his view as to the non-Isaianic 
 authorship of these particular chapters, because of the fact that 
 they are irrelevant, or, at least, are not shown to be relevant, to 
 that issue. 
 
 These propositions will be found, we think, to furnish Dr. 
 Driver with the major premise of his argument. If our analysis 
 of his discussion is correct, that premise is : every genuine 'prophecy 
 must hear directly upon the interests of the contemporaries of the 
 prophet from whom it pwyorts to come. We comment upon the 
 propositions about to be given, for two reasons: Firsts because 
 while all of them arc true in a general sense, some, if not all, will 
 need more or less modification before they will express the whole 
 or the exact truth. Second y because Dr. Driver seems to intimate 
 that they are either denied, ignored, or overlooked by those who 
 accept the Isaianic authorship of these chapters. Such, however, 
 is by no means the case. We impeach tlie correctness not of his 
 major, but of his minor premise. The latter, as already intimated, 
 is : the prophecy of these chapters has no intelligible relation to or 
 bearing upon the interests of those who were contemporary with 
 Isaiah. 
 
DR. DRIVER ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH XIII. AND XIV. 199 
 
 First: then, Dr. Driver says': "The prophet is, in the 
 first instance, the teacher of his own generation:' Put the em- 
 phasis upon the words, " in the first instance,'' where it clearly 
 belongs by right, and this becomes a simple elementary truth 
 which no one denies. The only conceivable reason for referring 
 to it here is to produce, if possible, the impression that, had Isaiah 
 uttered these words, he would not have been fulfilling his func- 
 tion as a- teacher of his own age. This impression, however, 
 would only be correct, provided this prophecy contained no pro- 
 fitable lessons for the people of Isaiah's own time. This is a 
 proposition wliich Dr. Driver did not seem to think it worth his 
 while to trouble himself with proving. He does not prove it, 
 though he sometimes asserts it, and then again, as here, suggests 
 it. He does not even try to prove it. While, then, we may 
 admit the correctness of the statement, we deny its relevancy, 
 until it has been proved that these chapters in the mouth of 
 Isaiah would have been without instruction for his contemporaries. 
 
 Second: In the same connection Dr. Driver adds : " Hence it is 
 a fundamental principle of prophecy that the historical situation 
 of the prophet should be the basis of his prediction." Here, 
 again, there can be no exception to what is said, provided only 
 that the emphasis be placed upon the proper word, and that word 
 is clearly ''lasis," though we submit that " occasio?i" would be 
 preferable, because less ambiguous. All, we suppose, are pre- 
 pared to admit that the prophet's historical environment must 
 furnish, so to speak, the starting point of all his predictions, 
 otherwise his utterances would have been meaningless riddles to 
 the men of his own day, riddles that would scarcely have awakened 
 sufiicient curiosity to have insured their preservation and per- 
 petuation for the benefit of those whom they more particularly 
 concerned. It is one thing to say this, however, and quite a 
 different thing to assert, as Dr. Driver seems, inconsistently, to 
 imply, that prophecy must have its goal as well as its starting 
 point in the prophet's own present. If this were true, where 
 would be the room for, or what the use of predictive prophecy ? 
 Predictive prophecy, while it ever takes its rise in the present, 
 
 Ubid., p. 126. 
 
200 THE PRESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY, 
 
 also ever projects itself, and aims to carry the thoughts of its con- 
 temporaries forward with it into the future. It is like a bird of 
 passage, whose tuneful notes first strike the ears and cheer the 
 hearts of those from among whom it takes its flight, but, in so 
 doing, only remind them that the full sweetness of that liquid 
 melody is not for themselves, but for those in other, happier 
 climes, where the swift-winged songster is to find its final home. 
 We are persuaded that the underlying fallacy of Dr. Driver's 
 thinking here and elsewhere is, that it is only the past and the 
 present which are competent to teach the present. We hope to 
 show that the future, where her voice can be heard, even though 
 it be but indistinctly, is no less potent a teacher of the present 
 than is the past. 
 
 Third: On page 86 it is said : "It is the very essence of pro- 
 phecy to address itself to the needs of the prophet's own age." 
 This is true. Hence Dr. Driver should have been at more pains 
 to give us a clear view of his conceptions of the needs of Isaiah's 
 day, as related, or rather as unrelated, to the contents of this pro- 
 phecy. He has done nothing of the kind, but goes off in a some- 
 what inconsequent manner to show that Isaiah's other utterances 
 stand related to the needs of his own day, leaving the impression 
 upon the reader's mind tiiat such is not the case with the 
 contents of these chapters. This, however, is manifestly the 
 very point at issue, and ought to have been proved rather 
 than introduced 'into the reader's mind by implication. It 
 by no means follows, as the day the night, that because the events 
 predicted in these chapters were not to occur for something like 
 two hundred years, therefore the prediction of them could not 
 have been called for that length of time before their occurrence. 
 It must be admitted that Dr. Driver's argument, if it can be 
 called such, limps painfully, if it proceeds, as it seems to proceed, 
 upon the assumption that because the prophe(;y in these chapters 
 would meet a felt want of those living about the close of the 
 Babylonian exile, therefore it could not have met a felt need of 
 those living one hundred and fifty or more years before that 
 event. If any such impression has found a temporary lodgment 
 in his mind, he has deceived himself. 
 
DR. DRIVER ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH XIII. AND XIV. 201 
 
 Fourth : Again, in the same connection he adds : " It was the 
 prophet's office to preach to his own contemporaries, to announce 
 to them the judgments or the consolations, which arose out of the 
 circumstances of their time, to interpret for them their own 
 history." Was there, then, no consolation in the prediction of 
 these (jhapters for those living in the time of Isaiah ? It seems 
 to be implied that there was not. Is the implication a fair one, 
 however? It may be, but Dr. Driver has furnished no evidence 
 of the fact. Then, again, it may not be, and in that event Dr. 
 Driver's profound remark is not only irrelevant, but positively 
 misleading. Eat, again, was it not the prophet's office to interpret 
 for his contemporaries their past and their future, as well as their 
 present history ? Dr. Driver, as we have seen, believes in predic- 
 tive prophecy, but what other ofiice has such prophecy except to 
 interpret for them their future history ? And if this be true, how 
 does it happen that Dr. Driver feels himself at liberty to assume 
 that the prediction of deliverance from Babylonian exile would 
 be without interest, significance or profit for the contemporaries of 
 Isaiah? A little proof upon this point would go much further 
 with thinking men than any amount of scholarly assertion or 
 assumption. 
 
 Fifth: Again, on page 86 it is said: "To base a promise upon 
 a condition of things not yet existent, and without any point of 
 contact with the circumstances or situation of those to whom it is 
 addressed, is alien to the genius of prophecy." We would trem- 
 ble before the presence of "the genius of prophecy" here invoked 
 to bolster up a weak cause, but we cannot repress a smile at the 
 imposition which her learned conjurer has practiced upon himself 
 in her name. Let us ask, is it the non-existence of the condition 
 of things, or is it the lack of contact between it and the prophet's 
 circumstances and situation which presents the difficulty to Dr. 
 Driver's mind in the present case? If the latter, then we must 
 insist that Dr. Driver's mere assertion, while exceedingly weighty, 
 is not of the nature of proof. We venture to think that, Dr. 
 Driver himself being judge, there is a most important point of 
 contact between this prediction of deliverance and the situation 
 in Isaiah's own time. But, if it be the non-existence of the con- 
 
202 THE PRESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY. 
 
 dition which is the bug-bear, then we confess to a feeling of sur- 
 prise that Dr. Driver should take this position. Let it be re- 
 membered that he admits that Jeremiah predicted a return from 
 exile. Was not this conditioned upon the going into exile, and 
 remaining there until there were sentiments of repentance awak- 
 ened in the hearts of the people ? Was it not conditioned, also, 
 upon the rise and victorious career of the Medo-Persian empire ? 
 Here, then, is at least one case in which a promise was based upon 
 a condition of things not yet existent, viz., the captivity, and a 
 state of repentance upon the part of the Jews, and the 
 breaking of the power of Babylon by the Medes and Per- 
 sians. Ezekiel does the same thing, and so do all the pro- 
 phets, beginning with Samuel and those who follow after. 
 Evidently what Dr. Driver had in mind was something like 
 this: "To base a promise upon a condition of things not yet 
 conceived, contemplated, or announced as going to exist, is alien 
 to the genius of prophecy." But, if he liad thought it worth his 
 while to say this, who would have thought it worth while to 
 notice it? Should it be said, however, that the Babylon of this 
 prophecy was not conceived, contemplated, or announced as going 
 to exist, at the time it is alleged to have been promulgated, then 
 we will have somewhat to say in reply later on. We will only 
 add here that we regard Dr. Driver as right in saying that " it is 
 arbitrary to suppose (as has been done) that Babylon may have 
 been mentioned by Isaiah as the representative of Assyria." 
 
 III. We come, now, to examine Dr. Driver's proof of his minor 
 premise. That premise, as will be remembered, was : the prophecy 
 of these chapters has no intelligible relation to, or hearing upon, 
 the interests of those who were contemporary icith Isaiah. 
 
 1. The first proposition which Dr. Driver lays down, pre- 
 sumably in support of this position, is that the contents of these 
 chapters are " unrelated to IsaiaVs own ageP As the italics are 
 Dr. Driver's, we presume that he regards this proposition as one 
 of importance. 
 
 (1.) The first comment that we have to offer here is, that Dr. 
 Driver's language lacks clearness. Worse, it is characterized by 
 a vicious ambiguity. It may mean any one of several things. It 
 
DR. DRIVER ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH XIII. AND XIV. 203 
 
 may mean, for instance, that our prophecy is unrelated to the 
 needs of the men of Isaiah's time. If so, it is merely an empliatic 
 assertion of what ought to be proved. For, if this be his mean- 
 ing, it is surely lame proof to say that "the Jews are not warned, 
 as Isaiah miglit warn them (xxxix. 6) against the folly of conclud- 
 ing an alliance with Babylon, or reminded of the disastrous 
 consequences which such an alliance might entail ; nor are they 
 even represented, as in Jeremiah, as threatened with impending 
 exile'; they are represented as in exile and as about to be deliv- 
 ered from it." All this may be true, and still, as we hope to 
 show, the prophecy might have had direct and important bearings 
 upon the personal needs of those who lived in Isaiah's day. We 
 conceive, however, that the more probable meaning of Dr. 
 Driver, when he says that this prophecy stands unrelated to 
 Isaiah's own age, is that it is unrelated to the historical environ- 
 ment of Isaiah and his contemporaries, that it reflects a totally 
 different historical situation, one in which the actual and relative 
 positions of the several actors, as portrayed in our prophecy, dif- 
 fer entirely from those which obtained in the time of Isaiah. 
 We infer that this is his meaning, because in this connection, and 
 apparently as bearing upon this proposition, we are told that 
 "his" {i. e., Isaiah's) "prophecies" (i. e., those found in the first 
 twelve chapters of the book) "are replete with allusions to con- 
 temporary history, to Ephraini, Damascus, and the Assyrians; 
 that history is the foundation upon which his grandest predic- 
 tions rest. Here, on the other hand, all the allusions are not to 
 Assyria, but to Bcibylon, not the Babylon of Merodach-Baladan, 
 who sought Hezekiah's friendship, which was known to Isaiah 
 (xxxix.), but the Babylon of the exile, which held the Jews in 
 cruel bondage (xiv. 2, 3), and was shortly to be destroyed by the 
 Medes (xiii. 17)." Assuming, then, that we have correctly 
 divined Dr. Driver's meaning, our next remark is — 
 
 (2.) In the light of his explanation, and more especially of his 
 italics, the objection we are now considering seems singularly, 
 and (we mean no disrespect) even ludicrously, irrelevant. The 
 prophecy, be it rememl)ered, relates, no matter who wrote it, to 
 the deliverance of the Jews from their exile in Babylon. And 
 
204 THE PRESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY, 
 
 yet Dr. Driver tells ns, not only with gravity, but with emphasis, 
 that in these chapters the Jews "are represented as in exiW'' ; 
 and, more astonishing still, that " the allusions are not to Assyria, 
 but to Bahjlon.'''' This may be true, but it can scarcely be con- 
 sidered at all remarkable. The remarkable thing, it strikes us, 
 would have been for Isaiah or any one else to predict a deliver- 
 ance from exile without representing those whose deliverance was 
 predicted as being in exile, or to predict a deliverance from exile 
 in Babylon without alluding to Babylon. To require such a feat 
 of Isaiah or of any other prophet would be worse than to require 
 bricks to be made without straw. Dr. Driver, it seems to us, 
 might, with a far greater show of reason, have laid the emphasis 
 upon the words '■'■not the Babylon of Merodach-Baladanr Had 
 he done so, he would have conveyed some such idea as this: The 
 relative and actual positions of the several parties concerned are 
 so different, as set forth in these chapters, from what they were 
 in the time of Isaiah, that such a picture as is here given would 
 have been meaningless, and so, useless, to his contemporaries. 
 The Bal)ylon of Merodach-Baladan was upon terms of friendship 
 with Judah. The two kingdoms stood upon very much the same 
 footing as respects political importance and available resources. 
 If anything, Judah had the advantage in all these particulars. 
 Kot only so, but the actual position of Babylon in the days of 
 Isaiah was that of an Assyrian dependency. It was Assyria, and 
 not Babylon, that filled the political horizon, and absorbed the 
 universal attention of thinking men. Not for one hundred years 
 after the time of Merodach-Baladan did Babylon rise to the posi- 
 tion of what we would call a first-class power. During the whole 
 of Isaiah's lifetime it continued to be relatively, if not absolutely, 
 insignificant. But all this is reversed in our prophecy. Here 
 "Babylon is represented as owning the empire of the world (xiii. 
 19; xiv. 6f.), which it exercises in particular (xiv. 1, 2) by hold- 
 ing the Jews in exile." Now, this is true, and the difliculty which 
 it presents to the Isaianic authorship of chapters xiii. and xiv., if 
 not insurmountable, is, at least, plausible. Assuming, then, that 
 we have at last discovered the real point of Dr. Driver's objec- 
 tion, and reserving for the present some things we will have to 
 
DK. DRIVER ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH XIII. AND XIV. 205 
 
 say as to its inherent irrelevancy to the issues before us, our next 
 remark is that — 
 
 (3.) For those who, with Dr. Driver, admit the Isaianic author- 
 ship of Isaiah xxxix., the objection which we are now considering 
 is robbed even of plausibility. There is a single fact w^hich has 
 evidently escaped the distinguished Oxonian, or he would have 
 seen the futility of raising this objection here after recognizing 
 the genuineness of Isaiah xxxix. 
 
 We refer to the fact that the Babylon of Isa. xxxix, 6-9 is not 
 and cannot be the Babylon of Merodach-Baladan, but it is and 
 can he none other than the Babylon of these chai^ters in minia- 
 ture. It cannot be the Babylon of Merodach-Baladan, because, as 
 we have seen, the Babylon of Merodach-Baladan was friendly to 
 Judah, but the Babylon of Isaiah xxxix. is hostile, and holds the 
 Jews in exile. It cannot be the Babylon of Merodach-Baladan, 
 for tliat Babylon was upon a footing of equality with Judah, but 
 this equality no longer exists between Judah and the Babylon of 
 Isaiah xxxix. It cannot be the Babylon of Merodach-Baladan, for 
 that Babylon was a dependency of Assyria, but the Babylon of 
 Isaiah xxxix. is no dependency of Assyria, unless, indeed, the maid- 
 servant is there represented as playing the role of mistress, and 
 that, too, under the very nose of the mistress herself, and she a 
 jealous one. None of the descendants of Hezekiah were going to 
 be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon as long as Assyria 
 held the reins of a world empire. The rise of the Babylon of Mero- 
 dach-Baladan to the position of a world empire might have seemed 
 incredible to the men of Isaiah's day, but Jewish eunuchs of 
 royal blood standing in the palaces of the Babylon of Merodach- 
 Baladan's day would have seemed simply ludicrous. The Baby- 
 lon of Isaiah xxxix. cannot be the Babylon of Merodach-Baladan, 
 because the terms of the prophecy in Isaiah xxxix. indicated clearly 
 enough to Hezekiah that the prophet had his eye upon a Babylon 
 yet to come. We can still almost liear the sigh of relief with 
 which the good Hezekiah said, " There shall be peace and truth 
 in my days." Evidently Dr. Driver has not duly considered the 
 fact that Isaiah, in chapter xxxix., points out Babylon, not only as 
 the place where Judah is to be carried into captivity, hut also as 
 14 
 
206 THE PRESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY. 
 
 the power by which she is to be carried captive. Or else he has 
 not duly considered what is involved in such a prediction. The 
 fact is, that while Dr. Driver has made a noble fight for impor- 
 tant truths, and upon certain vital points has held manfully to his 
 moorings in the face of a well-nigh overwhelming flood of natu- 
 ralism in high places — the fact, we say, is that to be perfectly 
 consistent he ought to surrender his belief in the Isaianic author- 
 ship of chapter xxxix., or admit the Isaianic authorship of chap- 
 ters xiii., xiv. His warm friend and admirer. Professor Cheyne, 
 has quite recently twitted him in terms of painful plainness with 
 being timid and vacillating, and, unkindest cut of all, with being 
 out of harmony with the consensus of modern scholarship in refer- 
 ence to his views of predictive prophecy in general, and Isaiah 
 xxxix. in particular. 
 
 (4.) But we go further, and are prepared to maintain that, even 
 if the Babylon of chapters xiii., xiv. was not that of Merodach- 
 Baladan, and the Babylon of chapter xxxix. was that of Merodach- 
 Baladan, still Dr. Driver is no farther towards proving the non- 
 Isaianic authorship of the former than he was before. As we 
 have seen, he is unequivocally committed to the position that it is 
 possible for a prophet to predict an event belonging even to the 
 distant future. Where is the relevancy, then, in telling his 
 readers that the Babylon of chapters xiii., xiv. is not the Babylon 
 of Merodach-Baladan ? Granted that it is not, granted that it is 
 the Babylon of Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, and Evil-Merodach, 
 personages of whom neither Isaiah nor any of his contemporaries 
 ever dreamed, still less ever heard, how does this prove that these 
 chapters are not from Isaiah ? Clearly it is not because God is 
 incompetent to reveal to his servant the course of events during 
 the times of these kings. Dr. Driver is as far removed from 
 giving credence to such drivel as is any one. But doul>tless he 
 would remind us that the possible, in such a case, is not to be 
 taken as the measure of the probable, certainly not of the proper. 
 He would remind us that a prophet is not a fortune-teller, but a 
 teacher sent from God, and that the raison d'etre for each message 
 must be sought in some lesson it would convey, some need that it 
 would meet, and the only effect of such a prophecy as this from 
 
DR. DRIVER ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH XIII. AND XIV. 207 
 
 the lips of Isaiah would have been to produce a vacant stare upon 
 the faces of his countrymen and lead them to ask, What is he 
 talking about ? Has the poor fellow lost his wits ? 
 ^ As already pointed out, it is apparently with a view to estab- 
 lishing this last proposition that Dr. Driver informs us that the 
 Babylon of tliese chapters was not the Babylon of Merodach- 
 Baladan. But the careful reader will have observed that Dr. 
 Driver nowhere takes the pains to prove that, if the Babylon of 
 our prophecy is not that of Merodach-Baladan, then it could meet 
 no want of the contemporaries of Isaiah. He seems to think that 
 this is so clear that it may safely be taken for granted. But is lie 
 right ? To answer this, permit us to ask another question : What 
 was the raison d'etre for the prediction of the exile, which, 
 according to Dr. Driver, is made in chapter xxxix. ? Was it 
 uttered merely to wring with anguish the hearts of the godless, 
 incorrigible,^ doomed multitude ? Scarcely. Their hearts were 
 not of the kind that could be so easily wrung. They were ever 
 ready to say, "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." 
 Was it not rather mainly for the benefit of the godly, believing, 
 indestructible, but still imperfect, remnant, that their hearts might 
 be chastened, and so sanctified ? Doubtless for their sakes. But 
 if this remnant could be chastened by the prospect of an exile to 
 come upon their posterity after they themselves were dead and in 
 their graves, why might not tliey be cheered by the prospect that 
 their posterity would be delivered from exile ? Had there been a 
 prediction of exile, without one of return from exile, might they 
 not have fallen into blank, irremediable despair ? Exile without 
 return would have meant a perpetual casting out from the divine 
 favor and a final dissolution of that covenant with God which was 
 "all their hope and all their desire." If there was to be a rem- 
 nant, godly and indestructible, then, having uttered his prediction 
 of exile, Isaiah was, as it were, under necessity to predict a 
 return, even though it should involve a reference more or less dis- 
 tinct to a Babylon difierent from that of Merodach-Baladan, for 
 the vital element, the necessary aliment, of holiness, is hope ; de- 
 prived of this, it must die. And let it be remembered that, 
 according to Dr. Driver, if Isaiah has not predicted the return 
 
208 THE PRESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY. 
 
 from exile i?i these chapters, he has not predicted it anywhere, 
 la the needs of the godly remnant, then, we find our " nodus 
 vindice dignus.^^ Upon his own principles, therefore, what right 
 has Dr. Driver to deny the interposition of the " vindex " ? If 
 God may put into the moutli of his prophet a threat based upon 
 " a condition of things not yet existent " (Isaiah xxxix. 6 f .), why 
 should it be thought a thing impossible with God to base a pro- 
 mise upon a condition of things not yet existent ? We think 
 that we may fairly claim to have disposed of Dr. Driver's objec- 
 tion, so far as it rests upon this proposition. The further con- 
 sideration of Dr. Driver's minor premise must be deferred for 
 the present. 
 
 W. M. MoPheeters. 
 OnlumMa, 8. O. .