The crux interpretum that defines much of the liberal critical approach to Isaiah is the Cyrus prophecy in Isaiah 44-45. Dennis Bratcher sums it up as follows:
“From such a perspective, the “prediction” of the coming of Cyrus in Isaiah 44-45 became the crux of the issue. Either a person believed that this was accurately predicted by Isaiah of Jerusalem 200 years before it happened or one didn’t believe any of the Bible. However, this is really arguing an idea of what the Bible ought to be rather than looking at the text on its own terms. Unfortunately, this is still preached from some pulpits, even though it simply is not true. Many people hold the Bible in high regard as the authoritative word of God and cherish it as the basic source for the faith and practice of the church, and yet do not believe that these chapters were written by Isaiah of Jerusalem in 700 BC”.[1]
Mention of “Babylon”, the release of captives and the destruction/restoration of the Temple only serve to further complicate the issue and lend weight to exilic/post-exilic authorship. J. W. Thirtle has made a contribution[2] to this debate which has often been dismissed (even by conservative scholars such as J. Barton Payne) even though his critical reconstruction offers a historically and exegetically credible solution.
The Cyrus Problem Resolved?
To suggest that Thirtle simply posits that the name “Cyrus” should be treated as a mere appellative does not do justice to his arguments. He presents a methodically researched position that demonstrates the textual continuity of Isaiah 44-45 with earlier ‘Hezekiah’ prophecies; moreover, he provides the politically motivated reason behind the change and offers a plausible philology for the transformation.
1) Firstly Thirtle observes the unusual format of the prophecy–Cyrus is spoken to in the present tense: “The passage is not in the form of a prediction: it presents the king as being addressed, as one then living and present to the prophet, just as plainly as ‘Jacob my servant’ is employed with reference to the chosen people…”.[3] To understand this as purely prophetic will simply not do – God (Isaiah) is speaking to ‘His anointed’, not to someone who is still 200 years in the future. Thirtle also points out a parallelism between Isaiah 44 and 45:
| Isaiah 44 | Isaiah 45 |
|---|---|
| The workmen [chârâsh]…shall be ashamed together (v.11) | Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus [kôrêsh]… |
| Is there not a lie in my right hand? (v.20) | Whose right hand I have strengthened [châzaq] (v.1) |
Thirtle remarks that, “There is cohesion and cogency in the prophecy as a whole, as compromising the two chapters. There is, however, not allusion, but contrast as well. The ‘workman’ who makes idols has ‘a lie in his right hand’ (44.20); the one whom the Lord addressed through the prophet is subject to another influence – the Lord ‘holds his right hand’ (45.1).[4] The contrast is between the workmen[5] who are ashamed because their right hand trusts in a lie (idol) and the Lord’s anointed whose right hand is strengthened by Yahweh.
The correspondences noted by Thirtle that demonstrate continuity with earlier Hezekiah material are best illustrated in tabular form:
| Isaiah 45 | Hezekiah |
|---|---|
| His anointed (v. 1) | Hezekiah the anointed king |
| Whose right hand I have strengthened [châzaq] (v. 1) | Play on Hezekiah’s name [Chizqîyâh] |
| …that thou mayest know that I, the Lord, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel. For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me. (v. 3b,4) | Hezekiah – a prototype of the Messiah –named Immanuel before he was even born (though thou hast not known me) He was the Prince of peace and the Wonderful Counsellor (Isa 9:6,7) the branch out of the root of Jesse (Isa 11:1-5) |
| …they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God. (v. 14) | Immanuel – God with us |
The word for strengthened [châzaq] is an obvious play on the name of Hezekiah.[6] Thirtle remarks on the absurdity of such language being applied to a heathen king, particularly after Isaiah’s diatribe against idolaters: Cyrus claimed to be a successor of the Babylonian kings, and acknowledged the supremacy of Bel-Merodach, the Babylonian god. Hence, the restoration of the Jewish exiles was not due to any sympathy with monotheism, but rather was part of a general policy on the part of the monarch.[7] 2) Secondly, Thirtle proposes that “Cyrus” is a corruption of the text from chârâsh to kôrêsh as follows: “The process of reasoning would be something like this: First, the passage would be applied to Cyrus, who, in presence of the people, realized parts which in some measure corresponded with those set forth in the passage about the Lord’s anointed. Second, Cyrus was hopefully regarded as the workman, or artificer vrx whom Jehovah had empowered to do great things in the interests of the Jews. Third, seeing that the word vrx thus implied, or stood for Cyrus, it would seem right or desirable to conform the letters to a more correct representation in Hebrew of the Persian word – hence vrk, afterwards vrwk. By these measures and mutations the word came to speak of King Cyrus and of him only. There was no intention to introduce disorder into the text –only a purpose to reduce the spelling to a form which was believed to be right. In the judgment of some leader, or leaders, of the people, vrx was intended to indicate vrk, and effect was given to this belief by the alteration of the initial letter. Thus a common appellation was made into a proper name, and a seed of misunderstanding was sown in the Isaiah prophecies.” [8]
Political Expediency
Thirtle cites historical examples where prophetic writings were used to influence Gentile authorities. The high-priest Jaddua won favour for the Jewish people by meeting Alexander the Great as he approached Jerusalem and showing him the Daniel prophecies.[9] Similarly, Onias IV, the high-priest (ca.150 B.C.) acquired permission from King Ptolemy and his Queen Cleopatra to build a temple at Leontopolis in Egypt by referring to Isa.19:19. In more recent times we might think of political-Zionism whose justification for the possession of the land and return of the Jews is often supported (by both Jews and Christians) by prophetic passages. The British Diplomat Sir Charles Webster who knew Chaim Weizman (the second great leader of the Zionist movement) described his diplomacy in promoting the Zionist programme as follows: “With unerring skill he adapted his arguments to the special circumstances of each statesman. To the British and Americans he could use biblical language and awake a deep emotional undertone; to other nationalities he more often talked in terms of interest. Mr Lloyd George was told that Palestine was a little mountainous country not unlike Wales….” [10] We can therefore concur with Thirtle’s statement:
“That the Jews should have sought a political favour by calling the attention of Gentile authorities to the things written by the prophets of their nation, need not surprise us”.[11]
Exilic (or post-exilic) Passages?
Major critical objections to Thirtle’s approach are found in passages such as Isaiah 44:26-28 and 45:13-14 that can be construed as exilic/post-exilic references to the Babylonian captivity:
“That confirmeth the word of his servant, and performeth the counsel of his messengers; that saith to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be inhabited; and to the cities of Judah, Ye shall be built, and I will raise up the decayed places thereof: That saith to the deep, Be dry, and I will dry up thy rivers: That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.” (Isa 44: 26-28)
Thirtle comments: “The statement of v. 26: ‘That saith of Jerusalem, She shall be inhabited; and of the cities of Judah, They shall be built and I will raise up the waste places thereof’, unquestionably sustained the faithful in the time of Hezekiah, when, with the Assyrian in the land, Jerusalem was a prison-house rather than a place of habitation; and, as a result of Sennacherib’s campaign, many cities of Judah were in ruins and were places of desolation (cp. ch. 65.9). The two following verses, however, came in as a gloss at the time of the Return:
“That saith to the deep, Be dry, and I will dry up thy rivers: that saith of Cyrus, he is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying of Jerusalem, She shall be built; and to the Temple, Thy fountain shall be laid.” (Isa 44:27-28)
In the time of Isaiah, these verses could have no meaning; but the work undertaken by Cyrus, a century and a half later, suggested them most naturally. The interpolation is, indeed, transparent. We have already read that Jerusalem shall be ‘inhabited’, that the cities of Judah shall be ‘built.’ Now however, and obviously with reference to Cyrus, whose name is anticipated from the following chapter, we read something different –namely, that Jerusalem ‘shall be built’; while to the Temple it shall be said, ‘Thy foundation shall be laid.’ The statements of the last verse do not agree with those of v.26. But the Persian having been introduced in ch. 45.1, we might well look for some such a leading recital of facts pertinent to his day – the time of the Return”.[12]
Thirtle’s analysis may well be correct, however, it is possible that a Targum (recorded as a marginal note?) entered the text at a later stage of transmission. [13] For example, the Assyrian invasion is described as a “flood” in the book of Isaiah, and Hezekiah is described as a “sure foundation” – the rock that will not be moved by the inundation:
| CYRUS? – Isaiah 44 | HEZEKIAH – Isaiah 28 |
|---|---|
|
That saith to the deep, Be dry, and I will dry up thy rivers (v. 27)
|
Behold, the Lord hath a mighty and strong one, [= the Assyrians] which as a tempest of hail and a destroying storm, as a flood of mighty waters overflowing, shall cast down to the earth with the hand. (v. 2) |
| Thy foundation shall be laid. (v. 28) | Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation:[Hezekiah] he that believeth shall not make haste. (v. 16) |
Young’s Literal Translation renders the verse as follows (Isa 28: 16): Therefore, thus said the Lord Jehovah: `Lo, I am laying a foundation in Zion, A stone — a tried stone, a corner stone precious, a settled foundation, He who is believing doth not make haste. The phrase ‘doth not make haste’ (vyxi(y” al{ï, lo ya.khish) is rather unusual but is probably intended as a word play on Lachish (vykil’, la.khish) as the transliterated verse demonstrates.[14]
While Sennacherib personally supervised the siege of Lachish, Jerusalem only merited the attention of his lieutenants (2 Chron 32: 9) – a sign of contempt. Lachish fell but Jerusalem did not fall in the siege. Jerusalem survived because it had, ‘a tried leader or captain (not corner), a precious and sure foundation.’ The ‘tried leader’ was the ‘suffering servant’ king Hezekiah, who became ‘a precious and sure foundation’ to them that believed. In contrast, those who did not believe in the sign of Messiah would perish; If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established. (Isa 7: 9). Ahaz had not believed, instead he replaced the Temple altar with an Assyrian altar. However, Ahaz could not remove the base –the threshing floor (‘a rock of offence’: Isa 8: 14) – faithful Hezekiah, who did believe, typified this foundation and consequently his dynasty was established.
The metaphor used in Isaiah 28 is very similar to that of Isaiah 44 the depiction of the Assyrian invasion as a ‘flood’ and Hezekiah as a ‘foundation’ is very similar to Isa 59:19:
“So shall they fear the name of the Lord from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him.” (Isa.59: 19)
The ‘standard’ was of course Hezekiah (who prefigured the ‘lifted up’ Messiah). Psalm 74, also a Hezekiah psalm, says: “Thou didst cleave the fountain and the flood: thou driedst up mighty rivers.” (Pss 74: 15)
In the Davidic covenant Yahweh had promised to build a house for David (‘The Lord declares to you that the Lord himself will establish a house for you’ —2 Sam.7: 11, NIV); but Hezekiah was about to die childless, leaving the throne without a Davidic heir, thereby nullifying the covenant. However, Hezekiah’s faithfulness and reliance on Yahweh was rewarded by a miraculous deliverance on a personal and national level. Hezekiah typified the faithful remnant both corporately and corporally – his illness and suffering mirrored the national death throes. Hezekiah recovered (on the third day) and was therefore able to produce progeny:
“Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.” (Isa.53: 10, NIV).
Hezekiah’s choice of the Solomonic Psalm, 127, for his “Songs of Degrees” collection is explained by Hezekiah’s wonderful recovery which coincided with national deliverance:
“Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labour in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain” (Pss 127: 1, NIV).
If we apply these insights to the text in question (Isa 44: 26-28) and leave out the glosses, an original reconstruction might look something like this:
“That confirmeth the word of his servant, and performeth the counsel of his messengers; that saith to the earth, Thou shalt be inhabited; and to the cities of Judah, Ye shall be built, and I will raise up the decayed places thereof: That saith to the deep, Be dry, and I will dry up thy rivers: That saith of my workman, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying, Thy house shalt be built; Thy foundation shall be laid.” (Isa 44: 26, 28 reconstructed)
A comparison demonstrates that the changes are minimal. In this reconstruction ‘earth’ substitutes for ‘Jerusalem’. The ‘earth’ is often used as a metaphor for the land of Israel. Note the natural parallelism that now exists between the earth and the deep. The waters of the flood have now dried up and made the land habitable once again: an allusion to Noah’s flood and the Genesis creation narrative. Isaiah uses virtually the same figure in Isa 45:18:
“For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.” (Isa 45:18)
If the verses (Isa 44:27-28, 45:1) are a post-exilic gloss (as suggested by Thirtle) then it is relatively easy to see how the text was adapted to suit the needs of the exiles – these glosses were added as explanatory notes and slowly became incorporated in the text. Herodotus has a dramatic account of how Cyrus captured the city of Babylon. He says that first it was unsuccessfully besieged, but that Cyrus then managed to force an entrance by diverting the course of the Euphrates. Consequently the water-level dropped so low that his men were able to wade along the river-bed and so into the city. This would naturally suggest to the exilic reader, who was examining the prophecy of Isaiah – and who was looking for a fulfillment of the return prophesied by Jeremiah – that the ‘workman’ (chârâsh) was actually Cyrus (kôrêsh) and that he would restore the exiles to Jerusalem – thus an interpretive gloss became embedded in the text.
Isaiah 45:13-14
A similar problem is encountered in Isa 45:13, 14 – do these ‘exilic’ or ‘post-exilic’ references favour a ‘Cyrus’ scenario?
“I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the Lord of hosts. Thus saith the Lord, The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee…” (Isa 45:13, 14)
Is the phrase ‘he shall build my city’ a reference to Cyrus? If that is the case then the prophecy was not fulfilled by Cyrus, for the city was still in ruins in the second year of Darius (Hag.1:1, 9); in fact Nehemiah found the city still in ruins in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes.
However, we know that Hezekiah performed defensive work on the city’s water supply (Isa.22:9-11; 2 Chron.32: 2-7) celebrated in Isaiah 12 as ‘the wells of salvation.’ The reference to the release of captives is also applicable to the Assyrian invasion. In the time of Hezekiah. Sennacherib took away from Judea no less than 200,000 heads, and settled some of them (possibly most of them) in Babylon (Taylor Prism; cp. Mic. 4:10), which he had recently captured and in fact depopulated, a process begun by his predecessors (2 Kings 17:24).
The return of this captivity was anticipated by Isaiah (Isa 7:3) who gave his son the long, multi-syllable name She’ar-Yashuv (which means “a remnant will return”). The prisoners of war (who were in the process of deportation) were sent home by the Assyrians and escaped when their army was destroyed overnight. These captives included people from the surrounding nations who were amongst those to pay tribute to Hezekiah. He was exalted in the eyes of the nations:
“Many gifts unto the Lord to Jerusalem, and presents to Hezekiah king of Judah: so that he (Yahweh?) was magnified in the sight of all nation from thenceforth” (2 Chron.32:23).[15]
Furthermore, Isa 45:13 has an obvious Messianic application – God has “raised up (awakened-out of death?) in all righteousness, and all his ways are right (LXX): he shall build my city (the New Jerusalem), and he shall let go my captives”. The captives are “those who for their iniquities have sold themselves” (Isa 50:1). This is redemption “not for price or reward”, as judged by human captors and slave-traders; “Ye have sold yourselves for nought, and ye shall be redeemed without money” (Isa.52:3). The price was paid by the Suffering Servant and that Servant was not pre-figured by Cyrus.
There is often no need to resort to the solution of exilic or post-exilic authorship in order to explain difficult Isaiah passages as they complement the Sitz im Leben found during Hezekiah’s reign. However, some references are obviously exilic or post-exilic:
“Thy holy cities are become a wilderness, Zion is become a wilderness, Jerusalem a desolation. Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised thee, is burned up with fire: and all our pleasant things are laid waste.” (Isa 64:10, 11)
Thirtle believes this to be a blatant example of interpolation. He says,
“The cities of Judah having been destroyed, and the Assyrian being at the walls of Jerusalem, Isaiah might well use the language of v.10: ‘Thy holy cities are become a wilderness, Zion is become a wilderness, Jerusalem a desolation.’ Also he might conclude his prayer with v.12: ‘Wilt thou refrain thyself for these things, O Lord? Wilt thou hold thy peace, and afflict us very sore?’ Not so as to v. 11: ‘Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised thee, is burned with fire; and all our pleasant things are laid waste.’ This obviously belongs to a later age. And we can easily understand as the time for the Return approached, that such a chapter as this would be used as a prayer by mourning exiles; and then the terms of v.11 would be quite seasonable. The verse cannot, however, be by Isaiah. It bears evidence of some such ‘adaptation’ as we have found in the Psalter, but not so easily to be justified”.[16]
Bullinger believes Isa 64:10-11 to be an example of prophetic prolepsis[17] but perhaps the explanation is even simpler – the passage expresses the intention of the enemy, but was never fulfilled. The passage finds a parallel in Psalm 74 (attributed by Thirtle to the Hezekiah period):
“They said in their heart, Let us destroy them together: They have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land.” (Pss 74:8)
The word ‘synagogues’ (mô’ ēd) is misleading. The LXX has, “let us abolish the feasts of the Lord”, and the cultic use always associates the word mô’ ēd with religious festivals. The same word is translated as ‘congregations’ in v. 4 of the psalm; “Thine enemies roar in the midst of thy congregations (mô’ ēd)”; again, the LXX has, “and they that hate thee have boasted in the midst of thy feasts”.
However, several allusions in Isaiah show that the duration of the siege of Jerusalem included Passover (Isa 26:20, 21; 30:29; 31:5; 33:19, 20). Moreover, the “roaring [lion]” and the “axe” that function metaphorically for the enemy in this psalm (Pss 74: 4, 5) are also used by Isaiah as symbols of Assyria (Isa 5:29; 10:15). It seems from Pss 74:6-7 that some sort of destruction was wrought in the Sanctuary, and it can be proposed that this was partially fulfilled during the siege by internal riots.
Argumentum ex silento?
It might be objected that Cyrus is referred to in sympathetic terms by Ezra:
“Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of the prophet Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, the Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.” (Ezra 1:1-2)
Thirtle says very little about this passage but remarks:
“Meantime, it is necessary to observe that no such language as is found in Isa 44.28/45 1-4 is used in any other of the Hebrew writings in regard to Cyrus. We meet the name in 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Daniel, and the style is sometimes ‘the king of Persia’, at another time ‘the king of Babylon,’ yet again, baldly, ‘Cyrus the Persian’ or ‘the king.’ [18]
Thirtle is entirely correct, none of the magnificent epithets found in Isa 44-45 are applied to Cyrus (‘the Lord’s anointed’, ‘His shepherd’, the one ‘strengthened’, ‘called by name’ etc) by Ezra. But more importantly the prophecy of Jeremiah is referred to and not the prophecy of Isaiah. If Isaiah speaks so powerfully (in messianic terms) of the divine purpose embodied in Cyrus, then why does Ezra (or anyone else) neglect to mention it? It is conspicuous by its absence. The Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus is hardly the equivalent of ‘I have called thee by thy name’.
Although this is an argument by omission (argumentum ex silento) it provides circumstantial evidence that Cyrus was not in the original text of Isaiah. This supports Thirtle’s suggestion that the word ‘Cyrus’ in Isa 45:1 was originally an alternative reading that was adopted for political reasons and that it slowly hardened into a textual variant that was uniformly accepted and incorporated. It is obvious that although a reading of Isa 45:1 may have been presented to Cyrus as corroborative evidence that he was the king chosen to release the Jews after seventy years exile (as spoken by Jeremiah the prophet); even at the later period of Ezra it had not yet solidified into the textual form that we now have.
Cyrus was known for his religious tolerance towards all his conquered peoples and his treatment of the Jews was not exceptional. Cyrus claimed to be the agent of Marduk, the god who had been shamefully wronged by Nabonidus, when he conquered Babylon (this was an attempt to ingratiate himself with the local population for Nabonidus had been absent in Arabia for much of his reign and had neglected his religious duties, including the New Year Festival in Babylon). John Curtis comments;
“In matters of religion Cyrus does seem to have been remarkably tolerant. About his own beliefs we can say little: he may have been an early follower of the prophet Zoroaster, or he may have supported the ‘daivas’, the old Iranian gods of war and strife rejected by Zoroaster. The evidence is inconclusive. In any event, he does not seem to have forced his own views on any of his subject peoples, but of course this religious tolerance may well have been dictated by political expediency. For it seems to have been the hallmark of Cyrus’s rule to observe local customs wherever he went, to preserve local institutions if possible and in general to avoid creating disruption”.[19]
Moreover, the prediction of the return of the exiles under Cyrus is again conspicuous by its absence in Isaiah’s reprimand to Hezekiah: “Of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they (the Babylonians) take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon” (2 Chron.33:11-13). He did not, however, add that they would be released by ‘the Lord’s anointed Cyrus.’ Even Jeremiah, when reminding the people of the destruction of Zion prophesied by Micah the Morashite (a contemporary of Isaiah) does not mention Cyrus (Jer.26:18).
The ‘Suffering Servant’
Perhaps the strongest argument against reading ‘Cyrus’ in Isaiah 45 is the ‘Suffering Servant’ prophecy of Isaiah 53 that finds its original fulfilment in the life of Hezekiah. It is the New Testament hymn in Philippians that connects the motif of the ‘Suffering Servant’ of Isaiah 53 with the “Cyrus prophecy” of Isaiah 45 by citing Isa 45:23:
“That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:10, 11)
We might well ask who it was that functioned as a messianic prototype. Was it Cyrus the pagan king and idol worshipper, or, Hezekiah the faithful descendant of David – the man who embodied the covenant promises and rose from his sickbed on the third day – the man who carried the burden of the faithful nation that he attempted to reform – the man who was delivered at Passover (together with the nation) –the man whose birth was prophesied by Isaiah –the man whose name was Immanuel? Hezekiah was the mediator; the ‘Suffering Servant’ who acted on behalf of the faithful remnant (Jacob who was also Yahweh’s servant….Israel whom I have chosen: Isa 44:1) and who also acted as God’s agent (Immanuel –God with us –named by God: Isa 45:4 cf. 7:14) to the faithful remnant.
Thus Hezekiah represented both parties –Yahweh to the people and the people to Yahweh. Thirtle comments: “The New Testament application of these great words is by no means called in question by the immediate (or initial) interpretation. Holy Scripture continually shows its distinctive vitality and inspiration in the fact that its statements are capable of applications that are far-reaching beyond anything suggested by their primary purpose. All the same, it is important to observe the immediate reference, even in forms which are of the deepest significance when viewed in their relation to the larger unfoldings of the Divine plan”.[20] Who then functioned in an archetypical messianic role – Hezekiah or Cyrus?[21]
[1] “Dennis Bratcher, The Unity and Authorship of Isaiah: A Needless Battle”, [cited July 26 2007] http://www.cresourcei.org/isaiahunity.html
[2] J. W. Thirtle, Old Testament Problems (London: Henry Frowde, 1907).
[3] Thirtle, Old Testament Problems, 245.
[4] Thirtle, Old Testament Problems, 253.
[5] Thirtle notes the other places in this part of Isaiah in which vrx occurs in connection with the making of idols – ch. 40.19,20 (‘workman’); 41.7 (‘carpenter’).
[6] Strengthened: châzaq [Strongs 2388] is the root for Hezekiah: Chizqîyâh [Strongs 2396] – Strengthened of Yah.
[7] Thirtle, Old Testament Problems, 247-8.
[8] Thirtle, Old Testament Problems, 254-5.
[9] Josephus, Ant.11.8.4, 5; cf. Thirtle, Old Testament Problems, 256.
[10] Sir Charles Webster, ‘The Art and Practice of Diplomacy’, The Listener, 28 February 1952.
[11] Thirtle, Old Testament Problems, 255-6.
[12] Thirtle, Old Testament Problems, 257-8.
[13] A Targum is an Aramaic paraphrase of the Hebrew Bible. In Synagogues when the Hebrew Bible was read, if the passage was hard to understand or the “congregation” did not know sufficient Hebrew, a member of the Synagogue would give a free translation or paraphrase into the common language, Aramaic. Over time a number of these were written down, and became a form of commentary on the Hebrew Bible.
[14] Cf. Micah 1:13 note the emphasis on haste and compare Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz — quick to the plunder, swift to the spoil– in Isa.8: 1, 3.
[15] Many of Isaiah’s prophecies have this common theme: The nations bring tribute to Israel (Isa 18:7; 23:18; 60:5ff; 61:6) because Yahweh has exalted Israel (Isa 49:7; 60:10; 61:9); and this demonstrates that he is the true God (Isa 40:5; 44:3-5; 48:20; 49:7; 52:10; 59:17; 61:9).
[16] Thirtle, Old Testament Problems, 258.
[17] Marginal notes for Isa.64:10-11 in the Companion Bible.
[18] Thirtle, Old Testament Problems, 247, footnote reference to Cyrus: 2 Chron 36.22, 23; Ezra 1:1-8, 3:7, 4:3-5, 5:13-17, 6:3-14; Dan 1:21, 6:28, 10:1.
[19] John Curtis, Cyrus the Great, 100 Great Lives of Antiquity, (ed., John Canning; London: Guild Publishing, 1985), 97-98.
[20] Thirtle, Old Testament Problems, 249.
[21] This discussion will continue in the next issue with a critique of Thirtle’s interpolation theory.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One