Grace Journal 11.3 (Fall
1970) 22-33.
[Copyright © 1970
Grace Theological Seminary; cited with permission;
digitally prepared for use at
Gordon and
THE CYRUS NOTATIONS OF DEUTERO -ISAIAH
RONALD E. MANAHAN
A recurring problem in our day is that of the Isaianic authorship
of the entire book of Isaiah. The scope of this
problem is enormous since
Christ's
own integrity is at stake in the question. Christ quotes from
every portion of Isaiah's book and either assumes or
states Isaianic author-
ship in each case. Therefore, to say that Isaiah is
not the sole author of
the book bearing his name is to undermine not only
written revelation but
also the personal revelation by God to us through
His Son. In yet another
sense the scope of this problem is awesome; so much
written material is
available on the subject. With respect to "Deutero-Isaiah" the problem
concerning authorship centers about the
geographical background, and
therefore the chronological placement of chapters
40-66. To discuss this
milieu of chapters 40-66 goes very far beyond the
scope of this paper. But
there is one particularly knotty problem which to a
large measure will
dictate the interpretation one gives to the
background of Deutero-Isaiah.
And
that problem is the concern of this paper: The "Cyrus" notations of
Deutero-Isaiah. In turn this paper will
discuss the point of tension in the
problem, several solutions that have been
proposed by destructive criti-
cism, and finally a
palatable solution of the problem.
THE POINT OF
TENSION
Critical attacks upon Scripture have been
numerous. And the at-
tacks are no longer simply made by those who have
some claim upon scho-
larship. Nor are the attacks
being confined to a few select places of apos-
tasy; the attacks are now
being waged through a host of Sunday school ma-
terials that have repercussions
among those of the grass-roots level of
Protestantism. A brief glance through
the Sunday school materials of the
main line denominations of
Ronald
E. Manahan holds the B.A. degree from
Master of Divinity degree from Grace Theological
Seminary.
He is pre-
sently pursuing the Master of
Theology degree in Old Testament at Grace
Theological Seminary.
22
THE CYRUS NOTATIONS OF DEUTERO-ISAIAH 23
It is, of course, true that the Word of God has
been attacked from
all sides in the centuries of the Church's
existence. Yet the present attack
is more subtle than the attacks of the past. For
one thing, many of the
attacks are coming from within the ranks of the
Protestant denominations.
They
are coming from those who purport to be theologians, those who sup-
posedly are equipped to
interpret Scripture. Another interesting fact about
the present-day attack is that several assumptions
are made with respect
to Scripture which result in the undermining of
what Scripture claims to
be. One of these assumptions is that the empirical
method has shown con-
clusively that miracles are
impossible, for miracles defy the empirical
method, therefore, they are impossible. Another
assumption is that the
critical approach to the study of Scripture,
especially of the Old Testa-
ment, is the only intellectually acceptable
approach of study. It therefore
follows that critics who make such assumptions
wish to supplant the or-
thodox position of the
inspiration of Scripture with a notion more compa-
tible with their own
presuppositions. That notion has generally been some
form dictated by the evolutionary approach to
history and religion. The
basic proposition of this notion is that the religion
of mankind has evolved
over the centuries developing from the most
primitive forms of mythology,
so called religion, to a more and more
sophisticated, rationalized approach
to God. This view believes that all the documents
from the very earliest
times reflect what people really thought about God.
But because the more
primitive peoples were unenlightened their
conceptions of God were wrong.
To be sure, the variations of this evolutionary
approach of the study
of the Old Testament text have been numerous.1
But in all of these vari-
ations there was a common
belief: The Hegelian approach to history was
the only sound approach. The view which Hegel took
of history was this:
"The
only idea which philosophy brings with it [that is, to the contempla-
tion of history] is the
simple idea of reason, that reason dominates the
world and that world-history is thus a rational
process."2 It is this ima-
gination that world-history is a
rational process that has so characterized
the approach of the critics. As they approached the
study of the Old Test-
ament they assumed that all
of ancient history must bow before the throne
of reason. Therefore, when ancient documents
asserted facts which would
not bow before the throne of reason, the ancient
documents, rather than
reason, were questioned. But somehow the critics had
to account for the
record of the historical documents. Therefore, they
posited theories of
composition for the Old Testament, the end results
of which would corro-
borate their initial assumptions.
Once the critics imagined that all the
historical process would sub-
mit to their
rationalization, they had immediately made a most drastic as-
sumption: History would thus
contain nothing of the supernatural. For
their rationalizing method could neither account for
a transcendent God
who was also immanent nor recognize Him as such.
All of this is not to
24
GRACE
JOURNAL
say that all critics are avowed disbelievers in the
supernatural, but as
Edward
Young points out: "It must be confessed that among the advocates
of recent critical theories the greater number do
reject the working of
God in any adequate sense in
out the possibility of the supernatural occurring
in history he has posi-
tioned himself against the
self-attestation of the Scriptural record.
The preceding discussion will serve to establish
more clearly ex-
actly what the point of
tension is with respect to the mentions of Cyrus in
the text of Isaiah. While the mentions of Cyrus in
the text of Isaiah might
seem to some very insignificant, they are in fact
extremely crucial to the
authorship of the Book of Isaiah and, therefore, to
the integrity of the New
Testament. The critics have long contended that
Isaiah 40-66 are quite
obviously not reflective of a Palestinian milieu.
Rather, these chapters
are believed to reflect an exilic milieu, a
Babylonian background. If this
assessment of the critic be right, then quite
certainly Isaiah could not
have written chapters 40-66 since he lived many
years before the Babylo-
nian exile. The Seventh-day Adventist Commentary puts
the whole pro-
blem nicely into focus:
One of the chief arguments of these critics for
a compo-
site authorship of Isaiah is
that chs. 40-66 appear to
them to be written, not from
the standpoint of an author
living at the close of the 8th
century B. C. but from that
of one who lived near the
close of the Babylonian captiv-
ity. The mention of Cyrus
by name (chs. 44:28; 45:1) is
regarded by them as conclusive
evidence that these chap-
ters were written during the
time of Cyrus, that is, in
the second half of the 6th
century B. C.4
It
is this Babylonian background, which is suggested by the naming of
Cyrus,
that forms the greatest point of tension between conservatives and
the critics. J. Barton Payne quotes Edward J. Young
as estimating the
importance of the point this way: "The most
formidable argument which
must be faced by the defenders of the unity of the
book is the one which
maintains that the background of chapters 40-66 is
Babylonian and not that
of the eighth century B. C.”5
At this point one might be prone to think that
Babylonian notations
in Deutero-Isaiah must,
indeed, be many in number. But the real situa-
tion is to the contrary, for
these notations of a specific nature are actually
very few in number. Even C. C. Torrey
maintained "that if the five or so
references to
almost all of chapters 40-66 could then be assigned to
a Palestinian
milieu."6 Thus the specific notations
are indeed very, very few. Why is
it then that the critics are so ready to see “Deutero-Isaiah" as Babylonian?
THE CYRUS NOTATIONS OF DEUTERO-ISAIAH 25
It
is clearly not because the background of these chapters is replete with
specific Babylonian notations. The answer to this
question is to be found
in the writings of the critics. For example,
Robert H. Pfeiffer in his intro-
duction comments in this
sarcastic fashion on the two Cyrus notations:
"Of
course this anachronism offers no difficulty to those who believe that
God
predicted through Isaiah's pen what was to happen two centuries later."7
It
is; then, quite clear from Pfeiffer's own words that the thing which makes
the mentions of
single authorship of Isaiah be maintained, then
clearly the Book of Isaiah
contains predictive prophecy. And to admit to the
existence of predictive
prophecy is to admit to supernatural intervention
in history. But as al-
ready pointed out the critic because of his own
assumptions could not find
such intervention in the historical process. Thus he
refuses to allow such
and therefore must posit some alternative
explanation.
The real point of tension then in the Cyrus
notations is that con-
servatives are most willing to
allow for divine intervention in history,
while the critics will not allow such intervention.
Hence, the conserva-
tive finds predictive
prophecy quite acceptable. But the critic rejects the
possibility of predictive prophecy. He claims all
prophecies were written
down after the fact. Having established the
particular point of tension,
one can now better study the several details of
this problem.
THE PROPOSED SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM
The concern of this section shall be to look
very briefly at several
solutions which have been proposed to answer the
problem under consider-
ation. Obviously there exists
a polarity among all the solutions proposed.
Either
one can accept the readings of Cyrus in the Isaianic
text or he can
reject them. If one chooses to accept the readings of
Cyrus the only pos-
sible nuances of positions in
this acceptance would be the particular, ma-
terial one might choose to
support his view. However, if one should de-
cide to reject the readings
of Cyrus in the text, he is then placing himself
open to many variations of interpretation. And he
may call to his "support"
a host of different materials. And it is indeed
true that those who have
rejected the readings of Cyrus in the text have
taken virtually every posi-
tion possible. The thrust of
this section, then, shall be to look at several
of the various positions that have been taken by
those who have rejected
the readings of Cyrus in the Isaianic
text.
To be sure, some say that "Cyrus" is
actually the reading in the
text but certainly not as coming from the pen of
Isaiah. Many are willing
to concede that these two readings of
"Cyrus" are quite acceptable if it is
also admitted that a "Deutero-Isaiah"
penned chapters 40-66. The history
of criticism of the entire book of Isaiah is
interesting for it shows so clearly
the direction that the critic will take and the end
result of his work. And
26
GRACE
JOURNAL
this applies directly to the critics' claims about
the Cyrus notations. As
early as 1167 Ibn Ezra cast
some doubt on the Isaianic authorship of chap-
ters 40-66 in what Pfeiffer
refers to as "carefully veiled language."8 But
such doubt was indeed very rare, for "until the
period of the beginning of
modern destructive criticism in the last half of the
eighteenth century, the
traditional belief in the Isaianic
authorship of the entire book was practi-
cally universally held and
unchallenged."9 This modern period of destruc-
tive criticism began perhaps
with Koppe who as early as 1780 doubted the
genuineness of chapter 50.10 But the
first mighty blow was to fall in 1775
when J. C. Doederlein in
his commentary on Isaiah suspected the genuine-
ness of chapters 40-66.11 Since that
time, says the critic Pfeiffer, "it is
generally recognized that it [Isaiah] comprises
two distinct works.”12
From this point onward the critics went to work.
Rosenmueller,
Eichhorn, Gesenius, and
Ewald were leaders in the movement to find por-
tions of the Book of Isaiah
that were not really Isaianic.13 This critical
approach proceeded until "by the middle of
the 19th century some 37 or 38
chapters were rejected as no part of Isaiah's
actual writings."14 Even
Franz
Delitzsch capitulated to the critical approach around
1880.15 But
the division of a "Proto-Isaiah" and
"Deutero-Isaiah" was not enough, for
even "Deutero-Isaiah
" began to disintegrate. Just before the turn of the
20th
century men began to see a "Trito-Isaiah"
in chapters 56-66. But the
fragmentation did not stop there. As
time passed the fragmentation mul-
tiplied until it seems to have
reached a supreme expression in the work of
Robert Kennett in his book, The Composition of the Book of Isaiah. After
apparently detailed study of chapters 40-66 Kennett
is able to say:
Unfortunately the literary criticism of these
chapters
shows that they are extraordinarily
complex, and it is
no easy matter, if indeed
it is possible, to sort out the
various passages according to
their several authors.
Nowhere has the hand of the editor-done such
drastic
work, and it is much easier
to analyze than to recon-
struct. Many indeed be loth to believe that chapters of
which the present effort is
so beautiful can be a mere
mosaic of fragments. The story
of the Flood, however,
in the book of Genesis is
an illustration of the manner in
which original documents
could be rent asunder and re-
combined.16
Quite
clearly Kennett sees a great deal of fragmentation in the authorship
of Isaiah. But just how much fragmentation is
there according to Kennett?
George
Robinson, writing in the International Standard
Bible Encyclopedia,
analyzes the above mentioned work of Kennett, and
finds this fragmentation:
THE CYRUS NOTATIONS OF DEUTERO-ISAIAH 27
(a) all of chs. 3, 5, 6, 7, 20 and 31, and large portions
of chs.
1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 14, 17, 22 and 23, may be
assigned to Isaiah, the son of Amoz; (b) all of chs. 13,
40 and 47, and large
portions of chs. 14, 21, 41, 43,
44, 45, 46 and 48 may be assigned to the time of
Cyrus;
(c) all of chs. 15, 36, 37 and 39, and portions of chs.
16 and 38, may be assigned to the period between
uchadnezzar and Alexander the
Great, but cannot be
dated precisely; (d) the
passage 23:1-14may be assigned
to the time of Alexander
the Great; (e) all of chs. 11,
12, 19, 24-27, 29, 30, 32-35, 42, 49-66, and
portions
of chs.
l, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 23, 41, 44, 45, 48
may be assigned to the 2d. cent. B.C. (167-140 B.C.)17
On and on goes the process of fragmentation. And
this has been the history
of criticism in its destructive sense, and it is
apparently the only route
criticism can take as it departs from a position
of complete inspiration of
the text.
Now this process of historical fragmentation
has, of course, had
its effect upon the interpretations of the Cyrus
notations. As well, it helps
explain, partially at least, the many nuances of
interpretation that have
been taken with respect to the problem. Now the
question is: How have
different men handled these two Cyrus notations
(44:28; 45:1)?
Generally speaking there have been two
approaches taken to explain
the naming of Cyrus in the text of Isaiah. One of
these two approaches
has been to regard the reading lekoresh as containing
radicals which are
different from those radicals of the original
text. Several of the critics
have imagined that somehow the radicals in the Hebrew
text are not the
right ones. Wordsworth, for example, interpreted lekoresh
as really
being leharesh; hence, the Hebrew radical waw was dropped and the
holem was changed to a qames and the segol to a sere;
thus the text would
read "the crushed."18 By this
understanding Wordsworth saw the one
referred to here as "the crushed one,"
meaning Hezekiah. Later, how-
ever, he saw phronein in the LXX and "suggested that both readings
re-
sulted from the confusion in
the mind of a scribe about 540 B. C., who
thought that Isaiah ought to have written lekhoresh ro’i instead
of aprob-
able lakh werash de’iroi
addressed to
Another who has made a similar approach to that
of Wordsworth
was Thirtle. He held that
the original radicals were lehoresh not
lekoresh.20 Therefore, the original
text made a reference not to Cyrus
but to the one who was an "engraver, cutter, artifacer, or craftsman.”21
He
sees, therefore, that one radical supplants two.
28
GRACE
JOURNAL
But
it is plain to see that men such as these do not have a particu-
larly great reverence for the
radicals of the Hebrew text. Once one is
willing to concede that it is possible that the
radicals have been tampered
with, the question becomes not one of shall one
change the text but one of
where shall one change the text. Clearly the limiting
factor in their chang-
ing the text is their own
assumption of the background of the text.
But it must also be added that whether or not lekoresh
is the
tual reading, the context
surrounding 44:28 and 45:1 must be handled, for
it certainly points to Cyrus. For example, in
comparing Isa. 41:2 and 25
is the revelation that this political leader of
whom Isaiah speaks is one
who would come from the east and would invade from
the north. This is
exactly what Cyrus did. Again look at Isa. 46:10-11 where a similar re-
ference to Cyrus is made. And
most assuredly Isa. 45:13 is a very pointed
reference to Cyrus, for he it was who built
"my city, and he shall let go
my captives, not for price nor reward." And
again the words of Isa. 48:
14-15
are too pointed a reference to Cyrus to be overlooked. The point to
be raised is that not only the actual mentions of
Cyrus are prophetic but
so are the other passages concerning him.
Therefore, the critic will not
help himself by allowing a change of radicals until
he first has done some-
thing about the other pointed prophecies of Isaiah in
which the name of
Cyrus
is omitted.
The second approach to the Cyrus notations is
that which imagines
that the name is an interpolation or a gloss added
to the text to help inter-
pret it. Nagelsbach,
who wrote in Lange’s Commentaries,
maintained this
position of interpolation. He was willing to
grant that in
xliv. 28 another word stood in the place of lekoresh
and
that [in] xlv. 1 the same
word was either simply inter-
polated (which the construction
allows), or was substi-
tuted for another word. We
would need then, of course,
to grant also that the
words bismeka ‘akanneka
(xlv. 4),
which manifestly presuppose
the mention of the name,
were inserted by the
interpolator.22
Exactly
why it is that this author is so willing to concede to such an exten-
sive process of
interpolation in order to rid the text of Cyrus' name is not
certain. It is not that he rejects the
possibility of predictive prophecy.
He
concedes:
On the other hand the great mass
of xl-Ixvi are so un-
mistakably genuine prophecy; in
fact the crown of all Old
Testament prophecy, that we can ascribe them to
no
other than to the king among
the prophets, to Isaiah. If
now single passages in the
last chapters bear undoubted
THE CYRUS NOTATIONS OF DEUTERO-ISAIAH 29
marks of originating in the
exile, then they must be later
additions to the original writing
of Isaiah.23
But
how is one to decide exactly which passages "bear undoubted marks of
originating in the exile?" Evidently for this
author the specificity of the
prophecy determines whether it is exilic. If God
is able to reveal the fu-
ture, of what consequence to
His ability are the details of that future?
There
are, indeed, other details in Scripture prophesied long before they
occurred. For example the naming of Josiah three
centuries before he
was born (I Kings 13:1f.) and the name of
However, the understanding of interpolations and
glosses as pos-
sible solutions to the
problem of the Cyrus notations has not been limited
to the segment of liberal theologians (as already
indicated by the capitula-
tion of Delitzsch).
Those who would, I am certain, classify themselves
in the class of conservative theologians have
somehow believed that inter-
polation as a possible solution
to the notations of Cyrus eases the problem
for them. N. H. Ridderbos,
professor of Old Testament at Free Univer-
sity,
an "Isaianic
core."24 By this he means that Deutero-Isaiah,
while having
certain portions which clearly are from the hand
of Isaiah, contains por-
tions which, though not
penned by Isaiah, are thematically consistent with
Isaianic
teaching.
He does not oppose the notion that the utterances of
prophets were handed down orally by a circle of
Isaiah's disciples.25 As
the generations of his disciples passed, the
kernels of thought directly
from the hands of Isaiah were changed and adapted to
meet the changing
situations of the succeeding generations of people.
And sorry to say, even R. K. Harrison in his
formidable intro-
duction capitulates to the
possibility of scribal glosses occurring in Isaiah
44:28
and 45:1.
tions of the naming of Cyrus.26
Two of these three possible interpreta-
tions are quite obvious. They
are the polarities already suggested: that
of seeing Isaiah 40-66 as exilic and that of
letting the text read as we have
it, that is with the specific mentioning of Cyrus.
Yet
third approach to the problem. He says:
A third approach to the problem, and one which
is fa-
vored by the present writer,
is to regard the references
to Cyrus in Isaiah 44:28
and 45:1 as constituting explan-
atory glosses imposed upon
the original text by a post-
exilic copyist. It is of some
significance that these two
occurrences are the only instances
in Isaiah where Cyrus
is actually mentioned by
name, and since they are found
in such close proximity it
seems most probable that they
30
GRACE
JOURNAL
comprise scribal additions
inserted in order to explain
what was thought to be the
real significance of the pro-
phecy.27
While
fort in knowing that there may well be a palatable
third alternative. It is
interesting that
accept the reading of Cyrus as coming from the pen of
Isaiah. Further,
he does suggest that the close proximity of the
two mentions of Cyrus
would tend to corroborate the idea of scribal
glosses. Yet it is interesting
that especially in the first mention of Cyrus
(Isaiah 44:28) the context
would argue for the necessary inclusion of the name
of Cyrus. And it is
this inclusion of the name that makes the prophecy
so remarkable. Allis'
analysis of Isaiah 44:24-28 still stands as a
formidable objection to the
position that
The most striking and significant features of
the poem
favor the view that while the
utterance was significant in
and of itself, it was
chiefly significant in view of the ex-
ceptional circumstance under
which it was spoken, i. e.
in view of its early date.
The chronological arrangement
of the poem assigns the
Restoration and Cyrus to the fu-
ture. The perspective of the
poem, together with the
abrupt change of person in the
2d strophe, argues that
the future is a remote
future. And finally the carefully
constructed double climax attaches
a significance to the
definiteness of the utterance which
is most easily ac-
counted for if this future was
so remote that a definite
disclosure concerning it would be
of extraordinary im-
portance.28
The
point of Allis is well taken and must be answered by all who would de-
lete the name of Cyrus from
the text.
Having now looked at several alternative
solutions that various men
have forwarded, what alternative solution may one
find?
AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL
The proposal to be suggested here is one already
mentioned and
alluded to in previous sections of this paper.
And it is one which admits
a crass honesty with the text and one which most
definitely allows for the
supernatural control of history and
therefore the actuality of predictive
prophecy.
THE CYRUS NOTATIONS OF DEUTERO-ISAIAH 31
First,
it is worth noting that there is no evidence in the two Dead
Sea
scrolls containing Isaiah that chapters 1-39 ever existed independently
of chapters 40-66.29 It is admitted, of
course, that these documents are
not from the exilic period in date, but they do
reflect a very definite
tual tradition. Second,
"writing about 180 B. C., the author of the book of
Ecclesiasticus (ch.
48:23-28), Jesus ben Sirach,
credited various sections
of the book of Isaiah to the prophet whose name it
bears."30 Third, there
are the numerous attestations to the single
authorship of the book by Christ
himself. For example, the following passages of
Isaiah are quoted or al-
luded to by Christ and in
each case Isaianic authorship is either stated or
implied: Isaiah 56:1f. (Matthew 5:3); Isaiah
42:1-4 and 41:8f. (Matthew
12 :17f.); Isaiah 56:7 (Matthew
61:1-2 (Luke
But more decisive to this particular problem,
though no more cru-
cial perhaps, is the context
in which the two mentions of Cyrus occur. The
principal thrust of the context surrounding
chapters 44 and 45 is that Jeho-
vah God is infinitely more
worthy and powerful than any idols of men. Over
and over again are found sarcastic taunts of pagan
idols (somehow remin-
iscent of Dagon and his
inability to help himself). Note as an example the
taunting words of Isaiah 40:18-21:
To whom, then will ye liken God? Or what
likeness will
ye compare unto him? The
workman melteth and casteth
an image, and the
goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold,
and casteth
silver chains. He that is so impoverished
that he hath no oblation, chooseth a tree that will not rot;
he seeketh
a skillful workman to prepare a carved image,
that shall not be moved.
Have ye not known? . . .
And
along with the taunting sarcasm is a full-blown acknowledgement of
God's foreknowledge. Again and again the
point is made that while dumb
idols know nothing nor say nothing about the future,
the true God does:
The fact, however, that Isaiah mentions Cyrus is
not an
argument in favor of a late date
for the book, but rather
an evidence of the wisdom
and foreknowledge of God.
Throughout the book there are predictions
concerning
the future . . . . Indeed,
Isaiah sets forth God's foreknow-
ledge as eloquent testimony
to his wisdom and power
(chs. 41:21-23; 42:9;
43:9; 44:7, 8; 45:11, 21; 46:9, 10;
48:3, 5-8).31
And if the God of Israel has this particular
ability, that of fore-
knowledge, the prophecy including the specific
naming of Cyrus is not so
unbelievable. In fact it is in this
very sort of context that one would expect
32
GRACE JOURNAL
to find such a prophecy. The prophecy enriches to
a superlative degree
the infinite ability of the true God. And it is
this basic proposition that
Isaiah
is asserting in his prophecy. On the other hand it is difficult to see
what would have been accomplished by an exilic
writer including the name
of Cyrus, for in that case the name would be only
an historical notation.
And
if this were the case, it would seem like an exilic writer would have
included many more detailed descriptions of
historiography to have credibility. Birks seems to have this line of rea-
soning in mind when he says
that if Isaiah 40-66 were exilic, it is strange
that so little is said of exilic contemporaries
(names and person).32 It is
also interesting that even the critics concede that
Isaiah 40-66 clearly in-
dicates God's power to control
men.33
A last argument in support of the acceptance of
the reading of Cyrus
in the text has already been suggested in the
words of Oswald T. Allis. J.
Barton
Payne gives an excellent analysis of the Isaiah 44:24-45:8 passage,
showing that the failure to mention the name of
Cyrus would destroy the
obvious procedural tendency of Isaiah in the
passage.34 Further, against
the view that Isaiah would not have included the
name of Cyrus in the pas-
sage since the text calls him "my servant"
(and Cyrus was the avowed
worshipper of Marduk), it
may be said that God's control of a man who did
not worship Him makes the power of God all the more
vivid. It now re-
mains for a concise conclusion to be drawn to this
problem.
CONCLUSION
The only conclusion which seems appropriate for
one who reverences
the text of Scripture is to assume that the reading
of Cyrus in the text is
the only acceptable reading. Further, it is certain
that the simpler under-
standing of the text is that Isaiah did, indeed,
write the name of Cyrus.
Any
other interpretation of the text must struggle against the overwhelm-
ing evidence of the
context. It is, therefore, as Pfeiffer put it: "Of course
this anachronism offers no difficulty to those who
believe that God pre-
dicted through Isaiah's pen
what was to happen two centuries later."35
DOCUMENTATION
1.
M. Unger, An Introductory Guide to the Old Testament (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1964), pp. 243-247.
2.
Frederick Copleston,
A History of Philosophy (Garden City,
N. Y.:
Image Books, 1965), vol. 7, p. 262.
3.
The Infallible Word (
Publishing Co., 1946), pp. 74-75.
THE CYRUS NOTATIONS OF DEUTERO-ISAIAH 33
4.
Francis Nicholl, Seventh-day Adventist Commentary: Isaiah-
Malachi (Washington, D. C.:
Review and Herald Publishing As-
sociation, 1955), p. 84.
5.
J. B. Payne, "Eighth Century Israelitish Background of Isaiah
40-66," Westminster
Theological Journal, vol. xxix, no. 2
(May, 1967), p. 179.
6.
R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 1969), p. 794.
7. R. H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (
Harper and Bros., 1941), p. 415.
8. Ibid.
9. M. Unger, op. cit., p. 315.
10. James Orr (ed.), International Standard
Bible Encyclopedia (Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1939), vol. III,
p. 1504.
11. R. H. Pfeiffer, op. cit., p. 415.
12. Ibid.
13, James Orr (ed.), op. cit., p. 1504.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. Robert Kennett, The Composition of the Book of Isaiah (
17. James Orr (.ed.), op. cit., p. 1504.
18. R. K. Harrison, op. cit., p. 794.
19. Ibid. , p. 795.
20. James Orr (ed.), op. cit., p. 1507.
21. Alexander Harkavy,
Hebrew and Chaldee
Dictionary (
Hebrew Publishing
22. Lange, Lange's Commentaries: Isaiah (
Scribner's Sons, 1878), p. 16. The Hebrew
radicals in the
quotation have been transcribed.
23.
Ibid.,
p. 17.
24.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962),
p. 573.
25.
Ibid.
26.
R. K. Harrison, op. cit., pp. 793-95.
27.
Ibid.,
p. 794.
28.
James Orr (ed.), op. cit., 1507.
29.
Francis Nicholl,
op. cit., p. 85.
30.
Ibid.
31.
Ibid.
32.
T.-Birks, The Book of Isaiah (London: Rivingtons, 1871), p. 350.
33.
George Buttrick,
The Interpreter's Bible: Ecclesiastes -Jeremiah
(New York: Abingdon Press, 1956), pp. 520-521.
34.
J. B. Payne, op. cit., pp. 184f.
35.
R. H. Pfeiffer, op. cit., p. 415.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
Grace
Theological Seminary
www.grace.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
thildebrandt@gordon.edu