sent, immediate, and essential interest. Upon these depend the revival or preservation of all that is pure and lovely, and of good report in our holy religion: nor will our candlestick maintain its place, nor its lamps shine with their wonted brightness, unless they be kindled and fed from that Light which lighteneth the world,-in whom is no darkness at all.

A Philological, Critical, and Historical Commentary on the Prophet Isaiah, with a complete Translation of his Writings. By PROFESSOR GESENIUS, D.D. 4 vols. Leipsic. 1821.

Der Prophet Iesaia, uebersetz, und mit einem Vollständigen Philologischkritischen und Historischen Commentar Begleitet. Von Dr. WILHELM GESENIUS. 4 Bde. Leipzig. 1821.

THE name of Professor Gesenius, as that of one of the best Hebraists on the Continent, has long induced us to look forward to his publications with pleasure, and with this feeling, we entered on a perusal of his present work. An Introduction to the history of the prophet, and of his writings is prefixed to the Commentary, which contains copious extracts from Vitringa, Rosenmüller, Lowth, and other authors, to which are annexed several criticisms of Albert Schultens, and illustrations from various Eastern writers.

The Professor commences his remarks with noticing the error into which some of the Fathers fell, by confounding Amos the father of Isaiah with the prophet of that name; whereas the former is written N, the latter DiDN. The rabbinical volumes exhibit a similar mistake, by asserting that Amos and Amaziah were brothers, (Megillah, fol. 10, col. 2,) which Kimchi on Isaiah very argumentatively refutes. The Jewish legends on this subject are as various as they are numerous; some (Bava Bathra, fol. 14, col. 2,) maintain, that Hosea, Isaiah, Amos, and Micah were contemporaries; others, that Hosea, Amos, and perhaps Jonah, were somewhat earlier than his time, and that Micah was somewhat later. Yet it is but justice to these fabulists to add, that contrary to their usual custom, they have advanced these opinions only hypothetically.

Gesenius proceeds to discuss the trite question of the determinate meaning of the words, "the year when UZZIAH died," with reference to the date of the first prophecy, and from thence

he scrutinizes the state of affairs under the three other kings contemporary with the prophet. The flourishing condition of the kingdom under Jotham, and the peaceful security which prevailed, appear to have rendered the Jews inattentive to the warning voice of Isaiah. This inattention was increased under Ahaz, a weak and ungodly king,—

"The first years of whose reign were disturbed by the invasion of the king of Syria, confederated with the king of Israel, during which both the king and the people expected their deliverance, by means of Assyrian help. The prophet warned and threatened, but in vain :the king derided the prophet, and purchased, from the Assyrians, the humiliation of his enemies, by a heavy tribute, and the yoke of a tributary condition. Much greater, however, was his influence, under Hezekiah,... who joined himself with the Egyptians and Ethiopians, to break the Assyrian yoke, accounting himself able to throw it off, by their help and his own warlike exertions. The prophet once more opposed this alliance, with all the power of his persuasive eloquence, and forewarned him of the faithless policy of the Pharaohs:-he threatened him with an Assyrian invasion, and announced destruction to those who transgressed the Divine command. The other party, however, preponderated with the king; Hezekiah refused the tribute, and the Assyrian host made its appearance, as the prophet had predicted, before the walls of Jerusalem, which was, at last, only preserved by a miracle." Ch. xxxvi, 37. &c. &c.

After the fourteenth year of Hezekiah, the prophet is no more introduced in his public capacity; from whence many have concluded that he died about this time. This was Aben-Ezra's opinion, who argued, that had he lived to the days of Manasseh, some record of the fact would have existed. But Gesenius infers from the prophecies relating to Egypt, in the nineteenth chapter, that he was alive at the beginning of Manasseh's reign; he imagines him to have written the history of Hezekiah, (2 Chron. xxxii.) and, consequently, assumes the conclusion that he must have outlived him. The Talmudical and Christian traditions coincide in the assertion, that he was put to death by Manasseh, and to this St. Paul has been supposed to have alluded in his epistle to the Hebrews, (c. xi. 37, impio noav.) The Gemara (Yebamoth, f. 4, ad fin,) quoting the Mishna, where it states that R. Simeon Ben Azai found a roll of Genealogies at Jerusalem, remarks, MD, "it was written, in it, that Manasseh slew Isaiah." But this circumstance is not mentioned in the sacred page, nor can we infer from any part of it, that he was sawn asunder by order of this king: the tradition, therefore, can never amount to the rank of an historic document.

Isaiah appears to have exclusively lived in Jerusalem; and Gesenius argues that he had three sons, whom he named after the figurative style of prophecy, Shear-Yashub, Immanuel, and Maher-shalal-hash-bash. But we are aware of no data, from which Immanuel can be determined to have been the son of the prophet; the contrary appears from an unbiassed perusal of the chapter, to have been the fact. The narrative is prophetic, and figuratively embodies existing events with future promises; it is distinct in nature and phraseology from that which refers to the prophet's children, and relates to a miraculous circumstance connected with the birth of the long expected Saviour and Hope of the Jews. It was then pronounced to invigorate them under calamity, and stimulate them to purity of faith; the mode of conception was contrary to the laws of nature, and therefore must have been inapplicable to the prophet's wife, and the name in itself was indicative of the Messiah, and referable to his divine nature alone, having been intended as a prophetic designation of his Deity. Others have believed, that like Nathan in the time of David, Isaiah was seer and annalist to Hezekiah, but this hypothesis is mere speculation.

In the author's critique on the contents of the book, we find him occasionally indulging the scepticism of the German school, and entertaining doubts whether the whole book were written by Isaiah. The cause of this scepticism we plainly trace to the Talmudic passage, which he has cited in his note, to which no sober critic would attach any degree of credit. He affects to substantiate it, in some manner, by a citation of the opinions of Eichhorn, Doderlein, and Bertholdt, with each of whose writings we are sufficiently acquainted to pronounce them cavilling critics of much learning, but of no judgment. Eichhorn and Doderlein, in particular, appear to doubt all that partakes of the nature of a miracle, and to handle the sacred text in the same arbitrary manner as many modern editors have handled the Greek plays, every alteration in which we loudly decry, unless substantiated by the authority of several ancient MSS. The Word of God is too pure and too important to be made the butt of literary speculations, too much depends upon it for us to allow the conjectural emendations, unsupported by MS. authority, even of the best scholar. The object of the Biblical critic is to elucidate, not to alter the text; to prove the authenticity of the books of both Testaments, not to raise surmises against their genuineness, which it is out of his power to substantiate. If the text be assailable ad libitum, any thing that an editor pleases may be proved by it, and it would soon cease to become a rule of faith: it is on the comparative integrity of it

that we build our evidences, and found our hopes, and heartless must he be, who would shake them, without any argument to support his pretensions. We, however, absolve Gesenius from these intentions, which we impute to some other critics of his nation, regretting that popular fashion should have in any wise carried him away from the sounder dictates of his judgment. . He thinks, that the book of Isaiah, in its present state, may be divided into four parts or books. The first he concludes to be contained within chapters i.-xii.; the second within chapters xiii.-xxiii.; the third within chapters xxiv.-xxxv; the fourth within chapters xl.-lxvi. He pronounces chapters xxxvi.—xxxix. to be extracts from the prophet's historical writings, and refers his last division to the Pseudo-Isaiah, on account of its reference to the Babylonian exiles. We very much doubt his accuracy in this statement, in which we observe the same sceptical spirit that we have just reprobated, nor can we account for his absurd critique on the fourth division, or for the weak reasons on which he has founded it. For if it be believed that Isaiah possessed, in a pre-eminent degree, the gift of prophecy, as all writers of antiquity, whether Jewish or Christian, have acknowledged, we have every reason to refer those parts which relate to the captivity to that prescience which has been undeniably assigned to him. On the same principle, we may argue against the truth of every part of Scripture, which has relation to events, as yet future, when those parts were written, which amounts, in no unequivocal language, to a denial of the inspiration of the Bible.

We attach no particular value to the professor's remarks on the historical writings of the prophet, but great ability is displayed in his chapter on his character and maxims. The observations on his character, as a writer, are compendious, although very laboured. After some account of the estimation in which he was holden, both among Jews and Christians, and a short critique on the text of the book, the author proceeds to notice the Apocrypha attributed to him. Origen is the first who mentions their existence, in express terms, (Epist. ad Africanum Comment. in Matt., Homil Ì. in Isaiam,) in which he quotes. Heb. xi. 37. He entitles the book 'Hoaias àñónpupos. The apostolical constitutions call it by the same name, and condemn it as spurious, together with the apocryphal works attributed to Adam, Enoch, Moses, and David. In Epiphanius's account of the Archontikes and Hierakites, it is mentioned as 'Avaßá-, TINOV 'Hoaís, which accords with the title of the Ethiopic version, lately translated from the Bodleian MS. by Dr. Lawrence, ዕርገተ ኢሳይያስ:ነቢይ፡፡ From the quotations made from this

spurious work, both in the Talmud and the Fathers, there can be no doubt of the identity of the Ethiopic copy. Gesenius gives an abstract of its contents, which are, in the highest degree, wild and absurd.

From this very cursory consideration of the prophet and of his writings, he passes to a history of the ancient versions of them. Among the peculiarities of the Greek version, he remarks, that the translator has more or less felicitously, and according to their real meaning, explained figurative expressions; e. g. chap. i. 25, 5, závτas tès avoμus, (Aqu. Sym. Theod., xaooiTepóv ou,) ch. iii. 17. TPTN Mow ταπείνωσει ὁ Θεὸς ἀρχέσας θυγατέρας Σιών, ch. v. 17; 029 0 19279 βοσκηθήσονται οἱ διηρπασμένοι, (Symm. οἱ ἄμνοι,) ὥς ταύροι, ch. vi. 1, 59 Ν Ε, καὶ πλήρης ὃ οἶκος τῆς δόξης αὐτῷ, (Symm. Theod. καὶ τὰ πρὸς ποδῶν αὐτῷ επλήρον τον ναόν. Of the same description are ch. viii. 6; ix. 14; x. 14, 16, 19; xi. 4, 14; xiv. 9, 12; xxi. 10; xxii. 23, 24; liii. 4; Iviii. 1. The translator has entirely misapprehended the original in xxviii. 20; xxii. 23; xxv. 4, 5; xxxii. 2; xxxvii. 27.

On this plan, he proceeds on his work of criticising the different versions, in which he particularly excels, abating some few passages, in which he appears to have too freely indulged his fancy. He adduces examples where the translator seems to have been biassed by the dogmata of the later Jewish theology in his interpretation, and he cites others, where Hebrew words are translated according to the force of the cognate Chaldee root. Very great learning is displayed in his excursus on the Chaldee Targum, by a perusal of which the critical divine would find himself amply repaid for his trouble. In his analysis of the Syriac version, he first brings together the passages where the LXX translation is followed, such as ch. i. 22, ND ND 022 οἱ κάπηλοί σε μίσγεσι τὸν οἶνον ὕδατι, Syr. 201

. The remaining examples are in ch. i. 25; ii. 20; iii. 17; vii. 20; ix. 13; xxx. 4, 20; liii. 2. But he has, perhaps, more closely adhered to it in v. 17; vi. 1; ix. 8, 10; x. 14, 16; xi. 4, 14; xxii. 23; xxviii. 8, &c. &c. To these succeed those wherein the coincidence with the Chaldee Targum is equally conspicuous; after which, the old question, whether the translator was a Jew or a Christian, is discussed. Bertholdt decided that he was the latter; Simon, the editor of the Hebrew Lexicon and Bible, that he was the former; and Gesenius argues, with great ability, that he was a Christian. In ch. vii. 14, where the predicted mother of Immanuel is called

by, the Syriac reads, which implies a pure virgin, and in other places the word A, exactly corresponding