Critical Remarks on an Alleged Interpolation in Isaiah 7: 8 [pp. 558-575]

Isaiah 7: 8.
tions to the genuineness of the clause, if admissible, is fatal,
and abundantly sufficient to decide the whole dispute. If
the passage, as it stands, contains a false prediction, it cannot
be recognized as genuine by any who recognize the scriptures
as inspired, though we cannot understand why one who denies their inspiration, should scruple to admit the existence
of such errors, or pronounce a passage spurious because it is
not true. Be that as it may, if this objection is well founded,
any refutation of the rest would be unavailing. It is therefore entitled to the first consideration.
The historical facts, assumed in this objection, are not to
be disputed. The first is, that about two years after the date
of this prophecy, Tiglath Pileser, king of Assyria, called in
by Ahaz to assist him, took from Pekah the best part of his
dominions, "Gilead and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali,
and carried [the inhabitants] captive to Assyria,"' (2 Kings
15: 29,) Pekah himself being killed about the same time by
Hoshea who succeeded him, (ib. v. 30,) In the same expedition Tiglath Pileser took Damascus, killed Rezin, and carried many Syrians into captivity, (2 Kings 16: 9.) The
other fact is, that in the ninth year of Hoshea, who succeeded
Pekah, "Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, took Samaria, and
carried Israel away into Assyria," (2 Kings 16: 9.) To
which of these events, the objector asks, does the prophecy
refer, and how can the chronology of the prediction be made
to quadrate with the facts of history?
In this inquiry it is presupposed, not only that the statements above given are correct, but that these are the only
events to which the prediction can refer. This being
granted, for the present, a mere English reader might
think it a sufficient reply to the objection, that the word
"within" does not mean precisely at the end of a certain
period, but any time before its close, as that which is to
year or two. But that the desolation there described, and the destruction here
predicted, are identical, is a mere assumption, or, to use a favourite expression of
his own, "bittweise angenommen." He also seeks support for his hypothesis in
the collocation of the Hebrew words, the later form "sixty and five" being used
instead of the ancient "five and sixty." It is a sufficient answer to this argument, that the former collocation occurs, at least, three times in the book of
Genesis-viz. in ch. 4: 24. 18: 28. 46: 15. If this mode of expression was in
use at all, so early, whether it was the common one or not, there is no reason why
Isaiah may not have employed it in poetical composition. The precise determination of the age of ancient writings, from the occasional use of certain words
and phrases, is another variety of critical empiricism, much in vogue at present,
upon wvhich we cannot dwell,
563
1837.]