The Problem of “Deutero-Isaiah.” 

        We have already seen that the structure of Isaiah is unique. Once having accepted the Isaianic authorship of the whole book, we are not likely to question that Deutero-Isaiah was written in the dark days of Manasseh, when it seemed that true religion had perished, and the exile in Babylonia, prophesied by Isaiah to Hezekiah (39:6f), became a necessity. With this dating agrees the form of the prophecies, which were probably from the first written rather than spoken. No open prophecy was possible in the time of Manasseh, and there is no reason to doubt the tradition that Isaiah suffered a martyr’s death under this evil king.

        But this is not sufficient explanation of the historical chapters which divide the book in two. They stand rather as a deliberate sign to the reader that we enter a new sphere of Isaiah’s prophecy. If “Deutero-Isaiah” is by Isaiah, it is the one clear example in the Old Testament in which a prophet is transported from his own time, and not in fleeting glimpse, apocalyptic generalities or symbolism, but in clear vision is shown things yet far future.

        We do not doubt that God could do this, but we may well ask whether He would. Is there a good reason for such an exceptional prophecy ? We are of the opinion that there is.

        Though the prophetic message is a revelation of God that comes from God, it has to come through the prophet, and God limits Himself by the prophet’s ability to receive. This adap­tation of the message to the personality and circumstances of the prophet is stamped on every chapter of the prophetic books.

        The acceptance of Isaianic authorship explains one feature of “Deutero-Isaiah’’ that has puzzled those scholars who accept an exilic date for it, viz., the vagueness of its geo­graphical background. While the background of Palestine has grown faint, that of Babylonia has not become clear. This is what we might expect, if Isaiah were transported forward about a century and a half in time.