THE PROBLEM OF ISAIAH, CHAPTER 10

KEMPER EULEEKTUN

Reprinted for private circulation from
The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures
Vol. XXXIV, No. 3, April 1918

THE PROBLEM OF ISAIAH, CHAPTER 10
By Kemper Fullerton
Oberlin Graduate School of Theology
I
Did Isaiah teach the inviolable sanctity of Jerusalem? The
answer to this question will largely determine our view of the develop
ment of the Deuteronomic idea. It is therefore one of the most funda
mental questions in the history of Old Testament religion and has been
one of the most hotly debated. In the discussion of it Isa., chap. 10,
has occupied the crucial position. In its present form this chapter
undoubtedly does teach the inviolability of Jerusalem. But can
the present form of the chapter be trusted? Before undertaking
to answer this question it is well to recall the fact that Isa., chap.
10, does not stand alone, but. is. closely related to a large group of
prophecies in Isaiah, the so-called anti-Assyrian prophecies. These
prophecies announce the doom of Assyria and either expressly or
by implication announce at the same time the deliverance of Jeru
salem. They fall into two groups, those prophecies which are
complete in themselves, and which may therefore be called
independent prophecies,1 and the fragmentary prophecies.2 If
we leave chap. 10 out of account for a moment and consider the
remainder of the first group, two difficulties at once strike the
attention: the difficulty of adjusting these various prophecies to
their literary contexts and the difficulty of locating them in the
historical context of Isaiah's lifetime. Of the six independent
prophecies only chap. 37 is brought into relationship, both with its
literary context and with a historical situation in Isaiah's life
time. It is imbedded in the historical narratives which describe the
campaign of Sennacherib in 701. Unfortunately the trustworthiness
of these narratives has been so undermined that the genuineness
of the prophecy which is connected with them is seriously com
promised. Two of the prophecies (14:24-27 and chap. 18) have
¦ Isa. 10:5-34; 14:24-27; 18; 30:27-33; 33; 37:22-28.
= Isa. 8:86-10; 17:12-14; 29:5-7; 31:5-9. 170

The Problem of Isaiah, Chap. 10 171
a general topical relationship with their context in so far as they are
component parts of the group of foreign prophecies, chaps. 13-23.
Apart from this very general connection these prophecies have no
literary connection whatever. Two prophecies (30:27-33 and
chap. 33) are connected with their contexts in what may be called
a didactic fashion, but the connection is a very singular one, to say
the least. They belong to a very definite section of the present
collection of the Book of Isaiah, chaps. 28-33. This section is
compiled on a clearly discernible plan, and one that is adhered to
with remarkable consistency. Announcements of doom are invari
ably balanced with promises of deliverance. The regularity of the
alternation is so undeviating that it produces the impression of
artifice. Chapter 33 is one of the two lengthy eschatological
prophecies (chap. 32 is the other) in which the section as a whole
culminates. In chap. 33 the doom which is the keynote of the
section disappears altogether, and the section is thus allowed to
close in a burst of messianic sunshine. In the same way that chap.
33 furnishes consolation to the general section (chaps. 28-32) as
a whole, 30:27-33 furnishes, along with vss. 18-26, consolation
to the threatening subsection which precedes it (30:1-17). In
other words, the relationship of these two prophecies to their con
texts is purely didactic, not historical. It may be added that both
these prophecies are almost certainly later accretions to the section
in which they now stand. The hope in them does not simply sup
plement the preceding doom; it cancels it. If we next look for
indications of the date of these independent prophecies in the
prophecies themselves as distinct from their contextual relationship,
it will be seen that either no historical allusion is to be found in
them or, where they seem to spring out of some sort of a concrete
historical background, as in the case of chaps. 18 and 33, it is
impossible to define it.1 Chapter 37 is again an exception to this
generalization, but its evidence is once more compromised by its
agreement with the unhistorical narratives in which it is found.
Thus not one of the independent anti-Assyrian prophecies apart from
Isa., chap. 10, furnishes a trustworthy clue, either in its literary
• The current interpretations of chap. 18 are without any secure exegetical and "
critical basis.

172 The American Journal of Semitic Languages
connection or in itself, to the historical situation out of which it was
spoken. If we turn to the fragmentary prophecies and look first at the
internal indexes of date, we again find absolutely nothing which is
definite or tangible in the way of a historical allusion. Yet it may
be answered that this need not surprise us since we are dealing with
only small fragments of prophecy. But in that case we should have
the right to expect that here at least the contexts would help us to
supply the historical background out of which these fragments are to
be interpreted. Now it so happens that the contexts of these prophe
cies are definite in their historical background and hence datable
with a reasonable measure of assurance. We might expect, there
fore, that, through the relationship of the fragmentary prophecies to
their contexts, we should be enabled to locate these fragments in
Isaiah's life and with this basis to start from date the independent
prophecies. But at this point a most singular phenomenon meets
us. Not one of these prophecies is in an intelligible relationship to
its context. , As a matter of fact, like the longer prophecies (30:
27-33 and chap. 33) they do not supplement, they actually con
tradict, their contexts. For this reason I have spoken of them as
fragmentary. Here is an extraordinary situation indeed — an exten
sive group of prophecies, purporting to deal with Assyria, the most
important political factor in Isaiah's day, a factor in which Isaiah,
as we know from other oracles, was intensely interested, and yet with
practically no marks of the situation out of which they sprang and
most of them actually contradicting the contexts in which they are
now placed! It is little wonder that, when only the supposed his
torical allusions apart from their ideas are relied upon, the dating
of these prophecies by those who have accepted their genuineness
has been a matter of pure guesswork. In fact, if the genuineness of
Isa., chap. 37, in its present historical setting is given up, the only
clue left for the dating and historical interpretation of the anti- Assyrian
prophecies is chap. 10. This chapter has usually played the role of
the great bellwether of the anti- Assyrian prophecies. Where chap.
10 has gone the others have ordinarily followed. But where has
chap. 10 gone? It has roamed pretty much everywhere through
Isaiah's life.

The Problem of Isaiah, Chap. 10 173
If we look first at its contextual connection, we discover that it
plays the same role in the great section, chaps. 1-12, which chap. 33
plays in the section chaps. 28-33. Chapter 10 along with chaps. 11
and 12 permit the threats and denunciations which again furnish
the keynote of this section to close in a great C major of mes
sianic joy. Its contextual relationship, therefore, is again didactic
and not historical. Is this not beginning to be a suspicious circum
stance ? If we turn to the internal indexes of date, at first sight we
seem to be on firmer ground than in the case of the other prophecies.
There appear to be more hopeful clues to follow. As long as the
complete integrity of the entire chapter was maintained the main
data for the chronological location of the chapter were the follow
ing: (1) vss. 28-34, referring to an invasion from the North, some
times regarded as a historical description (Hitzig), sometimes as
a prophetic idealization (Gesenius); (2) vss. 24-27, with their
supposed implication that Judah was still tributary to Assyria and
therefore to be located before 701; (3) vs. 20, with its supposed
implication that Judah was still in alliance with Assyria, and hence
referred to the time of Ahaz (Konig) ; but, above all, (4) vs. 9, with
its reference to the conquest of Samaria in 722 and with its probable
reference to the conquest of Carchemish in 717, and therefore to be
located some time after this latter date (so most commentators at
the present time). But just how long after 717 is the prophecy to
be placed? Some scholars put it just about this time and consider
that it was written under the impression made by the fall of Samaria.1
Others have connected it with chap. 20, and accordingly locate it
in the time of Sargon's campaign against Ashdod.2 Still others,
and they are in the majority, prefer a date in the early years of
Sennacherib, but whether before the great campaign of 701 or in
^the midst of it is not agreed upon. So far as the historical allusions
are concerned it might belong to either of these periods. Therefore
resort is had to the ideas of the passage to help determine its date.
It is said that the prophecy (vss. 28-32) expects an immediate inva
sion of Judah.3 But immediately after 717 there was nothing to
i Gesenius, Dillmann, W. Robt. Smith.
2 Hitzig, Guthe, Cheyne, Kuenen.
3 Cf. especially Hackmann, Die Zukunftserwartung des Jesaia (1893).

174 The American Journal of Semitic Languages
occasion such an anticipation. Nor could it fall in 711, for in that
year Isaiah expected still further conquests of Assyria.1 Hence it
must be later than 711, and because it anticipates an invasion it
would naturally be located about 701. Undoubtedly this is the
date one instinctively thinks of in connection with chap. 10. But
why? Simply because everyone is more or less under the domina
tion of the Isaiah narratives and the prophecies in chap. 37. But
at this point criticism sets in. The Isaiah narratives as they stand
are unreliable and should not be allowed to color our view of the
situation in 701. II Kings 18: 13 ff. and the Sennacherib inscrip
tions are the only authentic historical documents out of that period,
and these both imply a great disaster for Judah. Again, chaps.
28-31 find their only adequate historical background when they
are interpreted of Isaiah's protest against the Egyptian alliance in
705-701. Now if criticism has accomplished any sure result in the
study of Isaiah it is the elimination of the hope elements from
these chapters. In chaps. 28-31 the announcement of doom is
the sole original element. Chapter 10, if dated about 701, would
accordingly stand in the most uncompromising contrast with the
other prophecies of this period and with the known, historical sit
uation. Hence chap. 10 has sometimes been placed earlier than
705-701; sometimes chap. 10 has been left standing in 705-701, and
chaps. 28-31 have been placed earlier in order to avoid the conflict
between them. Sometimes Hezekiah's reforms have been inserted
between the doom in chaps. 28-31 and the hope in them and in
chap. 10 to account for the otherwise abrupt change from doom to
hope. Sometimes Sennacherib's inscriptions have been juggled
with, and a great deliverance of Judah has been read into them in
order to make the historical situation agree with chap. 10. I do
not believe that any of these expedients will be permanently satis
fying. If chap. 10 in its present form is retained in 701, it presents
an insoluble enigma. Yet if it is kept intact it cannot be placed in
an earlier period. There are only two methods by which the problem
of chap. 10 can be attacked with any hope of success. The first is
to place it after 701 and connect it with a hypothetical second cam
paign of Sennacherib. This is the method followed by Staerk.2
' Cf. Hackmann again and chap. 20. 2 Das assyrische Wellreich (1908).

The Problem of Isaiah, Chap. 10 175
1 This method was suggested by me two years before the appearance of
Staerk's monograph in a discussion1 which I cannot but feel merits
5 more attention than it has had the fortune to receive. I still think
' that there is a possibility of an interesting speculative defense of
the genuineness, not only of some of the anti-Assyrian prophecies,
but of some of the messianic prophecies as well, by opening up the
unexplored territory that lies beyond 701. But in the case before
us 10 : 9 presents a serious difficulty in the way of this hypothesis, a
difficulty to which Staerk does scant justice. If chap. 10 falls after
701, it is certainly a singular thing that none of the Assyrian successes
at that time is alluded to in it. It has often been noted that the
conquests in vs. 9 are those of Tiglath-pileser and Sargon. This
fact makes very strongly against a lower date than 701 for the
prophecy. If chap. 10, on the other hand, is to be placed either in
or before 701, the only resort, in order to relieve us from the intoler
able difficulties in which such a dating involves us, is to criticism.
The earlier criticism of Koppe and Eichhorn which sought to
solve the problems of the chapter by disintegrating it were checked
very largely by the authority of Gesenius and Ewald, and even
Hitzig practically admitted its unity. Giesebrecht seems to have
been the first to note its compilatory character.2 He suggested that
vss. 22 and 23 were later added by Isaiah himself to one of his earlier
prophecies.3 Dillmann maintained a literary unity but not an
oratorical unity for the chapter. That is, he held that chap. 10 was not
a speech uno tenore, but a collection of oracles by Isaiah himself out
of different periods of his life. But it was Duhm, who for the first
time, seriously attacked the integrity of the chapter.4 He denied the
genuineness of all the latter half (vss. 15-34) and held that even vss.
5-14 show indubitable marks of compilation. Hackmann, rad
ical as he usually was in his criticism, thought he could get along
with the elimination of vss. 24-27 alone. He interpreted the rest
of the chapter as a woe against Assyria, but a woe which did not
imply the deliverance of Jerusalem. Hence he was able to bring
| i "The Campaign of Sennacherib," Bibliotheca Sacra (October, 1906).
* Beitr&ge zur Jesaiakritik (1890).
» This view belongs to his theory that Isaiah revised his own prophecies at different
times and with different purposes.
« Jesaia (1892).

176 The American Journal of Semitic Languages
it into harmony with the true historical situation of 701 and the
genuine prophecies in chaps. 28-31. In this view Hackmann was
followed by Volz.1 But this interpretation of chap. 10 as it stands
is clearly untenable. It is impossible not to admit that the present
form of the chapter teaches the deliverance of Jerusalem. If such
an idea is incompatible with Isaiah's views, it must be eliminated,
not by interpretation, but by criticism. This criticism Marti
ventured upon.2 He accepted Duhm's results, which ascribed
only vss. 5-14 to Isaiah and left these verses themselves in a decid
edly crumbling plight. Marti suggested that the "woe" of vs. 5
might not be original and that it was an open question whether
Isaiah really meant to pronounce a judgment upon Assyria in this
chapter. Staerk has jeered at the position of Marti, and, indeed,
in the form in which he presents his view it is anything but convin
cing. But can this view be made more probable? Much will
depend upon the answer to this question. In the process of critical
investigation all the anti-Assyrian prophecies, both independent
and fragmentary, have been denied to Isaiah, except chaps. 10 and
18. But the labor of criticism upon this group of prophecies is as
good as wasted if 10:5-14 are left standing. These verses in their
present form teach the inviolability of Jerusalem and cannot be
made to teach anything else. If they are accepted, we may as well
accept the trailers as well and be done with it and return to the era
of criticism before Stade. But then, unless we go down below 701,
we are left with a problem on our hands in the case of the anti-
Assyrian prophecies which is practically insoluble. Hence Marti
can hardly be blamed after all for attempting to storm the final
bulwark in chap. 10 of the theory that Isaiah taught the doctrine
of the inviolability of Jerusalem. I propose to ask whether Marti's
view is after all so utterly out of the range of legitimate criticism.
II
The passage, 10:5-15, naturally breaks up into three sections,
vss. 5-7, vss. 8-12, and vss. 13-15. The last of these is the clearest
and most readily understood. In vss. 13 f . the thought is exclusively
1 Die vorexilische Jahweprovhetie (1897).
'- Das Buck Jesaia (1900).

The Problem of Isaiah, Chap. 10 177
of the self-confidence of Assyria. All its conquests are due to its
own power; it is self-sufficient. This is also the thought of vs. 15.
Verse 15 does not necessarily imply that Assyria is opposing
Jahweh's plans, but only that it is foolish for Assyria to suppose that
it is carrying on its conquests in its own strength. The by of vs. 156
does not imply Assyria's opposition to Jahweh's plans, but only a
difference between Jahweh's and Assyria's theories of the way in
which the plans are executed. This is clear from vs. 156, where no
difference in plans is implied, and is supported by the absolutely
analogous use of b2> in Judg. 7:2. The language of vs. 15 is no
doubt awkward in the extreme, and on this ground the verse has been
denied to Isaiah. But I cannot feel that the thought is un-Isaianic,
and it is almost necessary here in order to give point to vss. 13 f.
That vs. 15 connects better with vs. II1 cannot be admitted. The
verse is a reductio ad absurdum of Assyria's theory of its conquests.
If vss. 13-15 are taken by themselves, it is not necessary to
hold that the doom of Assyria must follow. Only the absurdity of
Assyria's theory is exposed. It would be quite appropriate, it is
true, if some proof of the absurdity of the theory followed, but such
a proof is not necessary in order to complete the thought. At
another point, however, the thought in vss. 13-15 is incomplete.
Assyria's theory of its conquests is plainly expressed, but Jahweh's
theory is not so clearly formulated. A precise statement of the
antithetic thought is required. Is it anywhere to be found? The
mention of "rod" and "staff," vs. 156, points us back to vss. 5-7.
If vss. 5-7a alone are considered, omitting vs. 76, just the
complementary thought which we need is found. Jahweh's theory is
that Assyria is" a rod with which to destroy sinning nations. It is
I therefore under Jahweh's control, and he uses it for ethical ends
(vss. 5f). But Assyria imagines that this work of destruction is
accomplished by its own powers (vss. 7a, 13 f.). This supposition
of Assyria is as absurd as it would be for an ax or a saw to boast
over him who wields them (vs. 15). On this view of the relation
ship of the verses the antithesis is perfect; destruction (vs. 66) is
set over against destruction (vss. 13 f.). The only difference is in
the theory of the destruction. Is it due to Assyria's power, as Assyria
i Duhm and Marti.

178 The American Journal of Semitic Languages
supposes? In that case it would have no ethical significance. Or
is it due to Jahweh's judgment upon sinning nations? In that
case its ethical meaning is obvious. It is to be carefully noted that
on the foregoing interpretation vss. 5-7a contain the statement of
a general truth. The sinning nation is accordingly not to be identi- |
fied with any particular nation to the exclusion of all others.1 It '
is also to be carefully noted that if vss. 13-15 are connected, with
vss. 5-7a, vs. 66 will signify destruction.2 But what, then, is the
force of the "woe," vs. 5a f Granted that the doom of Assyria is
implied in the "woe," and this is the only natural interpretation,3
would this imply that the doom of Assyria means the deliverance
of the sinning nations ? If it did, a contradiction would result, for
we have just seen that vs. 6, when interpreted in the hght of vss.
13-15, signifies their destruction. Assyria does in vss. 13-15 what
Jahweh plans in vs. 6, but does it on a different theory. What
Jahweh intends as a great ethical judgment Assyria regards as a
bird's-nesting expedition. Hence the doom of Assyria hinted at in
the "woe" of vs. 5 cannot imply deliverance of the sinning nations,
but must be construed as a proof that Assyria really was only an
instrument of God and without power in itself. When Jahweh no
longer needs it, it, too, will be destroyed. Thus, if vss. 5-7a and
13-15 are taken by themselves, there is nothing to indicate that
Jerusalem is to be exempt from destruction even if the originality
of the "woe" is admitted.
But when we turn to vs. 76 a new and unexpected thought is
introduced. When vs. 76 is interpreted in its present connection,
it would seem to indicate that the difference in Jahweh's and As
syria's plans is the point at issue, not the difference in the theories of
' So Ewald, Cheyne, Duhm, Skinner, Gray, Marti (?). The imperfect is then best
taken as the imperfect of customary action. This view of vs. 6a is in every way prefer
able to the view which sees in the sinning nation a special reference to Israel (Gesenius,
Hitzig, with reference to 9: 16, 18; Guthe, Isaiah, p. 47) or to Judah (Marti, on the sup
position that the passage is in its original form, Whitehouse) or to Judah and Israel (De-
litzsch, Dillmann, with reference to 9 : 16, 18 on the one hand and vs. 12 on the other) . On
these latter views the imperfect is variously interpreted as purely historical (Gesenius)
or of repeated action in past time (Hitzig) or of incompleted action in the present (Dill
mann) or of the future (Delitzsch).
"- The foregoing connection has already been suggested by Duhm and adopted by
Marti, but neither of these scholars has formulated the reasons for this connection nor
e results of it as carefully as might be done.
3 It is certainly not the iin of incitement; cf. Zech. 2:12.

The Problem of Isaiah, Chap. 10 179
\ Assyria's conquests. Jahweh proposes to chastise sinning nations;
Assyria proposes to destroy all nations. With the introduction of
i this new thought the "woe" receives a new meaning. It is pro
nounced upon Assyria because Assyria proposes to overstep the
, bounds which Jahweh has set. The "woe" would accordingly
certainly imply that Assyria's purpose was not to be accomplished; in
other words, it would imply deliverance. Thus, as soon as vs. 7b is
introduced into the argument, the "woe" at once gains a new and very
definite implication; Assyria seeks to destroy those nations whom
Jahweh plans only to chastise. Therefore woe unto it. This
(impliedly) shall not come to pass.
But why, we may next ask, is the general proposition that Jahweh
uses Assyria only to chastise and not to destroy sinning nations
advanced ? This question leads us to consider the relation of vss.
8-12 to their context. The antithesis set forth in these verses is
not between the two theories of Assyria's activity but between the
two plans of Jahweh and Assyria with respect to Jerusalem. As
syria plans to destroy Jerusalem as it has destroyed other nations
(vss. 9-11). But Jahweh plans only to chastise Jerusalem, and
therefore, because Assyria proposes to do more, Jahweh will destroy
it (vs. 12). Verses 8-12 thus present a special illustration of the gen
eral contrast expressed in vss. 5-7. Jerusalem is a sinning nation, but
it is to be only chastised, not destroyed; it is Assyria which is to be
destroyed. Observe that while the chastisement of Judah is not yet
complete, the "whole work" not yet accomplished,1 yet the thought
of further chastisement is only hinted at. It is tucked away in a
subordinate clause while the emphasis of vs. 12 is allowed to fall
upon the destruction of Assyria.2
If we take vss. 5-12 as they stand, the three controlling fac
tors in its interpretation have been found to be (a) the "woe,"
1 "His whole work," vs. 12, is almost certainly to be defined, in view of the general
context, as Jahweh's work of chastisement upon Zion (so scholars generally) rather than
the work which includes both the chastisement of Judah and the punishment of Assyria
(Hitzig, Marti), in spite of the fact that the former view tends to reflect a future perfect
force upon y^^i . If Hitzig's view is adopted, the logical result will be, as Hitzig
himself sees, to take the clause "upon Mount Zion and on Jerusalem" with what follows.
This logical result of his view reveals its improbability.
2 Hackmann (p. 105, followed by Volz, p. 52) is clearly wrong, therefore, when he
seeks to interpret vs. 12 in such a way as to make it teach the common destruction of
Jerusalem and Assyria and so to bring chap. 10 into harmony with the prophecies of
doom in 705-701.

180 The American Journal of Semitic Languages
(6) the general contrast between the plan of Jahweh to use As
syria as a rod of chastisement and the plan of Assyria to use its
own imaginary power to destroy, and (c) the specific illustration of
this general antithesis in the case of Jerusalem. Assyria proposes
to destroy Jerusalem, but Jahweh will only chastise it. Therefore
woe to Assyria! The woe of vs. 5, the antithesis suggested by vs.
76 compared with vss. 5-7a, and vs. 12 go together, and together
they certainly imply the deliverance of Jerusalem. But is this the
original teaching of the passage f
In the first place it is a noteworthy fact that two thoughts seem
to be struggling together, like Esau and Jacob, in its womb, the
thought of the contrast between two theories as to Assyria's con
quests and the thought of the contrast between two plans. In them
selves these two thoughts are in no way incompatible with each
other, but a slight suspicion is aroused when we next observe that
vss. 5-7 must serve a double purpose. They are necessary to com
plete both thoughts. If we take only vss. 5-7a, then the natural
continuation is found at vss. 13-15. If vs. 76 is added, then the
natural continuation is found at vss. 8-12.
In the next place it is to be noticed that when the two thoughts
are combined, as in the present case, there is no clear progress in the
passage as a whole. If vss. 5-7 and 8-12 are taken together, the
thought of the antithesis between the two plans of Jahweh and
Assyria is worked out to its logical conclusion at vs. 12; or if vss.
5-7a and 13-15 are taken together, the antithesis between the two
theories is again expressed in a rounded form. But if vss. 5-12 and
vss. 13-15 are combined all progress in the passage as a whole is
lost. Verses 13-15 limp after vss. 5-12. But is it not curious that
whereas they limp after vss. 5-12 they do not limp after vss. 5-7a,
but receive just the complementary thought which they need?
All these phenomena strongly suggest that we are dealing here
with a passage which has been worked over. This is the impression
which has steadily gained ground ever since Duhm's criticism of
the chapter. The two contrasts between the different theories of
Assyria's activity on the one hand and the different plans of Jahweh
and Assyria on the other are not brought into any organic relation
ship. It is altogether probable that one of these contrasts is not

The Problem of Isaiah, Chap. 10 181
original. Which shall we eliminate ? A closer examination of vss.
8-12, of the contrast between vss. 5-7 a and vs. 76 and of the "woe,"
the three factors in vss. 5-12 which we have seen to be intimately
related to each other, may enable us to answer this question.
1. In the first place objection has often been taken since
Duhm's criticism to vs. 12, and very properly taken. The verse is
pure prose and prose of the most awkward kind. Further, it inter
rupts in the most unpleasant way the speech of the Assyrian king.
From the point of view of literary criticism alone and without
reference to its ideas, vs. 12 is suspicious. Yet this is the verse in
which the contrast between the two plans of Jahweh and Assyria comes
to its appropriate conclusion. But vs. 12 does not stand alone; it is
intimately connected in thought with vss. 10 and 11. In what
does "the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria and the
glory of his high looks" betray themselves if not in the threat against
Jerusalem in vss. 10 f . ? It might be thought that vs. 12 is only a
gloss upon vss. 10 f., but this view is unsatisfactory. Verses 10 f.
are incomplete without vs. 12. Verse 12 is not simply a gloss which
might be dispensed with; it is necessary in order to complete the
thought begun in vss. 10 f . Again, when these verses are examined
more closely, they are found to be almost as unrhythmical and quite
as awkward in their style as vs. 12 itself.1 But it is just vss. 10-12
out of our second paragraph (vss. 8-12) which contain the special
application of the contrast between vss. 5-7a and vs. 76 to the case
of Jerusalem. Verses 8 f., if taken by themselves, have nothing to
do with this contrast.2 Thus the application of the contrast is,
from the point of view of a purely literary criticism, suspicious.
1 There is an incongruity between the implications in vss. 10 and 11. Verse 10
implies that both Jerusalem and Samaria are still unconquered. Verse 1 1 implies that
Samaria has already been conquered. Verse 1 1 thus agrees with vs. 9 in its historical
implications better than vs. 10 does. On the other hand, after the general allusions in
vs. 9 we would expect the more general statement of vs. 10a rather than the single
allusion to Samaria in vs. 11a. Commentators have usually ignored the incongruity (cf.
Gesenius, Hitzig, Ewald, Bredenkamp, Delitzsch, Skinner, Whitehouse, and even Duhm).
Dillmann's attempt to explain it is certainly forced. Cheyne, Marti, Gray, and Wade
call attention to it. Marti seems inclined to take vs. 11 with vs. 9 and to regard vs.
10 as a gloss to vs. 11, but his view is not very convincing. Duhm rejects the verses
mainly on the ground of their thoughts. It is not probable, he claims, that Isaiah
would represent the Assyrian king as referring to the gods of other nations as non-existent.
This is really spoken from the Hebrew point of view (so also Cheyne) .
2 In the present context vss. 10-12 serve to point the moral of vss. 8, 9. But is
this the moral that was originally designed ? Observe that vs. 8 and vs. 9 are not closely
related in thought and do not explain each other. Observe that vs. 9 says expressly
only that certain cities have been destroyed. By itself vs. 9 could be construed as an

182 The American Journal of Semitic Languages
2. Let us next examine the contrast itself which exists between
vss. 5-7a and vs. 76. Just what is the contrast after all ? Here
it is surprising to note the differences of opinion among commenta
tors. It has been found solely in the contrast between chastise
ment, vs. 6, and destruction, vs. 7,1 and Zech. 1:15 and Isa. 47:6
have been adduced as parallels.2 Again it has been found in the
contrast between the one sinning nation, Israel, or Judah or both, and
the many nations.3 But if this is the contrast it is not accurately
expressed. We would expect the phrase "C2553 Nb D^Ij, on which
the contrast turns, to be placed after the first verb T'ifflnb . Hitzig
holds that it must be supplied here in thought, an interesting symp
tom of the doubtfulness of his theory. Finally it has been held
that there was a double contrast, on the one hand, between chastise
ment and destruction, on the other between the sinning nations
and the many nations, impliedly whether they are sinning or not.4
The reasons for these opinions are more interesting than the opinions
themselves. Hitzig limits the antithesis to the contrast between
the sinning nation and the many nations with express rejection of
the theory of Gesenius, because vs. 6 does not mean merely chastisement
illustration of the statement in vss. 5 and 6, especially If vs. 6 were interpreted of destruc
tion. Jahweh sends Assyria against sinning nations (vss. 5 and 6), and note what has
been done already (vs. 9). Observe that in vs. 9 there is probably an implication of a
threat against Jerusalem. The order of the towns is geographical, approaching nearer
and nearer to Jerusalem. Who utters this threat ? Verse 9, taken by itself, could be
uttered by Jahweh (cf. Amos, chap. 1), and vs. 11 might then be construed as its con
tinuation and also uttered by Jahweh, though the style must still be admitted to be
suspicious. If, however, vs. 8 is retained, the speaker is undoubtedly the Assyrian
king. In that case vss. 8 and 9 are more probably a parallel to vss. 13-15. Hence it
is possible that the original intention was not to convey a threat against Jerusalem,
but the cities mentioned in vs. 9 are mentioned only because they happened to have
been already captured at the time these verses were spoken. On this view they would
furnish the terminus a quo of the prophecy. Verses 8 and 9 have every appearance of
being a fragment, and it is impossible to say now just what their original meaning may
have been.
i So Gesenius and after him a large number of scholars, e.g., Bredenkamp, White-
house, Staerk (p. 90), Wade.
'' Gesenius. Wade.
' So Hitzig, and so apparently Cheyne, Delitzsch, Guthe, (p. 47) ; Kiichler, Die
Stellung des Propheten Jesaja zur Polilik seiner Zeit (1906), p. 52.
4 This seems to be the view^ of Ewald, but it is worked out with the greatest for
mality by Dillmann. The TTQUin is to be taken absolutely according to Dillmann, no
object being supplied (against Hitzig) , and is therefore in antithesis to the "spoiling"
in the sense of chastisement. The "nations not a few" is contrasted with the few sin
ning nations (on Dillmann's view Israel and Judah). This theory is followed by Gray
on the supposition that the text is intact, but with the contrast more generally expressed
between any sinning nation and all nations.

The Problem of Isaiah, Chap. 10 183
but destruction. This point has not been sufficiently observed by
any of Hitzig's successors with whom I am acquainted.1 This inter
pretation of vs. 66 receives a remarkable corroboration from 8 : 1-4,
where the name of Isaiah's son contains the identical expressions
which are found in vs. 66. It is passing strange how commentators
have regularly failed to notice this connection. Only Dillmann and
Gray refer to it, but they make no use of their reference. The
point is that "Mahar-shalal-hash-baz" denotes the destruction of
Samaria and Damascus. Isaiah was not thinking simply of chas
tisement when he gave to his son this name of dire import. But
the phrase "to take the spoil and to take the prey" can scarcely
mean destruction when it forms a proper name and merely chastise
ment when it is otherwise used. On the other hand, Dillmann is
quite right as against Hitzig when he points out that vs. 76 is not
adapted to express only the contrast between the sinning nation
and the nations not a few. The instinct of the great majority
of commentators which sees in the juxtaposition of vs. 76 to vss.
5-7a an intention to create a contrast between destruction and
chastisement is sound.
The conclusion from these considerations is obvious. Verse 76
with its intention to express a contrast " between chastisement and
destruction reflects back the meaning of chastisement upon vs. 66,
a meaning which it cannot properly bear. In other words, the antithe
sis created is a false antithesis, and therefore not a genuine one.
Thus far I have sought to show that vss. 5-12 as they now stand
contain two main ideas: first, the general principle that Jahweh
uses Assyria as a rod of chastisement whereas Assyria seeks to
destroy the nations^ and, second, the specific illustration of this
principle in the case of Jerusalem, according to which Jahweh
proposes only to chastise Jerusalem, whereas Assyria seeks to destroy
it, and hence incurs Jahweh's wrath i^TX). I have next sought to
show that the specific application in vss. 10-12 of the general prin
ciple in vss. 5-7 is, from a literary point of view, very suspicious,
and that the statement of the general principle itself involves a
contrast between vss. 66 and 76 which cannot be regarded as
i It is not brought out even by Duhm and Marti so clearly as by Hitzig, though
they seem to be conscious of it when they suggest the separation of vs. 76 from vs. 7a,
and when Duhm more particularly denies the legitimacy of Zech. 1 : 15 as a parallel.

184 The American Journal of Semitic Languages
original. But it is this contrast which, coupled with the illustra
tion (vss. 10 and 12), expresses the doctrine of the inviolability of
Jerusalem. 3. But what, then, of the third factor in the passage, namely,
the woe (vs. 5a) ? We have seen that this "woe," if attached to
vss. 5-7a and vss. 13-15 alone, does not necessarily imply a deliver
ance of the sinning nations, yet it is admittedly somewhat vague
in its suggestion. On the other hand, when combined with the
false contrast suggested by vs. 76 and the doubtful illustration of
the contrast found in vss. 10-12 it gains a clear meaning. The
natural inference is that if the antithesis and its illustration are
secondary elements in the passage1 the "woe" which receives a
clearly -defined meaning only when combined with these secondary
elements is itself secondary. In that case vs. 5a must have been
originally a nominal sentence.2 If my argument is sound, the sub
ject of the prophecy in its original form was not the contrast between
the plan of Jahweh, which involves chastisement but not destruc
tion, and the plan of Assyria, which aimed at destruction, but the
contrast between two theories of Assyria's conquests. Were these
due to Assyria's own power or to Jahweh's? This was just the
question which would be uppermost in the minds of the people in
Isaiah's day and in the mind of the prophet himself. He answers,
as we would expect him to answer, with an abandon in the expres
sion of his faith which does not wait for proof but implies that it is
sufficient in itself. Jerusalem is to be destroyed by Assyria, but
Assyria is the instrument of Jahweh's judgment.
If the foregoing criticism is found to be valid, the greatest obsta
cle in the way of a unified view of Isaiah's prophecies will have
been eliminated and it will be difficult to prove that Isaiah had
anything directly to do with the creation or confirmation of the
Deuteronomic idea which regards Jerusalem as sacrosanct.
' It is not denied that vss. 76, 8, and 9 may be genuine fragments of Isaiah; only
their originality in the present context is questioned.
2 Could the Sin be a reminiscence of that fact ?

•* Q009 05094