THE TWO ISAIAHS.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXX, Issue 140, 15 June 1896, Page 2

THE TWO ISAIAHS.

To the EniTon op " The Evening Mail.'

Sib,— The Rev. E. C. Isaac does himself much injustice by allowing his enthusiasm for his side of a question to carry him too far. Not long ago, when he told us in a lecture that kings and queens were a luxury the British people could not afford, I suggested in your columns the propriety of building another "Mayflower 1 ' to carry tiie discontented to shores where they would no longer be impoverished by such extravagance, his prompt reply added to the Puritan version of the story the information that the Pilgrim Fathers were cruelly driven from their homes at the point of the bayonet. Here bis enthusiasm led him beyond all bounds, fori as I pointed out at the time, bayonets were not invented until a later date, and could not therefore bave beeu used, Into other inaccuracies his enthusiasm for the so-called " Higher Criticism" causes him to fall. One would think from his letter to you that the opinions be opposes are rejected by all critics skilled in tbe Hebrew language and that nothing can be said to the conjecture that the latter cart of the Book - of Isaiah is not the work of the Prophet Isaiah. But tho impression would be erroneous.

It will be instructive to compare the over-enthusiasm of Mr _ Isaac with the words of one of the critics be ignores. Dr. Stanley Lea'hes, Professor of Hebrew in King's College, London, Bampton Lecturer, 1874, etc., etc., says -. "It has been supposed by many modern critics that the second part is by an unknown writer, etc." Mr Isano is not content with claiming " many modern critics," he must have them all ou his side ; but all are nob to be found there. Dr. Leathes gives to tho view he opposes all the strength it can command' Mr Isaac ignores the views he opposes, and unfairly weakens tbolr true position by the application of the rxtravagant term of " obsolete." Not in that way can truth be reaohed. His letter says a difference of style is discoverable in the book of Isaiah by every intelligent reader. Tbis would not help his argument unless every intelligent reader attribute difference of style necessarily to difference in authorship. Ewald does not commit himself to suoh folly. He- was intelligent enough to dlsoover a difference of style, butdeolared Isaiah notwithstanding to be " the perfect master of every kind of style which the nature of ihe .subjeot requires," But put everything to' the oredit ot style and language tbat has hitherto been discovered by intelligent readers, Dr leathes still is able to say— "The internal evidence of the second part on the score of language iB distinctly in favour of its substantial" unity with the former part," and opposes the " dismembering of the prophet in the ab-

enee of every fragment of external evidence, "—I am, eto,

LOTAETY.

To thb Emtob oj? " **)hb Evening Mail.' Sib.- If « Search and.Look '" will read the article on Isaiah in ttie " Encyolopisdia Britannlca," he can be taught by one of the profoundest of onr orthodox - sobolars to sraroh more deeply and Bee more widely than he has so far succeeded in doing. I make no quotations as the subject is too far-reaching to be treated in your columns ; but I would recommend those interested in it to study the article by tbe Rev. T. K. Cheyne, Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Soriptnre at Oxford, I have named, Yours eto., Made and Leaks, Nelson, June 11.