and Persians.

.paronomasia name and man שֵׁם וּשְׁאָר

some interpret enemies; but cities seems to be the more natural rendering, and accords with the previous clause. VERSES 22, 23. Jehovah denounces utter destruction. The Babylonians shall be cut off, root and branch. Dat. incommodi. , offspring and offshoot. The ruined city shall serve as a dwelling for the porcupine, Zeph. 2: 11. "Pools of water." Marshy, overflowed by the Euphrates; after the river has retired, stagnant pools of water abound. "Besom," lit. "I will besom her with the besom." The verb is denom. from mud; swept clean, utterly destroyed. Damir, quoted by Bochart, says expressly, that the hedge-hog was frequently found in Syria and Irak, and was of the size of a Maltese dog. According to Nearchus, in Strabo, 16. 1, they were numerous in the islands of the Euphrates.

Author of the Passage.

Most of the later German critics maintain that this section was not composed by Isaiah. The grounds of this opinion, as stated by Knobel, follow:

1. "The subject. The writer speaks of a mighty Babylonian monarchy, under whose oppression the Jewish exiles languished, as a matter of the past and present; he sees the overthrow of this empire and the release of the exiles as near; he names the Medes as conquerors of Babylon. All this does not agree with Isaiah, who has constantly to do with the Assyrian monarchy, and at most could only predict a Babylonian empire as to arise from the Assyrian, and thence dangerous to the Jews."

In reply, we object to the method of these critics, who first reject the largest portion of the prophecies, which go under the name of Isaiah, as not genuine; and thus, when we are considering the genuineness of one of the remaining sections, shut us out from all opportunity of collation and comparison, except in exceedingly narrow limits. The last twenty-seven chapters are not genuine, it is said, because they contain many words and phrases which are not in Isaiah's genuine productions. But if it be shown that the style is similar to that of chs. xiii. and xiv., it is very convenient to reply that those chapters are anonymous. But, allowing that Isaiah limits his view to the Assyrian monarchy mainly, does this preclude him from uttering special predictions against Babylon? Why should Babylon be passed by, any more than Tyre, Egypt, or Ethiopia? The twenty-third chapter contains a prophecy against Tyre, the author being Isaiah, according to Knobel's confession; and the captor of it is evidently Nebuchad

1849.]

Isaiah the Author.

781

nezzar, as most modern critics allow; for Shalmanezer, though he besieged it, did not take it. Secondly, Isaiah did predict the overthrow of Judah by the Babylonians, 2 K. 20: 16—19, "all shall be carried into Babylon," etc. So that Isaiah has something to do with Babylon. Thirdly. He paints, indeed, the overthrow of Babylon, and the release of the Jews, as near. But this is in conformity with the nature of prophecy, and of the manner of Isaiah in particular. The Messianic times, ch. ix., are represented as present.

2. "Spirit and Views. The author is full of bitter hatred and of glowing revenge against the Babylonians. He feeds with delight, in the outset, on their terrible destruction; and he paints with pleasure, how Babylon shall forever be a heap of ruins, uninhabited, its king lying unburied. But such a degree of fanaticism is foreign to Isaiah, and betrays one suffering under Babylonian oppression, and in general the later period, when this fanatical spirit specially prevailed as the result of longer oppression," etc.

Such objections, of course, proceed on the ground that a prophet, in delivering his message, is, at the same time, indulging his private pique, and may be a fanatic or an enthusiast. The objection really deserves no answer. But is it not conceivable that the people of God, as well as other nations, had suffered for a long time, extraordinary oppression, at the hands of the Babylonians? And might it not consist with the justice of God, to denounce severe calamities, even to annihilation, against a proud and impious oppressor? The deeper feeling and the more terrible anathema, were justified by the circumstances. But the same fearlessness in delivering his message, the same spirit of denunciation in substance, characterize the prophet elsewhere, in relation to Syria, the Ten Tribes, Tyre, etc. If the spirit of the one is unjustifiable, so is that of the other. Knobel seems to forget that there may be several aspects and even opposite tendencies in the character of a great prophet. "The man of sorrows" uttered terrible denunciations.

3. "Style and language. The style has not only no characteristic peculiarities of the style of Isaiah - being in general far more flowing, smooth, and facile it also contains many expressions which are only to be met with in the later writers." But is the style more unlike that of the portions of Isaiah which are acknowledged to be genuine, than is that of ch. xviii.? In seven verses, in the latter, there are at least twelve words and phrases not found elsewhere, in what are said to be the oracles of this prophet. Is it asserted that the

,הָלְאָה, מוֹרָט, מִמְשָׁךְ,,in the sense of messengers צִירִים, צִלְצַל 1

new topic in ch. xviii. requires a new style? Why is not the same remark applicable to chapters xiii. and xiv.? Besides, there is a wonderful variety in the diction and manner of this prophet, in those portions which our critics acknowledge to have been written by him. Compare the smooth, flowing, elevated style of 2: 1-5 with the short, abrupt, impetuous diction in 10: 28–34.

4. "This is confirmed by the frequent coincidences of this author with the later prophets." But there are striking coincidences in those portions which are confessedly genuine, with passages in other prophets. Compare Isa. 2: 1-5 with Mic. 4: 1-5; Isa. 7: 14. 9:6 with Mich. 5: 2, 3; Isa. 5: 1–7 with Ps. 80: 8-16 and Ez. 17.

In short, we see no adequate reasons for rejecting the genuineness of this passage. The arguments adduced by the opponents are mainly subjective.

Rule of Interpretation.

In the prophecy and in the mode of its fulfilment, we are taught that we are not to descend to minute particulars in order to justify the words of the seer. Cyrus took Babylon, but did not destroy it. It was a flourishing city for many years afterwards. Even now Hillah, probably on the site of the ruins, is a city of considerable size and of some prosperity. In such cases, we are to look at general results, or at the spirit of the passage. Viewed in this manner, the prediction has been followed by a most signal accomplishment.

Note on Babylon.

Babylon was taken by Cyrus B. C. 539. It was not destroyed, nor essentially injured. The walls remained entire. On the contrary, Cyrus determined to make it his winter-residence, and, after Susa and Ecbatana, the third city of his empire. It was not till the insurrection of the Babylonians, in the reign of Darius Hystaspes, that the walls and gates were demolished, and the city so depopulated that women were forcibly taken from the neighboring districts to aid in repeopling it. Xerxes carried off the golden statue of Belus, and, according to some, caused the destruction of the temple of that god. The design of Alexander, to rebuild the city, was broken off by his death. The building of Seleucia, in the vicinity, still further depopulated Babylon. About 130 B. C. it was ravaged by the Parthian satraps. At the time of Diodorus and Strabo, the greater part of the city within the walls was a waste. According to Curtius, only a fourth in the sense most mighty,, ny, pb, b-bibi, ory, .

, קַו קָר

1849.]

Ruins of Babylon.

783

part was inhabited. Jerome, from the report of a Persian monk, states that it was a hunting-ground of the Persian kings, and that the walls were, from time to time, repaired in order to confine the beasts. The reports of Benjamin of Tudela, Rauwulf, and Della Valle, in relation to the ruins, are not important. They were first thoroughly investigated by Claudius James Rich, the British resident at Baghdad, who communicated the results in his "Memoirs on the Ruins of Babylon," 3d edition, London, 1818. In place of one of the most flourishing cities of the world, there is now found only a gigantic mass of ruins, in the vicinity of Hillah, a town of six or seven thousand inhabitants, 32 deg. 38 min. N. Lat., on the east bank of the Euphrates, forty-eight miles from Baghdad. The ruins begin nine miles east and five north of Hillah. They consist of heaps and hillocks of burnt and unburnt tiles and bricks, the greater part reduced to earth, mostly on the east side of the river. On this side, they are bounded by three walls of earth and by the river, and form a kind of parallelogram. They consist of three principal groups, which, without any trees, rise between one and two hundred feet above the Euphrates. On the northernmost part are the great ruins, which the Arabs name Mukallibé, considered by Rennell as the tower of Belus; an oblong, 274 yards on its northern side, 256 on its south, 226 on its east, and 240 on its west, and its greatest height 139 feet. It is the abode of various kinds of wild beasts, porcupines, owls, etc.; and, as the natives say, of satyrs and wood-demons. The second great ruin is one mile south, called by the Arabs El Kasr, the fortress. It consists of many walls, and pillars, and subterranean courses. No trace of the city wall remains. The most important ruin is on the west side of the river, about six miles south-west of Hillah, and is considered by Niebuhr and Rich as the remains of the tower of Belus. The Arabs call it Birs Nimroud. The ruins form a hill, entirely of bricks, in an oblong form, 762 yards in circumference. On the west side, it is from fifty to sixty feet high; on the east it rises, in a conical form, 198 feet. The ruins are imposing, simply by their colossal greatness, not by their beauty. The most beautiful portions were taken to build Seleucia and Ctesiphon.

In Jan. 1835, the ruins were visited by James Baillie Fraser, the well known British traveller. "The Mukallibé," he says, "is now but a mass of crumbled and crumbling bricks, both raw and fire-baked, mingled with the usual débris of pottery, glass, and slag, in a confusion worthy of its name, which means "the overturned." Indeed, so completely have the form and structure of this remarkable mass been destroyed by time, and season, and the hand of man, that, to a passing 1 Mignon, who says he measured them carefully.

observer like myself, it seems vain to conjecture, with any hope of correctness, at its former shape, extent, or uses. On the top, a multitude of mounds and canals can be seen, on all sides, as far as the eye can reach. Hillah is almost lost among the mounds, and is chiefly discernible from its date-tree groves." "Whatever beauty or splendor there may have been in the original fabric of El Kasr, it is now buried in ignoble heaps of broken bricks and pottery; an utterly shapeless mass of rubbish alone remaining, cut into numberless ravines, and dug into great holes, in both of which the hands of the Arabs have assisted the effects of the weather. There are indeed, remaining erect, some fragments of walls, composed of most exquisite brick-work, so firmly cemented together, that it is almost impossible to separate the bricks one from another." "On nearer approach you discover that this supposed earthen mound," the Birs, "is in reality a mass of sun-dried bricks, mingled with fragments of kiln-burned bricks, of various colors, yellow and red, out of which protrudes a lofty mass of the most exquisite brick-masonry possible." "The top and sides are covered with the débris, that ages have caused to moulder down, leaving only the corners of the brick-work, here and there, peeping out. There is hardly a particle of vegetation on these ruins. The whole amount of bushes and herbage consists of no more than a few salsuginous plants, or a bit of tamarisk on the side of a canal."

In 1840, Mr. Wellsted, author of Travels in Arabia, published in two volumes, in London, "Travels to the city of the caliphs, along the shores of the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean." The first part of the work is made up of a recital of the adventures of Lieut. Ormsby of the Indian navy. Some were verbally detailed to Mr. W, others were given in fragments of manuscripts. In the visit of Lieut. O. to Hillah and the ruins of Babylon, there is nothing particularly important. He gives the width of the Euphrates, as it flows through Hillah, at 385 ft. Its depth, in mid-channel (he does not state the month), at 4 fathoms, and the velocity of its current at 3 miles an hour. "The greater part of El Kasr appears of brick, containing large portions of chopped straw; but it has evidently been cased of those furnace-dried, which are of better quality. In other respects, the mass does not differ in its general appearance, from the Birs." The only living thing is a poor, solitary tamarisk, on the top of the mound. "From the Birs Nimroud to El Hamra is a distance of thirteen miles, forming the diameter of a circle, within which mounds and heaps of ruins are everywhere strown, and of limits not inferior to those assigned by Strabo and other writers." Major Rawlinson inclines to the opinion that Niffer, south of Hillah, may represent the true site of the ancient Baby