Isa 19:18-25 | KD | STEP | At first there is only slavish fear; but there is the beginning of a turn to something better. “In that day there will be five cities in the land of Egypt speaking the language of Canaan, and swearing to Jehovah of hosts: 'Ir ha-Heres will one be called.” Five cities are very few for Egypt, which was completely covered with cities; but this is simply a fragmentary commencement of Egypt’s future and complete conversion. The description given of them, as beginning to speak the language of Canaan, i.e., the sacred language of the worship of Jehovah (comp. Zep 3:9), and to give themselves up to Jehovah with vows made on oath, is simply a periphrastic announcement of the conversion of the five cities. ל נשׁבּע (different from בּ נשׁבּע, , as clearly shows) signifies to swear to a person, to promise him fidelity, to give one’s self up to him. One of these five will be called ‛Ir ha - Heres . As this is evidently intended for a proper name, lâ'echât does not mean unicuique , as in Jdg 8:18 and , but uni . It is a customary thing with Isaiah to express the nature of anything under the form of some future name (vid., ; ; ; ). The name in this instance, therefore, must have a distinctive and promising meaning. But what does ‛Ir ha - Heres mean? The Septuagint has changed it into πόλις ἀσεδέκ, equivalent to ‛Ir hazzedek (city of righteousness), possibly in honour of the temple in the Heliopolitan nomos , which was founded under Ptolemaeus Philometor about 160 b.c., during the Syrian reign of terror, by Onias IV, son of the high priest Onias III, who emigrated to Egypt. Maurer in his Lexicon imagines that he has found the true meaning, when he renders it “city of rescue;” but the progressive advance from the meaning “to pull off' to that of “setting free” cannot be established in the case of the verb hâras ; in fact, hâras does not mean to pull off or pull out, but to pull down. Heres cannot have any other meaning in Hebrew than that of “destruction.” But as this appears unsuitable, it is more natural to read ‛Ir ha - cheres (which is found in some codices, though in opposition to the Masora). This is now generally rendered “city of protection” (Rosenmüller, Ewald, Knobel, and Meier), as being equivalent to an Arabic word signifying divinitus protecta . But such an appeal to the Arabic is contrary to all Hebrew usage, and is always a very precarious loophole. ‛Ir ha - cheres would mean “city of the sun” ( cheres as in and Jdg 14:18), as the Talmud in the leading passage concerning the Onias temple (in b. Menahoth 110 a ) thinks that even the received reading may be understood in accordance with , and says “it is a description of the sun.” “Sun-city” was really the name of one of the most celebrated of the old Egyptian cities, viz., Heliopolis , the city of the sun-god Ra , which was situated to the north-east of Memphis, and is called On in other passages of the Old Testament. Ezekiel ( ) alters this into Aven , for the purpose of branding the idolatry of the city. But this alteration of the well-attested text is a mistake; and the true explanation is, that Ir - hahares is simply used with a play upon the name Ir - hacheres . This is the explanation given by the Targum: “Heliopolis, whose future fate will be destruction.” But even if the name is intended to have a distinctive and promising meaning, it is impossible to adopt the explanation given by Luzzatto, “a city restored from the ruins;” for the name points to destruction, not to restoration. Moreover, Heliopolis never has been restored since the time of its destruction, which Strabo dates as far back as the Persian invasion. There is nothing left standing now out of all its monuments but one granite obelisk: they are all either destroyed, or carried away, like the so-called “Cleopatra’s Needle,” or sunk in the soil of the Nile (Parthey on Plutarch, de Iside , p. 162). This destruction cannot be the one intended. But hâras is the word commonly used to signify the throwing down of heathen altars (Jdg 6:25; 1Ki 18:30; 1Ki 19:10, 1Ki 19:14); and the meaning of the prophecy may be, that the city which had hitherto been ‛Ir - ha - cheres , the chief city of the sun-worship, would become the city of the destruction of idolatry, as Jeremiah prophesies in , “Jehovah will break in pieces the obelisks of the sun-temple in the land of Egypt.” Hence Herzfeld’s interpretation: “ City of demolished Idols ”. It is true that in this case ha - heres merely announces the breaking up of the old, and does not say what new thing will rise upon the ruins of the old; but the context leaves no doubt as to this new thing, and the one-sided character of the description is to be accounted for from the intentional play upon the actual name of that one city out of the five to which the prophet gives especial prominence. With this interpretation - for which indeed we cannot pretend to find any special confirmation in the actual fulfilment in the history of the church, and, so to speak, the history of missions - the train of thought in the prophet’s mind which led to the following groove of promises is a very obvious one.

‏ Isaiah 19:18-25

At first there is only slavish fear; but there is the beginning of a turn to something better. “In that day there will be five cities in the land of Egypt speaking the language of Canaan, and swearing to Jehovah of hosts: 'Ir ha-Heres will one be called.” Five cities are very few for Egypt, which was completely covered with cities; but this is simply a fragmentary commencement of Egypt’s future and complete conversion. The description given of them, as beginning to speak the language of Canaan, i.e., the sacred language of the worship of Jehovah (comp. Zep 3:9), and to give themselves up to Jehovah with vows made on oath, is simply a periphrastic announcement of the conversion of the five cities. ל נשׁבּע (different from בּ נשׁבּע, Isa 65:16, as Isa 45:23 clearly shows) signifies to swear to a person, to promise him fidelity, to give one’s self up to him. One of these five will be called ‛Ir ha-Heres. As this is evidently intended for a proper name, lâ'echât does not mean unicuique, as in Jdg 8:18 and Eze 1:6, but uni. It is a customary thing with Isaiah to express the nature of anything under the form of some future name (vid., Isa 4:3; Isa 32:5; Isa 61:6; Isa 62:4). The name in this instance, therefore, must have a distinctive and promising meaning.

But what does ‛Ir ha-Heres mean? The Septuagint has changed it into πόλις ἀσεδέκ, equivalent to ‛Ir hazzedek (city of righteousness), possibly in honour of the temple in the Heliopolitan nomos, which was founded under Ptolemaeus Philometor about 160 b.c., during the Syrian reign of terror, by Onias IV, son of the high priest Onias III, who emigrated to Egypt. ^{▼▼See Frankel on this Egyptian auxiliary temple, in his Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1852, p. 273ff.; Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, iii. 460ff., 557ff.; and Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, iii. 36ff.}

Maurer in his Lexicon imagines that he has found the true meaning, when he renders it “city of rescue;” but the progressive advance from the meaning “to pull off' to that of “setting free” cannot be established in the case of the verb hâras; in fact, hâras does not mean to pull off or pull out, but to pull down. Heres cannot have any other meaning in Hebrew than that of “destruction.” But as this appears unsuitable, it is more natural to read ‛Ir ha-cheres (which is found in some codices, though in opposition to the Masora). ^{▼▼But no Greek codex has the reading πόλις ἀχερές (see Holmes-Parsons’ V. T. Graecum c. var. lect. t. iv. on this passage), as the Complutensian has emended it after the Vulgate (see the Vocabluarium Hebr. 37 a, belonging to the Complutensian).}

This is now generally rendered “city of protection” (Rosenmüller, Ewald, Knobel, and Meier), as being equivalent to an Arabic word signifying divinitus protecta. But such an appeal to the Arabic is contrary to all Hebrew usage, and is always a very precarious loophole. ‛Ir ha-cheres would mean “city of the sun” (cheres as in Job 9:7 and Jdg 14:18), as the Talmud in the leading passage concerning the Onias temple (in b. Menahoth 110 a) thinks that even the received reading may be understood in accordance with Job 9:7, and says “it is a description of the sun.” “Sun-city” was really the name of one of the most celebrated of the old Egyptian cities, viz., Heliopolis, the city of the sun-god Ra, which was situated to the north-east of Memphis, and is called On in other passages of the Old Testament. Ezekiel (Eze 30:17) alters this into Aven, for the purpose of branding the idolatry of the city. ^{▼▼Heliopolis answers to the sacred name Pe - ra, house of the sun-god (like Pe - Ramesses, house of Ramses), which was a name borne by the city that was at other times called On (old Egyptian anu). Cyrill, however, explains even the latter thus, Ὤν δέ ἐστι κατ ̓ αὐτοὺς ὁ ἤλιος (“On, according to their interpretation, is the sun”), which is so far true according to Lauth, that Ain, Oin, Oni, signifies the eye as an emblem of the sun; and from this, the tenth month, which marks the return of the sun to the equinoctial point, derives its name of Pa-oni, Pa-one, Pa-uni. It may possibly be with reference to this that Heliopolis is called Ain es-sems in Arabic (see Arnold, Chrestom. Arab. p. 56 s.). Edrisi (iii. 3) speaks of this Ain es-sems as “the country-seat of Pharaoh, which may God curse;” just as Bin el-Faraun is a common expression of contempt, which the Arabs apply to the Coptic fellahs.}

But this alteration of the well-attested text is a mistake; and the true explanation is, that Ir-hahares is simply used with a play upon the name Ir-hacheres. This is the explanation given by the Targum: “Heliopolis, whose future fate will be destruction.” But even if the name is intended to have a distinctive and promising meaning, it is impossible to adopt the explanation given by Luzzatto, “a city restored from the ruins;” for the name points to destruction, not to restoration. Moreover, Heliopolis never has been restored since the time of its destruction, which Strabo dates as far back as the Persian invasion. There is nothing left standing now out of all its monuments but one granite obelisk: they are all either destroyed, or carried away, like the so-called “Cleopatra’s Needle,” or sunk in the soil of the Nile (Parthey on Plutarch, de Iside, p. 162). This destruction cannot be the one intended. But hâras is the word commonly used to signify the throwing down of heathen altars (Jdg 6:25; 1Ki 18:30; 1Ki 19:10, 1Ki 19:14); and the meaning of the prophecy may be, that the city which had hitherto been ‛Ir-ha-cheres, the chief city of the sun-worship, would become the city of the destruction of idolatry, as Jeremiah prophesies in Isa 43:13, “Jehovah will break in pieces the obelisks of the sun-temple in the land of Egypt.” Hence Herzfeld’s interpretation: “City of demolished Idols”. It is true that in this case ha-heres merely announces the breaking up of the old, and does not say what new thing will rise upon the ruins of the old; but the context leaves no doubt as to this new thing, and the one-sided character of the description is to be accounted for from the intentional play upon the actual name of that one city out of the five to which the prophet gives especial prominence. With this interpretation - for which indeed we cannot pretend to find any special confirmation in the actual fulfilment in the history of the church, and, so to speak, the history of missions - the train of thought in the prophet’s mind which led to the following groove of promises is a very obvious one. Isa 19:19-20

The allusion to the sun-city, which had become the city of destruction, led to the mazzeboth or obelisks (see Jer 43:13), which were standing there on the spot where Ra was worshipped. “In that day there stands an altar consecrated to Jehovah in the midst of the land of Egypt, and an obelisk near the border of the land consecrated to Jehovah. And a sign and a witness for Jehovah of hosts is this in the land of Egypt: when they cry to Jehovah for oppressors, He will send them a helper and champion, and deliver them.” This is the passage of Isaiah (not v. 18) to which Onias IV appealed, when he sought permission of Ptolemaeus Philometor to build a temple of Jehovah in Egypt. He built such a temple in the nomos of Heliopolis, 180 stadia (22 1/2 miles) to the north-east of Memphis (Josephus, Bell. vii. 10, 3), and on the foundation and soil of the ὀχύρωμα in Leontopolis, which was dedicated to Bubastis (Ant. xiii. 3, 1, 2). ^{▼▼We are acquainted with two cities called Leontopolis, viz., the capital of the nomos called by its name, which was situated between the Busiritic and the Tanitic nomoi; and a second between Herōōn-poils and Magdōlon (see Brugsch, Geogr. i. 262). The Leontopolis of Josephus, however, must have been another, or third. It may possibly have derived its name, as Lauth conjectures, from the fact that the goddess Bast (from which comes Boubastos, House of Bast) was called Pacht when regarded in her destructive character (Todtenbuch, 164, 12). The meaning of the name is “lioness,” and, as her many statues show, she was represented with a lion’s head. At the same time, the boundaries of the districts fluctuated, and the Heliopolitan Leontopolis of Josephus may have originally belonged to the Bubastic district.}

This temple, which was altogether unlike the temple of Jerusalem in its outward appearance, being built in the form of a castle, and which stood for more than two hundred years (from 160 b.c. to a.d. 71, when it was closed by command of Vespasian), was splendidly furnished and much frequented; but the recognition of it was strongly contested both in Palestine and Egypt. It was really situated “in the midst of the land of Egypt.” But it is out of the question to seek in this temple for the fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah, from the simple fact that it was by Jews and for Jews that it was erected. And where, in that case, would the obelisk be, which, as Isaiah prophesies, was to stand on the border of Egypt, i.e., on the side towards the desert and Canaan? The altar was to be “a sign” ('oth) that there were worshippers of Jehovah in Egypt; and the obelisk a “witness” (‛ēd) that Jehovah had proved Himself, to Egypt’s salvation, to be the God of the gods of Egypt. And now, if they who erected this place of worship and this monument cried to Jehovah, He would show Himself ready to help them; and they would no longer cry in vain, as they had formerly done to their own idols (Isa 19:3). Consequently it is the approaching conversion of the native Egyptians that is here spoken of. The fact that from the Grecian epoch Judaism became a power in Egypt, is certainly not unconnected with this. But we should be able to trace this connection more closely, if we had any information as to the extent to which Judaism had then spread among the natives, which we do know to have been by no means small. The therapeutae described by Philo, which were spread through all the nomoi of Egypt, were of a mixed Egypto-Jewish character (vid., Philo, Opp. ii. p. 474, ed. Mangey). It was a victory on the part of the religion of Jehovah, that Egypt was covered with Jewish synagogues and coenobia even in the age before Christ. And Alexandra was the place where the law of Jehovah was translated into Greek, and thus made accessible to the heathen world, and where the religion of Jehovah created for itself those forms of language and thought, under which it was to become, as Christianity, the religion of the world. And after the introduction of Christianity into the world, there were more than one mazzebah (obelisk) that were met with on the way from Palestine to Egypt, even by the end of the first century, and more than one mizbeach (altar) found in the heart of Egypt itself. The importance of Alexandria and of the monasticism and anachoretism of the peninsula of Sinai and also of Egypt, in connection with the history of the spread of Christianity, is very well known. Isa 19:21-22

When Egypt became the prey of Islam in the year 640, there was already to be seen, at all events in the form of a magnificent prelude, the fulfilment of what the prophet foretells in Isa 19:21, Isa 19:22 : “And Jehovah makes Himself known to the Egyptians, and the Egyptians know Jehovah in that day; and they serve with slain-offerings and meat-offerings, and vow vows to Jehovah, and pay them. And Jehovah smites Egypt, smiting and healing; and if they return to Jehovah, He suffers Himself to be entreated, and heals them.” From that small commencement of five cities, and a solitary altar, and one solitary obelisk, it has now come to this: Jehovah extends the knowledge of Himself to the whole of Egypt ענודע, reflective se cognoscendum dare, or neuter innotescere), and throughout all Egypt there arises the knowledge of God, which soon shows itself in acts of worship. This worship is represented by the prophet, just as we should expect according to the Old Testament view, as consisting in the offering of bleeding and bloodless, or legal and free-will offerings: ועבדוּ, viz., את־יהוה, so that עבד is construed with a double accusative, as in Exo 10:26, cf., Gen 30:29; or it may possibly be used directly in the sense of sacrificing, as in the Phoenician, and like עשׂה in the Thorah; and even if we took it in this sense, it would yield no evidence against Isaiah’s authorship (compare Isa 28:21; Isa 32:17). Egypt, though converted, is still sinful; but Jehovah smites it, “smiting and healing” (nâgoph verâpho', compare 1Ki 20:37), so that in the act of smiting the intention of healing prevails; and healing follows the smiting, since the chastisement of Jehovah leads it to repentance. Thus Egypt is now under the same plan of salvation as Israel (e.g., Lev 26:44; Deu 32:36). Isa 19:23

Asshur, as we already know from Isa 18:1-7, is equally humbled; so that now the two great powers, which have hitherto only met as enemies, meet in the worship of Jehovah, which unites them together. “In that day a road will run from Egypt to Asshur, and Asshur comes into Egypt, and Egypt to Asshur; and Egypt worships (Jehovah)with Asshur.” את is not a sign of the accusative, for there can be no longer any idea of the subjection of Egypt to Asshur: on the contrary, it is a preposition indicating fellowship; and עבדוּ is used in the sense of worship, as in Isa 19:21. Friendly intercourse is established between Egypt and Assyria by the fact that both nations are now converted to Jehovah. The road of communication runs through Canaan. Isa 19:24-25

Thus is the way prepared for the highest point of all, which the prophet foretells in Isa 19:24, Isa 19:25 : “In that day will Israel be the third part to Egypt and Asshur, a blessing in the midst of the earth, since Jehovah of hosts blesseth them thus: Blessed be thou, my people Egypt; and thou Asshur, the work of my hands; and thou Israel, mine inheritance.” Israel is added to the covenant between Egypt and Asshur, so that it becomes a tripartite covenant in which Israel forms the “third part” (sheilshiyyâh, tertia pars, like ‛ası̄ryyâh, decima pars, in Isa 6:13). Israel has now reached the great end of its calling - to be a blessing in “the midst of the earth” (b'kereb hâ'âretz, in the whole circuit of the earth), all nations being here represented by Egypt and Assyria. Hitherto it had been only to the disadvantage of Israel to be situated between Egypt and Assyria. The history of the Ephraimitish kingdom, as well as that of Judah, clearly proves this. If Israel relied upon Egypt, it deceived itself, and was deceived; and if it relied on Assyria, it only became the slave of Assyria, and had Egypt for a foe. Thus Israel was in a most painful vise between the two great powers of the earth, the western and the eastern powers. But how will all this be altered now! Egypt and Assyria become one in Jehovah, and Israel the third in the covenant. Israel is lo longer the only nation of God, the creation of God, the heir of God; but all this applies to Egypt and Assyria now, as well as to Israel. To give full expression to this, Israel’s three titles of honour are mixed together, and each of the three nations receives one of the choice names - nachali, “my inheritance,” being reserved for Israel, as pointing back to its earliest history. This essential equalization of the heathen nations and Israel is no degradation to the latter. For although from this time forward there is to be no essential difference between the nations in their relation to God, it is still the God of Israel who obtains this universal recognition, and the nation of Israel that has become, according to the promise, the medium of blessing to the world.

Thus has the second half of the prophecy ascended step by step from salvation to salvation, as the first descended step by step from judgment to judgment. The culminating point in Isa 19:25 answers to the lowest point in Isa 19:15. Every step in the ascending half is indicated by the expression “in that day.” Six times do we find this sign-post to the future within the limits of Isa 19:16-25. This expression is almost as characteristic of Isaiah as the corresponding expression, “Behold, the days come” (hinneh yâm bâ'im), is of Jeremiah (compare, for example, Isa 7:18-25). And it is more particularly in the promising or Messianic portions of the prophecy that it is so favourite an introduction (Isa 11:10-11; Isa 12:1; compare Zech). Nevertheless, the genuineness of Isa 19:16-25 has recently been called in question, more especially by Hitzig. Sometimes this passage has not been found fanatical enough to have emanated from Isaiah, i.e., too free from hatred towards the heathen; whereas, on the other hand, Knobel adduces evidence that the prophet was no fanatic at all. Sometimes it is too fanatical; in reply to which we observe, that there never was a prophet of God in the world who did not appear to a “sound human understanding” to be beside himself, since, even assuming that this human understanding be sound, it is only within the four sides of its own peculiar province that it is so. Again, in Isa 19:18, Isa 19:19, a prophecy has been discovered which is too special to be Isaiah’s, in opposition to which Knobel proves that it is not so special as is supposed. But it is quite special enough; and this can never astonish any one who can discern in the prophecy a revelation of the future communicated by God, whereas in itself it neither proves nor disproves the authorship of Isaiah. So far as the other arguments adduced against the genuineness are concerned, they have been answered exhaustively by Caspari, in a paper which he contributed on the subject to the Lutherische Zeitschrift, 1841, 3. Hävernick, in his Introduction, has not been able to do anything better than appropriate the arguments adduced by Caspari. And we will not repeat for a third time what has been said twice already. The two halves of the prophecy are like the two wings of a bird. And it is only through its second half that the prophecy becomes the significant centre of the Ethiopic and Egyptian trilogy. For chapter 19 predicts the saving effect that will be produced upon Egypt by the destruction of Assyria. And Isa 19:23. announces what will become of Assyria. Assyria will also pass through judgment to salvation. This eschatological conclusion to chapter 19, in which Egypt and Assyria are raised above themselves into representatives of the two halves of the heathen world, is the golden clasp which connects chapters 19 and Isa 20:1-6. We now turn to this third portion of the trilogy, which bears the same relation to chapter 19 as Isa 16:13-14 to Isaiah 15-16:12. In passing to our exposition of the book, the first thing which strikes us is its traditional title - Yeshaiah (Isaiah). In the book itself, and throughout the Old Testament Scriptures, the prophet is called Yeshayahu; and the shorter form is found in the latest books as the name of other persons. It was a common thing in the very earliest times for the shorter forms of such names to be used interchangeably with the longer; but in later times the shorter was the only form employed, and for this reason it was the one adopted in the traditional title. The name is a compound one, and signifies “Jehovah’s salvation.” The prophet was conscious that it was not merely by accident that he bore this name; for ישׁע (he shall save) and ישׁוּעה (salvation) are among his favourite words. It may be said, in fact, that he lived and moved altogether in the coming salvation, which was to proceed from Jehovah, and would be realized hereafter, when Jehovah should come at last to His people as He had never come before. This salvation was the goal of the sacred history (Heilsgeschichte, literally, history of salvation); and Jehovah was the peculiar name of God in relation to that history. It denotes “the existing one,” not however “the always existing,” i.e., eternal, as Bunsen and the Jewish translators render it, but “existing evermore,” i.e., filling all history, and displaying His glory therein in grace and truth. The ultimate goal of this historical process, in which God was ever ruling as the absolutely free One, according to His own self-assertion in Exo 3:14, was true and essential salvation, proceeding outwards from Israel, and eventually embracing all mankind. In the name of the prophet the tetragrammaton יהוה is contracted into יהו (יה) by the dropping of the second ה. We may easily see from this contraction that the name of God was pronounced with an a sound, so that it was either called Yahveh, or rather Yahaveh, or else Yahvâh, or rather Yahavâh. According to Theodoret, it was pronounced ̓Ιαβε (Yahaveh) by the Samaritans; and it is written in the same way in the list of the names of the Deity given in Epiphanius. That the ah sound was also a customary pronunciation, may not only be gathered from such names as Jimnah, Jimrah, Jishvah, Jishpah (compare Jithlah, the name of a place), but is also expressly attested by the ancient variations, Jao, Jeuo, Jo (Jer 23:6, lxx), on the one hand, and on the other hand by the mode of spelling adopted by Origen (Jaoia) and Theodoret (Aia, not only in quaest, in Ex. §15, but also in Fab. haeret. “Aia signifies the existing one; it was pronounced thus by Hebrews, but the Samaritans call it Jabai, overlooking the force of the word”). The dull-sounding long a could be expressed by omega quite as well as by alpha. Isidor follows these and similar testimonies, and says (Orig. vii. 7), “The tetragrammaton consisted of ia written twice (iaia), and with this reduplication it constituted the unutterable and glorious name of God.” The Arabic form adopted by the Samaritans leaves it uncertain whether it is to be pronounced Yahve or Yahva. They wrote to Job Ludolf (in the Epistola Samaritana Sichemitarum tertia, published by Bruns, 1781), in opposition to the statement of Theodoret, that they pronounced the last syllable with damma; that is to say, they pronounced the name Yahavoh (Yahvoh), which was the form in which it was written in the last century by Velthusen, and also by Muffi in his Disegno di lezioni e di ricerche sulla lingua Ebraica (Pavia, 1792). The pronunciation Jehovah (Yehovah) arose out of a combination of the Keri and the chethib, and has only become current since the time of the Reformation. Genebrard denounces it in his Commentary upon the Psalms with the utmost vehemence, in opposition to Beza, as an intolerable innovation. “Ungodly violators of what is most ancient,” he says, “profaning and transforming the unutterable name of God, would read Jova or Jehova - a new, barbarous, fictitious, and irreligious word, that savours strongly of the Jove of the heathen.” Nevertheless his Jehova (Jova) forced its way into general adoption, and we shall therefore retain it, notwithstanding the fact that the o sound is decidedly wrong. To return, then: the prophet’s name signifies “Jehovah’s salvation.” In the Septuagint it is always written ̔Ησαΐ̀ας, with a strong aspirate; in the Vulgate it is written Isaias, and sometimes Esaias.

In turning from the outward to the inward title, which is contained in the book itself, there are two things to be observed at the outset: (1.) The division of the vv. indicated by soph pasuk is an arrangement for which the way was prepared as early as the time of the Talmud, and which was firmly established in the Masoretic schools; and consequently it reaches as far back as the extreme limits of the middle ages - differing in this respect from the division of vv. in the New Testament. The arrangement of the chapters, however, with the indications of the separate sections of the prophetic collection, is of no worth to us, simply because it is not older than the thirteenth century. According to some authorities, it originated with Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury († 1227); whilst others attribute it to Cardinal Hugo of St. Caro († 1262). It is only since the fifteenth century that it has been actually adopted in the text. (2.) The small ring or star at the commencement points to the footnote, which affirms that Isaiah 1:1-28 (where we find the same sign again) was the haphtarah, or concluding pericope, taken from the prophets, which was read on the same Sabbath as the parashah from the Pentateuch, in Deu 1:1. It was, as we shall afterwards see, a very thoughtful principle of selection which led to the combination of precisely these two lessons.