ssumed this name only at the time of his ascending the throne,
which falls into the time when the prophecies of our book could already
be known to him (comp. the [Pg 193] proofs in _Haevernick's Einleit._)
And as it is farther certain that the prophecies of our book made a
deep impression upon him, and, in important points, exercised an
influence upon his actions (this appears not only from the express
statement of _Josephus_, [Arch. xi. c. 1. Sec. 1, 2,] but still more from
an authentic document, the Edict of Cyrus, in Ezra i. 1 ff., which so
plainly implies the fact reported by _Josephus_, that _Jahn_ rightly
called _Josephus'_ statement a commentary on this Edict, which refers,
_partly_ with literal accuracy, to a series of passages from the second
part of Isaiah, compare the particulars in _Kleinert_, _ueber die
Echtheit des Jesaias_, S. 142);--as the condition of the Persian
religion likewise confirms this result gained from the Edict of Cyrus
(_Stuhr_, _die Religionssysteme des alten Orients_, S. 373 ff., proves
that in the time of Cyrus, and by him, an Israelitish element had been
introduced into it);--there will certainly not be any reason to
consider our supposition to be improbable, or the result of
embarrassment.

But to this circumstance we must still direct attention, that those
prophetic announcements of the second part which have reference to that
which, even at the time of "the great unknown," still belonged to the
future, are far more distinct, and can far less be accounted for from
natural causes, than those from which rationalistic criticism has drawn
inferences as regards the spuriousness of the second part. The personal
Messianic prophecies of the second part are much more characteristic
than those concerning Cyrus. He who cannot, by the help of history,
supplement and illustrate the prophecy, receives only an incomplete and
defective image of the latter. And, indeed, a sufficiently long time
elapsed before even Exegesis recognised with certainty and unanimity
that it was Cyrus who was meant. Doubts and differences of opinion on
this point meet us even down to last century. The Medes and Persians
are not at all mentioned as the conquerors of Babylon, and all which
refers to the person of Cyrus has an altogether ideal character; while
the Messiah is, especially in chap. liii., so distinctly drawn, that
scarcely any essential feature in His image is omitted. And it is
altogether a matter of course tha