The only point in the prophetic foreknowledge of the second part which really seems to want, not only a historical or ideal foundation, but also altogether corresponding analogies, is the mention of the name of Koresh. But this difficulty disappears if, in strict opposition to the current notion, it is assumed that Cyrus was induced, by our book only, to appropriate to himself that name. Recent investigation has proved that this name is originally not a proper name, but an honorary title,--that the Greek writers rightly explain it by _Sun_,--that the name of the sun was, in the East generally, and especially with the Persians, a common honorary title of rulers; comp. _Bürnouf_ and others in _Hävernick's Einleitung_, ii. 2, S. 165. This honorary title of the Persian kings, Isaiah might very easily learn in a natural way. And the fact that this _Nomen dignitatis_ became, among several others, peculiar to Cyrus (the mention of the name of Koresh by Isaiah does not originally go beyond the announcement of the conqueror from the East) is explained by the circumstance that Cyrus assumed this name in honour of our book, and as an acknowledgment of the mission assigned to him by it, although the Prophet had not used this name in any other manner than Balaam had that of Agag, perhaps with an allusion to its signification; compare the phrases "from the East," "from the rising of the sun," in chap. xli. 2, 25. And it is historically settled and certain, that Cyrus had originally another name, viz., _Agradates_, and that he assumed 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 _Hävernick'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. § 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_, _über 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.