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 that here, in the antitypical deliverance, a much greater clearness and distinctness should prevail; for it stands [Pg 194] in a far closer relation to the idea, so that form and substance do far less disagree. It would be inappropriate were we here to take up and refute all the arguments against the genuineness of the second part, which rationalistic criticism has brought together. Besides those which we have already refuted, we shall bring into view only this argument, which, at first sight indeed, may dazzle and startle even the well-disposed, viz., the difference between the first and second parts, as regards language and mode of representation. The chief error of those who have adduced this argument is, that they judge altogether without reference to person,--a matter, however, quite legitimate in this case,--that they simply apply the same rule to the productions of Isaiah which, in the productions of less richly endowed persons, has indeed a _certain_ right, _e.g._, on the prophetical territory of Jeremiah, who, notwithstanding the difference of subject, yet does not understand so to change his voice, that it should not soon be recognized by the skilled More than of all the prophets that holds true of Isaiah, which _Fichte_, in a letter to a _Königsberg_ friend, writes of himself (in his _Life_, by his son, i. S. 196): "I have properly no style at all, for I have them all." "Just as the subject demands," says _Ewald_, without assigning to the circumstance any weight in judging of the second part, "just as the subject demands, every kind of speech, and every change of style are easily at his command; and it is just this in which here his greatness, as, in general, one of his most