[222] For the argument that it is Israel who speaks here, see Hoffmann (_Schriftbeweis_), who was converted from the other view, and Dillmann, 4th ed., _in loco_. A very ingenious attempt has been made by Giesebrecht (_Beiträge zur Jesaia Kritik_, 1890, p. 146 ff.), in favour of the interpretation that the heathen are the speakers. His reasons are these: 1. It is the heathen who are spoken of in lii. 13-15, and a change to Israel would be too sudden. Answer: The heathen are not exclusively spoken of in lii. 13-15; but if they were a change in the next verse to Israel would not be more rapid than some already made by the prophet. 2. The words in liii. 1 suit the heathen. They have already received the news of the exaltation of the Servant, which in lii. 15 was promised them. This is the שמועתינו, that is _news we have just heard_. האמין is a pluperfect of the subjunctive mood: _Who could_ or who _would have believed_ this news of the exaltation _we have_ just _heard, and the arm of Jehovah to whom was it revealed_! _i.e._, it was revealed to nobody. Answer: besides the precariousness of taking האמין as a pluperfect subjunctive, this interpretation is opposed to the general effort of the prophecy, which is to expose unbelief before the exaltation, not after it. 3. To get rid of the argument--that, while the speakers own that the Servant bears their sins, it is said the Servant was stricken for the sins of _my people_, and that therefore the speakers must be the same as "my people":--Giesebrecht would utterly alter the reading of ver. 8 from למו ננע עמו מפשע, _for the transgression of my people was the stroke to him_ to יְנֻנַּע מִפִּשְׁעָם, _for their stroke was he smitten_.