ichten_, 1821,
S. 79 ff.) Even at this present time, this kind of explanation is not
altogether obsolete. _Schenkel_ thinks that "the chapter under
consideration may, perhaps, belong to the period of the real Isaiah,
whose language equals that of the description of the Servant of God now
[Pg 326] under consideration, in conciseness and harshness, and may
have been originally a Psalm of consolation in sufferings, which was
composed with a view to the hopeful progeny of some pious man or
prophet innocently killed, and which was rewritten and interpreted by
the author of the book, and embodied in it." _Ewald_ (Proph. ii. S.
407) says: "Farther, the description of the Servant of God is here
altogether very strange, especially v. 8 f., inasmuch as,
notwithstanding all the liveliness with which the author of the book
conceives of Him, He is nowhere else so much and so obviously viewed as
an historical person, as a single individual of the Past. How little
soever the author may have intended it, it was very obvious that the
later generations imagined that they would here find the historical
Messiah. We are therefore of opinion, that the author here inserted a
passage, which appeared to him to be suitable, from an older book where
really a single martyr was spoken of.--It is not likely that the modern
controversy on chap. liii. will ever cease as long as this truth is not
acknowledged;--a truth which quite spontaneously suggested itself, and
impressed itself more and more strongly upon my mind." These are, no
doubt, assertions which cannot be maintained, and are yet of interest,
in so far as they show, how much even those who refuse to acknowledge
it are annoyed by a two-fold truth, viz., that Isaiah is the author of
the prophecy, and that it refers to a personal Messiah.

At all times, however, that explanation which refers the prophecy
to Christ has found able defenders; and at no period has the
anti-Messianic explanation obtained absolute sway. Among the authors of
complete Commentaries on Isaiah, the Messianic explanation was defended
by _Dathe_, _Doederlein_ (who, however, wavers in the last edition of
his translation), _Hensler_, _Lowth_, _Kocher_, _Koppe_, _J. D.
Michaelis_, _v. d. Palm_, _Schmieder_. In addition to these we may
mention: _Storr_, _dissertatio qua Jes. liii. illustratur_, Tuebingen,
1790; _Hansi Comment. in Jes. liii._, Rostock 1791 (this work has
considerably promoted the interpretation, although its aut