There are arguments used to remove parts of Isaiah from the prophet by that name... using fulfilled prophecy.

> Is. 44:28 "...who says of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt," and of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid.' "

> Is. 45:1 "This is what the LORD says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor, to open doors before him so that gates will not be shut..."

We see these as a prophecy of the Persian king Cyrus - he who sent the Jews home from their Babylonian trials and authorized the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple. This is a remarkably specific prophecy if authentic. How do critics respond?

It all boils down, of course, to a denial of predictive prophecy, and barring recovery of a manuscript dating earlier than Cyrus, all either side can do is stick by their presumptions. Not that some haven't tried to go further; McKenzie, for example, argues:
> That Isaiah...could use the name of a king, in a language unknown to him, who ruled in a kingdom which did not exist...taxes probability too far. It is not a question of placing limits to the vision of prophecy but the limits of intelligibility; even if the name were by hypothesis meaningful to the prophet, it could not be meaningful to his readers or listeners.

But if a revelation had come to me in 1975, "Koresh will cause trouble in Waco," the name would be meaningful neither to me nor to anyone I told about it. The context of the words, as in Isaiah, would tell us that "Koresh" was a proper name of some sort; we might not know the proper name of what specifically (a person? a dog? a battleship?), but it would be quite clear even 20-25 years before the fact that someone or something called "Koresh" was involved.

This would be so even if the prophecy were delivered in 1875; it might have been less clear in, say, 1675, before Waco existed also, but even then, the context would help us ascertain what the word intended.

Problem: In Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1 , Isaiah specifically names Cyrus in connection with the future restoration of Israel and the laying of the foundations of the temple. However, Isaiah conducted his ministry some time between 739 and 681 b.c. , while Cyrus would not even become king of Persia until 539 b.c. That is a period of at least 150 years. How could Isaiah specifically name Cyrus before he even lived?

Solution: This is an instance of supernatural prophecy. Although it was not in the power of Isaiah to look into the future, it is certainly in the power of God who declares “the end from the beginning” ( Isa. 46:10 ). Not only does God know who will come to power, but, “the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomever He chooses” ( Dan. 4:32 ). It is God who sets up kingdoms, and it is God who brings them down. It is no small wonder, then, that God is able to name a king almost 200 years before he takes the throne.

Expanded from Daniel 1:1 .:
Daniel 1:1b—Is the date given here of Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion in contradiction to the date given in Jeremiah 46:2?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Problem: The Book of Daniel begins with the dating of the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim of Judah. However, in Jeremiah 46:2, the date of Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion is given as during the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim of Judah. Which is correct?

Solution: Both statements are correct. The difference is a result of two different calendar systems used by the two prophets. Daniel employed the Tishri (around October) calendar system which was the first month of the new year on the Hebrew calendar. Jeremiah, whose prophecy concerned the coming invasion of the Assyrian armies, employed the calendar of the Assyrians that marked Nisan (around April) as the first month of the new year. Jehoiakim came to the throne in the month of Tishri in 609 b.c. The official reckoning of a king’s first year starts on the first day of the new year, Tishri 1. Since Jehoiakim became king of Judah several days after the first day of the new year, his first official year as king did not begin until the first day of the following year. For Daniel, this meant that Jehoiakim’s first official year began on the first day of Tishri, almost a whole year later. For Jeremiah, this meant that Jehoiakim’s first official year began about six months later on the first day of Nisan.

!

Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion took place in the summer of 605 b.c., between the months of Nisan and Tishri. This means that according to Daniel’s reckoning, it was only the third official year of Jehoiakim’s reign, but according to Jeremiah’s reckoning it was Jehoiakim’s fourth official year as king of Judah.

---