Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SettingDogStar

Deutero-Isaiah question?

Recommended Posts

I apologize if this has been asked before, as am sure it has. However I'm not sure what the best answer or resources would be for getting solving the dilemma.

Is it true that the Book of Mormon has portions of Isaiah that weren't written till after the captivity? If so, is there any good logical explanation for this? It won't crack my belief in the book, but I'm curious. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, tkv said:

See this thread for starters.

Thank You! I think my favorite comment was that the Chapters in question were written by Isaiah but later re-contextualized by the Deutro Isaiah, which is why we see two authors. I don't know how well that works but I like the idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

If the Maxwell Institute links were working properly, I had a section in Paradigms Regained on the Isaiah issue that included a survey of a range of LDS responses up to that time.  I mentioned the big FARMS Volume on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, and Giliadi's arguments, and other things.  I also introduced a new argument based on Barker's The Older Testament, where she argues that the Second Isaiah was the first to declare that Yahweh was El Elyon, arguing, in the wake of the destruction of the Temple, for a strict monotheism.  I observe that none of the chapters making that argument appear in the Book of Mormon, and indeed, the Book of Mormon reflects First Temple Theology throughout.  Nibley and others had noted that the Book of Mormon does not quote Isaiah 1, nor 3rd Isaiah.  I had not yet read Barker's essay on "The Original Setting of the Fourth Servant Song" which gathers evidence that Isaiah 53 was written by Isaiah of Jerusalem, based on Hezekiah's bout with the plague during the seige of Jerusalem.  To date, I have not seen any of those arguing that Isaiah 53 post dates Lehi's departure address, or even mention her essay.

I am really getting bummed about the broken links.  I couldn't find Paradigms Regained at the Scholars Archive.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

So, if I understand this correctly, with your argument only chapters from Jerusalem's Isaiah show up in the Book of Mormon?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I am really getting bummed about the broken links.  I couldn't find Paradigms Regained at the Scholars Archive.

I have been told there were backups so any error/incompleteness in the change can be corrected.  Don't know how long it will take though.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

So, if I understand this correctly, with your argument only chapters from Jerusalem's Isaiah show up in the Book of Mormon?

Basically, though I do quote Jack Welch from Isaiah in the Book of Mormon observing that Jesus quotes Isaiah 54, so that need not have been on the Brass plates.  Welch makes the point that besides that, only the Isaiah chapters that the Book of Mormon actually quotes need be on the plates.  Nibley said much the same thing in Since Cumorah.   Some others, less invested in historicity (Ostler, or Bokovoy) may approach the issue differently.   Those committed to the unity of Isaiah (Say Giliadi) would likewise argue differently.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

.........................

I am really getting bummed about the broken links.  I couldn't find Paradigms Regained at the Scholars Archive..................

Let's hope they finally get all that material transferred from the Maxwell Inst to HBLL, and that it will be readily available there for decades to come.  Mormons keep shooting themselves in the foot (unlike true Latter-day Saints).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Basically, though I do quote Jack Welch from Isaiah in the Book of Mormon observing that Jesus quotes Isaiah 54, so that need not have been on the Brass plates.  Welch makes the point that besides that, only the Isaiah chapters that the Book of Mormon actually quotes need be on the plates.  Nibley said much the same thing in Since Cumorah.   Some others, less invested in historicity (Ostler, or Bokovoy) may approach the issue differently.   Those committed to the unity of Isaiah (Say Giliadi) would likewise argue differently...................

One consideration is the likelihood that there was an Isaianic School which continued to produce such materials the same way the scribes Baruch and his brother Seraiah continued to edit Jeremiah's words in Egypt and Babylon (thus coming up with two distinctly different versions of Jeremiah in those two loci)..

Another consideration is that the eight sections of Isaiah correspond to the annual festival sequence in the Psalms (Michael Golder, Isaiah as Liturgy [Ashgate Publ., 2004]).  Is that its poetic purpose?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The reality is that the book of Isaiah was written by several authors at different times.  The BofM quotes sections of Isaiah that were written well after the supposed departure of Lehi from Jerusalem.  Joseph Smith, et al,  didn't know this when they they wrote the BoM. The old FARMs can spin this all they want, but the the reality is that Isaiah had multiple authors and the time line does not match up with the BoM included chapters of Isaiah.  Perhaps this is why MI is cutting their losses and dumping the old aologetic spin data.  It just doesn't hold up under honest scrutiny. 

Now, I am sure that some on this forum will want to counter this with old FARMS articles.  But, these articles are not peer reviewed beyond the small world of incestuous  mormon apologetics.  None of these authors would dare to submit their work to real peer review. Under the honest light of critical biblical scholarship these arguments fail.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Perhaps this is why MI is cutting their losses and dumping the old aologetic spin data. 

Why do you think they are doing this?

The ScholarsArchive is housing many (all?) BYU publications now it would seem.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/

Quote

ScholarsArchive is Brigham Young University’s institutional repository for the scholarly and creative content produced by the University. ScholarsArchive makes research, publications, data, and journals produced by BYU faculty and students available to a global research audience

Quote

The following are examples of materials that can be housed in ScholarsArchive:

Faculty

Research materials and publications (working papers, preprints, articles, books, databases, etc.), presentations, data sets, etc.

Students

Published articles or materials, honors theses, academic posters, senior projects or performances, grant-funded projects, etc. Regular class papers are generally not included.

Campus

Special lectures, newsletters, conference proceedings/events (maps, programs, submissions), etc.

Journals

Journals produced or edited by BYU faculty, staff, or students (submission workflows, past issues, future issues, etc.).

 

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Wrong thread....

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post

BYU is a top 100 tier university, or at least close to it.  They need to be mindful of the material they publish under their name.  Any publications under the BYU umbrella needs to be scholarly, peer reviewed and vetted. If not, then their reputation suffers.  Apolgitics articles defending some mythical acient American iron aged civilization that could field million men armies is without question unsupported by DNA, archaeology,  and language ingusistics. Which means they will not be taken seriously by the scientific world or by anyone with real critical thinking skills. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, sunstoned said:

BYU is a top 100 tier university, or at least close to it.  They need to be mindful of the material they publish under their name.  Any publications under the BYU umbrella needs to be scholarly, peer reviewed and vetted. If not, then their reputation suffers.  Apolgitics articles defending some mythical acient American iron aged civilization that could field million men armies is without question unsupported by DNA, archaeology,  and language ingusistics. Which means they will not be taken seriously by the scientific world or by anyone with real critical thinking skills. 

I am asking why you think material is being dumped when it is not, not why it is being dumped.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

BYU is a top 100 tier university, or at least close to it.  They need to be mindful of the material they publish under their name.  Any publications under the BYU umbrella needs to be scholarly, peer reviewed and vetted. If not, then their reputation suffers.  Apolgitics articles defending some mythical acient American iron aged civilization that could field million men armies is without question unsupported by DNA, archaeology,  and language ingusistics. Which means they will not be taken seriously by the scientific world or by anyone with real critical thinking skills. 

I appreciate the input and I agree to a certain extent, in that we should research and publish vetted materials. However if you’re not commenting on the question or topic of the thread I would ask you not to participate. Thanks 🙏 

You’re previous post was on topic (though it didn’t contribute much), this one was not.

Edited by SettingDogStar
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, SettingDogStar said:

I appreciate the input and I agree to a certain extent, in that we should research and publish vetted materials. However if you’re not commenting on the question or topic of the thread I would ask you not to participate. Thanks 🙏 

Sorry, got confused with the other thread...

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Sorry, got confused with the other thread...

I didn’t mean you Calm! Haha I figured that was the case, I was a little confused. I mostly meant it in the direction of sunstoned.

Or are both of you confused on which thread this is? Haha maybe that’s the case 😅

Edited by SettingDogStar

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry. I apologize to both Calm and Sunstoned. I got confused about what was going on and I don’t mean to be rude, just thought you were purposefully veering off topic. My bad! 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

Sorry. I apologize to both Calm and Sunstoned. I got confused about what was going on and I don’t mean to be rude, just thought you were purposefully veering off topic. My bad! 

No worries, I didn't read it as rude at all.  I was veering off topic, not purposefully, but just my usual wandering thought.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

BYU is a top 100 tier university, or at least close to it.  They need to be mindful of the material they publish under their name.  Any publications under the BYU umbrella needs to be scholarly, peer reviewed and vetted. If not, then their reputation suffers.  Apolgitics articles defending some mythical acient American iron aged civilization that could field million men armies is without question unsupported by DNA, archaeology,  and language ingusistics. Which means they will not be taken seriously by the scientific world or by anyone with real critical thinking skills. 

The problem with all that invective is that it is false and bespeaks a complete lack of scholarship.  One who is not even able to spell simple words like apologetics, ancient, or linguistics, and certainly doesn't have any idea what they mean, is probably not qualified to say anything about these issues.  One who is completely unaware of the huge populations in the Americas (in the millions in very small areas), and actually believes that iron age civilizations are depicted in the BofM as being in the New World, etc., is also incapable of carrying on a coherent conversation about these issues.  Talking self-importantly about "peer review" while knowing nothing about it doesn't bode well for meaningful conversation about anything.  It does suggest something about apriorism and hate, however.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

The reality is that the book of Isaiah was written by several authors at different times.  The BofM quotes sections of Isaiah that were written well after the supposed departure of Lehi from Jerusalem.  Joseph Smith, et al,  didn't know this when they they wrote the BoM. The old FARMs can spin this all they want, but the the reality is that Isaiah had multiple authors and the time line does not match up with the BoM included chapters of Isaiah.  Perhaps this is why MI is cutting their losses and dumping the old aologetic spin data.  It just doesn't hold up under honest scrutiny

Now, I am sure that some on this forum will want to counter this with old FARMS articles.  But, these articles are not peer reviewed beyond the small world of incestuous  mormon apologetics.  None of these authors would dare to submit their work to real peer review. Under the honest light of critical biblical scholarship these arguments fail.  

Is this your version of actual critical scholarship?  "incestuous mormon apologetics."  Really?  You who have never read biblical Hebrew or ancient Egyptian, and have never done "critical biblical scholarship"?  You are going to self-importantly tell others how it is done, and what conclusions they must reach?  So you're going to show us how "real peer review" is done?  You are going to show us what "reality" is?  Yeh, when pigs fly . . .

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Is this your version of actual critical scholarship?  "incestuous mormon apologetics."  Really?  You who have never read biblical Hebrew or ancient Egyptian, and have never done "critical biblical scholarship"?  You are going to self-importantly tell others how it is done, and what conclusions they must reach?  So you're going to show us how "real peer review" is done?  You are going to show us what "reality" is?  Yeh, when pigs fly . . .

I wondered if something wasn’t off. With all the discussion of whether or not there were multiple authors it would seem to spell out that no one agrees, so how is his/her way the “reality”? 😅

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Here is some non–Latter-day Saint scholarship discussing evidence that Isaiah II has linguistic usage (the Qal Passive) that dates it with pre-exilic Isaiah I.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...