By His Own Biased Hand

[aka]

I also have no problem whatsoever accepting the basic accuracy of Ritnerâ??s assessment of the Egyptian meaning behind the papyri.

Not that he needs its, but Iâ??ve defended David Wright on more than one occasion. David and I actually hold very similar views on most issues pertaining to the Bible and even later-day scripture (there are some differences, mind you, but I think I understand where he's coming from).

David,

You state that you agree with some of David Wright's views with respect to later-day scripture. Does your agreement extend to Dr. Wright's "Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah" analysis (previously available on Dr. Wright's Brandeis website and now in American Apocrypha)? If not, what are the major points of disagreement?

Also, in general terms, what are the later-day scripture issues that you both agree on?

Thanks.

[David Bokovoy]

David,

You state that you agree with some of David Wright's views with respect to later-day scripture. Does your agreement extend to Dr. Wright's "Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah" analysis (previously available on Dr. Wright's Brandeis website and now in American Apocrypha)? If not, what are the major points of disagreement?

Also, in general terms, what are the later-day scripture issues that you both agree on?

Thanks.

Hello AKA,

Like David Wright (and Elder B.H. Roberts for that matter), I believe that Joseph Smith used the King James Isaiah chapters to help produce the Book of Mormon.

Like David Wright, I believe that Isaiah 40 marks the beginning of an exilic author whose work appears in the Book of Mormon.

I believe that it's time for LDS scholars, myself included, who believe in the ancient authenticity of the Book of Mormon to confront the Deutero-Isaiah issue head on.

I have a few suggestions that I hope to present at the forthcoming FAIR Conference on these very issues.

[aka]

Hello AKA,

Like David Wright (and Elder B.H. Roberts for that matter), I believe that Joseph Smith used the King James Isaiah chapters to help produce the Book of Mormon.

Like David Wright, I believe that Isaiah 40 marks the beginning of an exilic author whose work appears in the Book of Mormon.

I believe that it's time for LDS scholars, myself included, who believe in the ancient authenticity of the Book of Mormon to confront the Deutero-Isaiah issue head on.

I have a few suggestions that I hope to present at the forthcoming FAIR Conference on these very issues.

Thanks for your reply.

I've several questions:

1. It seems that a number of writers on this website refer to quotes of persons present when the Book of Mormon was being translated who state that Joseph Smith never relied on books or other manuscripts. Are you questioning these claims when you say that you conclude (along with B.H. Roberts) that Joseph Smith did quote directly from the KJ Isaiah chapters?

2. Dr. Wright, after extensive analyses concludes that Joseph Smith's over reliance on making substitutions to the italicized words in the KJV and being in error frequenty in his word or phrase replacements, calls into question the validity of inspired translation. John Tvedtnes writes in FARMS that Dr. Wright is in error in his conclusions. What is your assessment?

I will be most interested in your Deutero-Isaiah research and presentation when available since that seems to me to be is a key issue with respect to the Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon.

Thanks.

[William Schryver]

DB:

Like David Wright, I believe that Isaiah 40 marks the beginning of an exilic author whose work appears in the Book of Mormon.

I believe that it's time for LDS scholars, myself included, who believe in the ancient authenticity of the Book of Mormon to confront the Deutero-Isaiah issue head on.

I have a few suggestions that I hope to present at the forthcoming FAIR Conference on these very issues.

I think that's going to take a pretty good trick, since Jacob clearly prefaces his citations in 2 Nephi 7 - 8 by saying that he is quoting Isaiah -- and the only plausible assumption is that he is quoting from the brass plates.

Granted, he follows his attribution by stating that he has had it revealed to him that Jerusalem has been destroyed and many of its inhabitants taken captive into Babylon, but short of arguing that some third party made the trip from the eastern to the western hemisphere and carried with him the writings of this "deutero-Isaiah," then I think the only option left to you will be to argue that Jacob had revealed to him the exact same things that were given to the 2nd Isaiah author back in Mesopotamia. I suppose there is, arguably, a precedent for that, since we know Alma appears to quote Paul several decades before the latter's birth. But Alma isn't quite quoting verbatim when he speaks to the same concepts.

Then, of course, you have the problem of attempting to explain why it is that Christ himself quotes extensively from Isaiah (whom he identifies as such) at the end of his sojourn with the Nephites -- and exclusively from the so-called "deutero" chapters.

So, I will be interested in what you have say on this subject. In the meantime, I continue to harbor doubts about the deutero-Isaiah theory. I suspect there are unrecognized flaws in the logic that has led to the conclusion.

[structurecop]

Like David Wright, I believe that Isaiah 40 marks the beginning of an exilic author whose work appears in the Book of Mormon.

I believe that it's time for LDS scholars, myself included, who believe in the ancient authenticity of the Book of Mormon to confront the Deutero-Isaiah issue head on.

I have a few suggestions that I hope to present at the forthcoming FAIR Conference on these very issues.

David,

Considering the book of Isaiah could have been the work of not only multiple authors but one or more redactors, could the redactors or later authors have drawn from earlier fragments which are preserved in the BoM, the BoM chapters forming part or whole of a proto-Isaiah?

[The Dude]

I believe that it's time for LDS scholars, myself included, who believe in the ancient authenticity of the Book of Mormon to confront the Deutero-Isaiah issue head on.

I have a few suggestions that I hope to present at the forthcoming FAIR Conference on these very issues.

Wow, David. I admire you more and more.

Hopefully the chapel mormons like [deleted] will throw rotten tomatoes and not stones.

The truth will win out.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello AKA,

I will be most interested in your Deutero-Isaiah research and presentation when available since that seems to me to be is a key issue with respect to the Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon.

I originally gave a version of my paper at the Faith and Knowledge Conference held at the Yale Divinity School. Suffice it to say that in addition to Isaiah chapters 2-14 and 28-29 the Book of Mormon cites Deutero-Isaiah 48-54. Unlike Isaiah 2-14, these chapters, however, do not appear in a single block:

1 Nephi 20 - Isaiah 48 (D)

1 Nephi 21 - Isaiah 49 (D)

2 Nephi 7 - Isaiah 50 (D)

2 Nephi 8 - Isaiah 51 (D)

Mosiah 14 â?? Isaiah 53 (D)

3 Nephi 20 - Isaiah 52 (D)

3 Nephi 22 â?? Isaiah 54 (D)

I see two ways for traditionalists, who like myself, accept the Book of Mormonâ??s claims for being an ancient record can address this issue.

In presenting my views, I received a bit of positive feedback from those attending the conference, including from one LDS graduate student in biblical studies at Harvard who expressed his frustration over not being able to find anything particularly helpful on this issue when he first encountered the evidence.

Since then, Iâ??ve made some significant changes to the paper and I donâ??t want to give too much away.

I certainly donâ??t pretend to have all the answers but I do have two suggestions, either of which proves completely satisfactory to my mind as a believer in the Book of Mormon.

Regards,

--David

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Will,

So, I will be interested in what you have say on this subject. In the meantime, I continue to harbor doubts about the deutero-Isaiah theory. I suspect there are unrecognized flaws in the logic that has led to the conclusion.

It will be fun. I really enjoyed visiting with you last year at the conference. I had a great time!

Within biblical studies, the fact that a 6th century author composed chapters 40-55, and that another wrote chapters 56-66 is now accepted by all but a scholarly minority. The evidence for this position extends beyond the mere issue of prophetic foresight (i.e. Cyrus, etc.) into the arena of distinct literary styles, genre transition, exilic vocabulary, and intended audience.

The view of multiple Isaiahic authors has now reached beyond the realm of serious scholarly debate. Traditional Latter-day Saint attempts to engage this issue have, unfortunately, failed to produce anything of real substance.

This failure on our part is no doubt the result of the fact that the Book of Mormon includes chapters 48-54 from the book of Isaiah (maybe 55, but I'm not convinced), which from a critical perspective, would have been inaccessible to Lehi and his family.

With our belief in the Book of Mormon, we, as Latter-day Saints, present the world with an extraordinary claim. If the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be (and no one should doubt that I seriously believe that it is), then it is the most important work ever produced.

I believe that in our efforts to understand the Book of Mormon, we as Latter-day Saint scholars can longer avoid the issue of Deutero-Isaiah but instead must engage the insights gained through the advance of human knowledge.

Best,

--David

[cdowis]

.....since we know Alma appears to quote Paul several decades before the latter's birth. But Alma isn't quite quoting verbatim when he speaks to the same concepts.

Off topic, but it is possible that Paul and Moroni (Alma?) were quoting the same OT author.

[Luigi]

I suspect that you're assuming roughly the same na

[phaedrus ut]

David,

The BOM Isaiah issues were the first problems I encountered with the BOM. I like your directness on the subject matter. Another point to cover would be Alma 7:11 quoting the last of the servant poems in Isaiah.

I remember you mentioning you might prepare something on the subject. I don't know if you recall but it seems like a PM'd you with a possible idea on the subject.

Phaedrus

[David Bokovoy]

The BOM Isaiah issues were the first problems I encountered with the BOM. I like your directness on the subject matter.

I believe that once anyone really studies the issue, an acceptance of multiple Isaiahs becomes inevitable.

Another point to cover would be Alma 7:11 quoting the last of the servant poems in Isaiah

.

Indeed, Alma 7:11 quotes Isaiah 53 which appears in Mosaiah 14. It's part of the Deutero-block that appears in the Book of Mormon. Nothing though from Third Isaiah or the Isaiah Apocalypse which may represent the latestest addition to the book.

I remember you mentioning you might prepare something on the subject. I don't know if you recall but it seems like a PM'd you with a possible idea on the subject.

I don't recall. Please send it again.

--Regards,

--DB

[Olavarria]

I believe that once anyone really studies the issue, an acceptance of multiple Isaiahs becomes inevitable.

.

Indeed, Alma 7:11 quotes Isaiah 53 which appears in Mosaiah 14. It's part of the Deutero-block that appears in the Book of Mormon. Nothing though from Third Isaiah or the Isaiah Apocalypse which may represent the latestest addition to the book.

I don't recall. Please send it again.

--Regards,

--DB

so how does it all work out?

[phaedrus ut]

I don't recall. Please send it again.

I wish I could remember and I cleaned out my messages here last month. It seems like it had something to do with the exclusion of Trito Isaiah and Isaiah 1. I'm sure it was absolutely brilliant. If I remember I'll email you.

Phaedrus

[cdowis]

[EAG]

Agreed, but WHAT do they have to do with the translation?

The manuscript is a mnemonic device, and the EAG parses each section or symbol into its corresponding section of the English translation. Obviously the english was transcribed first, and then the corresponding symbol was added.

No big deal.

Off topic -- anyone interested in my solution to the "Picnic at Hanging Rock"?

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, it appears there has been and in many respects continues to be(though to a lesser extent nowadays) many attempts to suppress the teaching of evolution in schools(though granted the Scope Monkey Trial was simply a publicity stunt).

I'm unaware of any effort to supress the teaching of evolution in the schools. Could you provide some specifics supporting your claim, and then expand on how your evidence demonstrates a substantial clash between religion in general and science in general? Thanks in advance.

That Galileo was rather bombastic and perhaps insensitive to faith issues in his criticism of the earth at the center of the universe theory is true, but that hardly justified threatening him with torture.

I agree. But I wasn't referring to that. You're aware, I'm sure, that several prominent churchmen, including Cardinal Bellarmine and a future pope, actually sympathized with Galileo's views and professed to be unconcerned by them, and that it was actually a group of Aristotelian philosophers (whom he had gone out of his way to offend) who pressed for his punishment. The simple religion-vs.-science morality play with which many of us were indoctrinated as children is largely fictional.

I also refer to the fact that many religious leaders have warned their flocks to not listen to secular ideas which contradicted doctrine or other beliefs, designating such teachings as the 'foolishness of men'. Now if scientists are constantly told that all their ideas which contradict religion are foolishness I don't think that religious leaders should be surprised to once and awhile have their ideas which contradict scientific conclusions receive a similar label.

You're painting with a very vague and broad brush.

[Kevin Christensen]

For what it's worth, I have a section in on the Isaiah question here, "Open Questions and Suggestions on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon."

http://www.farms.byu.edu/publications/pape...6&chapid=53

I drew heavily on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, which had just come out, and Barker's The Older Testament, which has interesting chapters in the three Isaiahs.

Subsequent to my writing that, while following the course of her own researches, Barker produced this paper, arguing that Isaiah 53 was inspired by Hezekiah's bout with the plague. Serendipitously, that supports the notion that Isaiah of Jerusalem composed that chapter, making it available for Nephi and the Brass plates.

David, have you read Barker's treatment of Isaiah 53? See "The Original Setting of the Fourth Servant Song" here:

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/default.htm

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[structurecop]

Subsequent to my writing that, while following the course of her own researches, Barker produced this paper, arguing that Isaiah 53 was inspired by Hezekiah's bout with the plague. Serendipitously, that supports the notion that Isaiah of Jerusalem composed that chapter, making it available for Nephi and the Brass plates.

Good work, Kevin!

[cdowis]

Within biblical studies, the fact that a 6th century author composed chapters 40-55, and that another wrote chapters 56-66 is now accepted by all but a scholarly minority.

OK. And the majority of scholars have been known to be mistaken from time to time.

The evidence for this position extends beyond the mere issue of prophetic foresight (i.e. Cyrus, etc.)

Which LDS would have no problem in believing that a prophet could actually.... make a prophecy.

into the arena of distinct literary styles, genre transition, exilic vocabulary, and intended audience.

It is merely a matter of creative thought. One is faced with a question, and, scholarly credentials aside, he uses his imagination and creativity to find a solution.

For example..... a school of prophets. Isaiah has scribes similar to artisans who used their pupils in various projects. The artist receives the credit for the work of his students, and the totality of the work is credited to the artist, even though the "fingerprints" of the students are on the finished work.

The book of Isaiah, for example, may be considered the cumulative work of the school of the prophets, and decades later the hands of later scribes may have influenced the work.

The view of multiple Isaiahic authors has now reached beyond the realm of serious scholarly debate. Traditional Latter-day Saint attempts to engage this issue have, unfortunately, failed to produce anything of real substance.

Well, I have done a quick and dirty suggestion on how to resolve the issue. Nothing fancy.

This failure on our part is no doubt the result of the fact that the Book of Mormon includes chapters 48-54 from the book of Isaiah (maybe 55, but I'm not convinced), which from a critical perspective, would have been **inaccessible to Lehi and his family**.

I do not accept your assumption. The inclusion of these chapters in the BOM text provides proof that they were available to Lehi, and your statement needs revision on the basis of that fact alone.

With our belief in the Book of Mormon, we, as Latter-day Saints, present the world with an extraordinary claim. If the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be (and no one should doubt that I seriously believe that it is), then it is the most important work ever produced.

I believe that in our efforts to understand the Book of Mormon, we as Latter-day Saint scholars can longer avoid the issue of Deutero-Isaiah but instead must engage the insights gained through the advance of human knowledge.

Best,

--David

[structurecop]

For example..... a school of prophets. Isaiah has scribes similar to artisans who used their pupils in various projects. The artist receives the credit for the work of his students, and the totality of the work is credited to the artist, even though the "fingerprints" of the students are on the finished work.

The book of Isaiah, for example, may be considered the cumulative work of the school of the prophets, and decades later the hands of later scribes may have influenced the work.

Is there any meaningful difference between this and the Deutero-Isaiah hypothesis? If you can accept this, why reject a Deutero-Isaiah?

[Sethbag]

Ritner neglected to really study the content of the Book of Abraham. Have you ever noticed that non-LDS scholars discussing the BoA, never seem to mention the ancient Abrahamic traditions that keep showing up and suggesting an ancient setting for the BoA? How is it that we now have Egyptian papyri that do have Abraham's name on it, dating to the same time frame as the Chandler Papyri? Why are these issues never discussed nor researched by the Ritners in the world? Are they too busy? Are they too inept? Too lazy? Or are they too smug to look beyond the little issues they have brought up that convinces them that they are God's gift to Mormon archaeology?

Because the papyri that the Book of Abraham came from doesn't have Abraham's name on it.

Once you pull out the magically jargonized LDS version of the word "translation" and start allowing for even known fakes like the Kinderhook plates (I know it was rameumtom who said this, not you) to be "catalysts" for true scripture through revelation, you pull the Book of Abraham and any other thus-produced LDS scripture straight out of the realm of academic study and scrutiny, and squarely into faith-based territory. Ritner isn't approaching it from that point of view. He's approaching it as if the question is whether the Egyptian words on the papyri that really exists actually mean what it is believed (by non-LDS who just don't get the peculiar LDS meaning of "translation") Joseph Smith said they meant. And they don't.

You guys are working from an understanding that would allow Joseph Smith to "translate" a work of new scripture from a jelly donut and have that be a correct "translation", and wondering why a non-LDS scholar doesn't get it.

[Tarski]

One of the favorite resources employed by many contemporary critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Robert K. Ritnerâ??s â??The Breathing Permit of Hor Among the Joseph Smith Papyri,â? in JNES 62 (2003): 161-180.

Personally, I have no problem with Ritnerâ??s assessment of the papyri as an Egyptologist. As witnessed through Michael D. Rhodes translation of the Hor Book of Breathings published by FARMS and dedicated to Elder Neal A. Maxwell, Latter-day Saints welcome a correct understanding of the Egyptian documents.

For Latter-day Saints, recognizing the meaning given these texts by those familiar with the language and religious culture(s) of ancient Egypt only enhances the meaning of the documents. Contrary to what the critics claim, neither Ritnerâ??s nor Rhodeâ??s translations/commentary proves that the Book of Abraham is not scripture.

So what? By the same token may the Lord of the Rings is scripture.

What we do know is that Joseph could not and did not do what he said he did re the papyri.

Namely, he did not translate it in an meaningful sense of the word. He spun a different story than anything in the real text. I cannot accept the idea of a prophet who is clueless about what he really is or isn't doing when in revery. He was't translating but thought he was? Some prophet!

Personally, I find the content to be uninspiring even as fiction and it also seem to be demanding that I accept all sorts of other things that I cannot accept like a world wide flood, false racial origins myths etc.

I just don't see the up side of continuing to try to "rehabilitate" the BoA.

I stand all amazed.

[cdowis]

Ritner isn't approaching it from that point of view. He's approaching it as if the question is whether the Egyptian words on the papyri that really exists actually mean what it is believed (by non-LDS who just don't get the peculiar LDS meaning of "translation") Joseph Smith said they meant. And they don't.

I do not know anyone who claims a direct translation correspondence between the BOA and this document. You are simply stating the obvious.

The point of this thread is the unprofessional tone of his article in a professional journal and lack of understanding of the LDS position.

You guys are working from an understanding that would allow Joseph Smith to "translate" a work of new scripture from a jelly donut and have that be a correct "translation", and wondering why a non-LDS scholar doesn't get it.

That is one of several reason why I do not subscribe to the catalyst theory.

[rameumptom]

I often wonder if some of us are on different planets. CK has put it out in plain english that arguments that Smith pretended that the BOB contained the BOA. The plain logic of CKs and others arguments has LDS scurrying for evidence to find some evidence from the contents of the BOA. The game played now is shoot the messanger be it Ritner, Ashment, Thompson etc.

No, it isn't "shoot the messenger", but ask the messenger to 1) be scholarly in a scholarly journal, and 2) be willing to deal with all aspects of an issue, not just one narrow point that does not necessarily address everything.

If Joseph used documents as catalysts (as he did the Bible and the BoM plates), then it is immaterial whether the original papyri had the BoA on it or not, as God frequently used such things as catalysts in Joseph's life. There is a pattern that the non-LDS scholars tend to ignore, and they content themselves in feeling they have defeated Mormonism in their little corner of the universe, while ignoring bigger issues that support Mormonism's claim. Ritner is not a messenger. He is a self-acclaimed scholar, and in publishing in a scholarly journal is expected to ensure validity, reliability, and completeness of his argument. His arguments are good in his narrow field, but miss on validity, reliability and completeness, because he has ignored major issues connected with his issue.

The same thing occurs with DNA. The proclaimed scholars think they've defeated Mormonism with DNA claims on Lamanites vs American Indian Asian roots. Yet, they ignore key beliefs, such as a limited geographical theory, and the fact that the BoM itself establishes many groups (including at least one from Asia) in their collective family. Such claims end up being invalid, as their sample is being compared with the wrong group; incomplete, as they have a limited DNA sampling from around America and Asia, and unreliable, because it is promoted by those seeking to destroy Mormonism, rather than to establish facts.

[Theophilus07]

I'm unaware of any effort to supress the teaching of evolution in the schools. Could you provide some specifics supporting your claim, and then expand on how your evidence demonstrates a substantial clash between religion in general and science in general? Thanks in advance.

Dr. Peterson, I'm unsure whether I should interpret the above statement as a joke or what. A man of your education achieves the superlative writing ability demonstrated in your posts only through intensive study and a substantial amount of reading. I'm having a difficult time believing that with all the reading you do, you have not encountered the numerous news articles stretching back decades detailing the efforts of fundamentalist Christians to get elected to boards of education in many states not only in the Bible Belt, but also in such states as California, so they can supress the teaching of evolution in schools. When they DO get elected, they take steps to stop the teaching of evolution, or at a minimum, give creationism an equal chance. Then there is the counterattack by supporters of evolution who get themselves elected to the boards of education to replace the fundamentalists so they can stop the attempted supression of the teaching of evolution. This decades-long and well publicized conflict took an interesting turn in the 1990s when the Discovery Institute underwrote the so-called Wedge strategy in which the fundamentalists repapered creationism in the guise of Intelligent Design to combat the teaching of evolution. The state legislature of Oklahoma actually passed bills to sticker evolution textbooks with disclaimers that evolution was a theory and not fact. The state legislature of Alabama also flirted with other creationist schemes. In the texts of these various endeavors, can be found explicit wording describing the clash between religion in general and science in general.

If you, Dr. Peterson, genuinely haven't heard of any of the above, I would be genuinely surprised. Could you clarify, please, so we critics will know what your actual stand is?

Theophilus07