Books with Questionable Historicity

[Bill Hamblin]

Hello David,

It certainly is possible. There clearly exists a strong thematic and textual link between the original call narrative in chapter six and the new call narrative in chapter 40.

Like B.H. Roberts, I personally would reject any assertion by the witnesses that to their knowledge Joseph did not make use of the KJV of the Bible during his translation. I don't believe that he used the Bible throughout the production, but I believe that he clearly used the Bible throughout certain portions of the work, which would support your theory regarding a reflection of the KJV Isaiah text rather than the original now non-existent text.

Ultimately, your theory is an argument from silence, but you could strengthen your contention if you could identify some specific reasons why a later editor would have wanted to revise chapters 40 and beyond, and of course, perhaps some textual evidence suggesting that a tampering may have occurred.

I think it's an interesting idea, and would enjoy seeing how you would develop the argument.

In my mind, the issue of Deutero-Isaiah is the greatest challenge the BofM faces with regards to questions of its ancient authenticity, so it would be worth a try.

best,

--DB

The problem here, of course, is that the main reason for the dating of Deutero-Isaiah to post-exilic times is the secular presupposition that there is not true prophecy. The mention of Babylonian domination and Cyrus = must be written after Babylonian domination and Cyrus. Is there any other substantive argument for dating of Deutero-Isaiah as post-exilic?

On the other hand, Deutero-Isaiah could be dated to between the first Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem and the second (rather than after the second), in which case it would have been accessible to Isaiah before he left Jerusalem.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Bill Hamblin,

The problem here, of course, is that the main reason for the dating of Deutero-Isaiah to post-exilic times is the secular presupposition that there is not true prophecy. The mention of Babylonian domination and Cyrus = must be written after Babylonian domination and Cyrus. Is there any other substantive argument for dating of Deutero-Isaiah as post-exilic?

In addition to the primary factor concerning prophetic foreknowledge of Cyrus, etc., some of the additional reasons for accepting the legitimacy of Deutero-Isaiah include exilic/post exilic vocabulary and literary styles; a new prophetic call narrative, albeit, framed in the context of prophetic anonymity (Isaiahâ??s name never appears beyond chapter 40); and the new historical concern (i.e. movement from impending judgment to the themes of mercy and salvation, as if the Jewish exile has already occurred).

All together, the individual points add up in my mind to a pretty strong case for new authorship.

The final point, however, regarding the book's transition from impending judgment to an expectation of mercy, in my opinion, is not an especially strong argument, since I believe the book's pattern intentionally follows the thematic structure of Hebrew Psalms of Individual and Communal Lament. Following cries of woe and fear, the biblical lament concludes with a confession regarding the certainty of God coming to the rescue of the petitioner, much like the transitional change in Isaiah 40.

I'm not sure if anyone else has identified this connection yet, but I think it's an important observation, so I may try and publish something on it at some point (assuming it hasn't already been explored).

On the other hand, Deutero-Isaiah could be dated to between the first Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem and the second (rather than after the second), in which case it would have been accessible to [Lehi] before he left Jerusalem.

Indeed, this is a possibility that I explored in that long forgotten, and even hardware destroyed, FAIR presentation a couple of years ago.

Much love and devotion,

--DB

[Bill Hamblin]

Hello Bill Hamblin,

In addition to the primary factor concerning prophetic foreknowledge of Cyrus, etc., some of the additional reasons for accepting the legitimacy of Deutero-Isaiah include exilic/post exilic vocabulary and literary styles; a new prophetic call narrative, albeit, framed in the context of prophetic anonymity (Isaiahâ??s name never appears beyond chapter 40); and the new historical concern (i.e. movement from impending judgment to the themes of mercy and salvation, as if the Jewish exile has already occurred).

All together, the individual points add up in my mind to a pretty strong case for new authorship.

The final point, however, regarding the book's transition from impending judgment to an expectation of mercy, in my opinion, is not an especially strong argument, since I believe the book's pattern intentionally follows the thematic structure of Hebrew Psalms of Individual and Communal Lament. Following cries of woe and fear, the biblical lament concludes with a confession regarding the certainty of God coming to the rescue of the petitioner, much like the transitional change in Isaiah 40.

I'm not sure if anyone else has identified this connection yet, but I think it's an important observation, so I may try and publish something on it at some point (assuming it hasn't already been explored).

Indeed, this is a possibility that I explored in that long forgotten, and even hardware destroyed, FAIR presentation a couple of years ago.

Much love and devotion,

--DB

New authorship is not the same issue as dating Deutro-Isaiah to after the Exile. Dual authorship and the date of the second author are two different issues that must be analyzed separately, not conflated. So, to my original question: what evidence is there for dating Deutero-Isaiah to after the Exile that is not based on the assumption that there is no true prophecy, and therefore it must have been written after the date of the things it prophesies?

(Of course it is also possible to have an author write one thing on one subject, and thirty years later write something else on a different subject, and have it literarily appear to be by two separate authors. It would be quite easy to argue that The "Twelfth Night" and "Macbeth" or "Lear" were written by two different people.)

[David Bokovoy]

New authorship is not the same issue as dating Deutro-Isaiah to after the Exile. Dual authorship and the date of the second author are two different issues that must be analyzed separately, not conflated. So, to my original question: what evidence is there for dating Deutero-Isaiah to after the Exile that is not based on the assumption that there is no true prophecy, and therefore it must have been written after the date of the things it prophesies?

(Of course it is also possible to have an author write one thing on one subject, and thirty years later write something else on a different subject, and have it literarily appear to be by two separate authors. It would be quite easy to argue that The "Twelfth Night" and "Macbeth" or "Lear" were written by two different people.)

Well then, again Billy, I would say that as I understand the issues, in addition to the explicit reference to Cyrus, the book features exilic/post exilic vocabulary and literary styles and a new historical concern, as if the Jewish exile into Babylon has already occurred.

Even more love and devotion,

---DB

[Bill Hamblin]

Well then, again Billy, I would say that as I understand the issues, in addition to the explicit reference to Cyrus, the book features exilic/post exilic vocabulary and literary styles and a new historical concern, as if the Jewish exile into Babylon has already occurred.

Even more love and devotion,

---DB

Hi Davey,

On the basis of what hard criteria do you establish what "exilic/post exilic vocabulary and literary styles" are? Just wondering.

Your regardless,

Bill

[Kevin Christensen]

FWIW, besides my chapter on the topic of Deutero-Isaiah in Paradigms Regained (which draws on the Isaiah in the Book of Mormon volume, and Margaret's The Older Testament chapters on Isaiah's 12, and 3, I now also like Margaret Barker's essay on The Original Context of the Fourth Servant Song (www.margaretbarker.com). She makes a good case that Isaiah 53 was directly inspired by Hezekiah's bout with the bubonic plague. Serendipitously, that suggests that that particular chapter would be available for the Brass Plates, which I think were prepared during Jehoiakim's reign as an Egyptian puppet. And that further implies that the assignment of chapters to Deutero-Isaiah and/or to pre-or post-exilic authorship could stand a chapter by chapter review. Certainly, those who have not considered Margaret's evidence cannot very well evaluate it.

As far as the Book of Mormon is concerned, only those chapters quoted in the Book of Mormon present a potential issue. Isaiah 40-47 could be an original composition in Babylon by Isaiah 2. For that matter, as Jack Welch observes, Isaiah 54 could have been composed post-Lehi also, since the Book of Mormon source is not the Brass Plates, but Jesus.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA