Isaiah 101

[David T]

Ok, let's see if the following scenario makes everybody happy:

1. The suffering servant was originally Hezekiah.

2. Second Isaiah co-opted the plague episode as a symbol of redemption for the Babylonian captives.

3. Matthew, Mark, John, Paul et al. co-opted the Servant Song for Jesus.

4. Some rabbis co-opted the song for Israel.

5. Smith et al. took it back for Jesus.

Is everyone on board with that?

Actually, the First Isaiah used imagery and language associated with the Typical Anointed High Priest/King, and applied it to Hezekiah. I left out the sentance that proceeded the barker quote: "

[Mortal Man]

So therefore, we'd have:

1. The suffering servant was initially the High Priest/King of the Early Israelite Temple Tradition, illustrating the Day of Atonement ritual

2. The suffering servant imagery was applied in poetic verse by Isaiah Prime to Hezekiah.

3. Second Isaiah redacted the poem of the plague episode as a symbol of redemption for the Babylonian captives.

4. Matthew, Mark, John, Paul et al. applied the Servant Song for Jesus, who presented himself as filling the role of the Anointed High Priest/King.

5. Rabbinic tradition continued to develop the exilic setting of the song for Israel.

6. Smith et al. was consistent with the Original and New Testament/Christian application of the poem of the Messiah figure.

I'll go along with that.

[Mortal Man]

Nevermind, answering my own questions....

http://maxwellinstit...l=4&num=1&id=85

With all due respect to Sidney Sperry, that article is a disaster. The unity of Isaiah defense is DOA. You'll have a hard time finding any biblical scholars, even among the FARMS apologists, who subscribe to it.

To see if I'm correct, let's take a poll. How many people here who've studied the issue agree with Sidney's conclusion?

The internal evidence, therefore, is strongly in favor of the unity of Isaiah. Certain it is that the critics' arguments for the division of Isaiah are far from being compelling and conclusive. Lacking that, their case must be labeled "not proved." The most serious problem in connection with the text of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon therefore disappears.

[Palerider]

I am taking Isaiah and Joseph Smith's authority over any other in the past or present times. Joseph Smith was a far greater prophet than Paul ever was.

Feel free to take Joseph's word for whatever you like but you cannot change the true meaning of Isaiah.

"The key to being a good fraud is knowing which of your victims buttons to push".

[zerinus]

Feel free to take Joseph's word for whatever you like but you cannot change the true meaning of Isaiah.

And neither can you.

"The key to being a good fraud is knowing which of your victims buttons to push".

You certainly sound like one.

[bjw]

--- How did chapters 50-51 (2 Nephi 7-8 ) make it onto the Brass Plates when they weren't written until after Nephi was dead?

I'm curious as to how LDS that believe in the multiple Isaiahs reconcile this with believing in the Book of Mormon, would that not disprove the BoM?

While I can kinda see how you could reconcile the misapplication of prophecies, I don't see how you can possibly reconcile Nephi having writings that had not been written yet.

[zerinus]

To see if I'm correct, let's take a poll. How many people here who've studied the issue agree with Sidney's conclusion?

I do.

[Benjamin McGuire]

I am reminded in Andrew's comments on this thread of an essay I read not too long ago by Umberto Eco. He made these comments in particular:

Some books are easier to review, to explain, or comment on aloud, than they are simply to read; because it is only by applying yourself to a gloss that you can follow their arguments without distraction, their implacable syllogistic necessities, or the precise knots of relation. This is why books like Metaphysics of Aristotle or the Critique of Pure Reason have more commentators than readers, more specialists than admirers.

What Andrew's suggestion do is provide ways to talk about the text - but don't actually interact with the text. Take his suggestions for Lesson 38:

Study Isaiah 40-49.

--- Why is it essential to realize that these chapters were written nearly two centuries after the first 39 chapters by a different person with a radically different agenda?

--- How did chapters 48 & 49 (1 Nephi 20-21) make it onto the Brass Plates when they weren't written until the end of the Babylonian captivity?

--- How is Second Isaiah

[William Schryver]

Mortal Man:

I

[ELF1024]

With all due respect to Sidney Sperry, that article is a disaster. The unity of Isaiah defense is DOA. You'll have a hard time finding any biblical scholars, even among the FARMS apologists, who subscribe to it.

To see if I'm correct, let's take a poll. How many people here who've studied the issue agree with Sidney's conclusion?

Well, if the article in question is a disaster, as you conclude, how do you explain how the Nephites quote from parts of Isaiah that hadn't been written prior to their departure?

It would seem to me, that in light of the quoting of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, that the opinion of the academic community must be mistaken. However, I'm not an expert, I'm just using logic. It just seems to me that if the BoM is a true record, then Isaiah must have been written prior to Lehi's departure. However, if Joseph Smith Jr. copied Isaiah from the KJV as many people charge, then you can go with the idea that Isaiah had many differing authors over a longer time span.

(I believe the BoM is a true record and that Joseph Smith Jr. is/was a Prophet)

[David T]

It just seems to me that if the BoM is a true record, then Isaiah must have been written prior to Lehi's departure. However, if Joseph Smith Jr. copied Isaiah from the KJV as many people charge, then you can go with the idea that Isaiah had many differing authors over a longer time span.

(I believe the BoM is a true record and that Joseph Smith Jr. is/was a Prophet)

I understand that reasoning. However, many who are familiar with biblical scholarship and ancient literature understand that it doesn't have to come down to the dichotomomy of:

1) 1 Nephi was an autograph by the individual who left Jerusalem in BC 600

2) The Book of Mormon is made up by Joseph Smith.

In fact, I find it highly plausible to view 1 and 2 Nephi very much like Genesis and Exodus - exploring the spiritual and religious history of the Nephite/Lamanite conflict , based on tradition (and perhaps written records), but interpreted and expanded in the light of the contemporary events of its author.

1 and 2 Nephi attempt to explain:

1) Why the Lamanites and Nephites hate each other

2) Why the Nephites are the righteous and rightful leaders of the two, and how the Sword of Laban and Liahona (kingship icons) got there

3) Why the Land is sacred to them

4) How the Israelite Scriptures got there

5) How this all relates to the plan of the God of Israel, especially the Messiah, Jesus Christ

6) How the tradition was passed down

If the initial proto-Lehites did come from an exilic-era Israel, they would have on their Old World plates much of what is in our Deuteronomistic history (Genesis - 2 Kings), which history ends with the taking away of Zedekiah. If the writer of the Nephite sacred history was familiar with these records (he certainly was, seeing all the references and citations taken directly from them), that history would have ended right when the 'Lehite' history begins. It would be a natural flow - it would be directly appending onto the scriptural record to set his people's place in sacred history - even if the historical Lehites journey actually began decades later. (and he would have access to exilic-era writings, such as DeuteroIsaiah - it is interesting, however, that there no references in the BoM to the later Trito-Isaiah texts!)

This would be particularly interesting if written by a Nephite Disciple following the advent of Jesus Christ (perhaps Nephi the Disciple himself, writing his own 'History of the Church!') - he would clearly interpret the older prophecies in light of what he had personally experienced and knew from the Savior's own message.

For the student of Studies in Biblical Literature, such sacred pseudepigraphic writing is nothing new. However, to most, who are not used to thinking of ancient texts this way, it creates a problem.

Then again, if someone isn't familiar with studies in biblical literature, then they're probably not familiar with the tri-partite-authorship of Isaiah to begin with, so it's not a problem to begin with!

I firmly believe the BoM is a true record and that Joseph Smith Jr. is/was a Prophet. I also believe in the multiple authorship of Isaiah. The former is not open to change. The latter, on presentation of solid convincing evidence, may be. But for me, it's not a problem. At all.

[ELF1024]

I firmly believe the BoM is a true record and that Joseph Smith Jr. is/was a Prophet. I also believe in the multiple authorship of Isaiah. The former is not open to change. The latter, on presentation of solid convincing evidence, may be. But for me, it's not a problem. At all.

Being an idiot when it comes to this topic, I would agree, based on the idea that quoted sections of Isaiah were written before Lehi and his family left for the Promised Land.

[David T]

Such a position would also give an additional explanation as to why the late and definitely post-600BC words of Malachi are cited and used in the Small Plates, even though they are not given to the Nephites until the coming of Christ, to Nephi the Disciple and his contemporaries, no less! Remember also that Christ emphasised the words of Isaiah, and commanded they be studied. Would it not then give Nephi the Disciple a reason to specifically emphasise the writings of the Book of Isaiah in his sacral history? The more I think of it, the more the pieces seem to come together, and point to a post-Advent redaction/composition, and very possibly to Nephi the Disciple.

[ELF1024]

Such a position would also give an additional explanation as to why the late and definitely post-600BC words of Malachi are cited and used in the Small Plates, even though they are not given to the Nephites until the coming of Christ, to Nephi the Disciple and his contemporaries, no less! Remember also that Christ emphasised the words of Isaiah, and commanded they be studied. Would it not then give Nephi the Disciple a reason to specifically emphasise the writings of the Book of Isaiah in his sacral history? The more I think of it, the more the pieces seem to come together, and point to a post-Advent redaction/composition, and very possibly to Nephi the Disciple.

So, what I am understanding from this thread, is that, clearly, I need to spend more time studying Isaiah, meaning both the text, and the history.

[David T]

So, what I am understanding from this thread, is that, clearly, I need to spend more time studying Isaiah, meaning both the text, and the history.

I think everyone does The Lord himself is recorded as saying, "Behold, I say unto you, that ye ought to search these things. Yea, a commandment I give unto you that ye search these things diligently; for great are the words of Isaiah." (3 Nephi 23:1) - a casual reading, and sitting in on Sunday School classes doesn't seem to me proper heeding of the Lord's directive here to study the words of the Book of Isaiah...

Not the least of the reasons being that I think understanding Isaiah's textual and historical context opens up an understanding of the history (and teachings) of the Book of Mormon records themselves! We need to be open to shifting paradigms.

[Fifth Columnist]

I firmly believe the BoM is a true record and that Joseph Smith Jr. is/was a Prophet. I also believe in the multiple authorship of Isaiah. The former is not open to change.

Why isn't this open to change, especially when you are so willing to concede that everything else is? I assume it is because of the manifestations of the Spirit. To that I would ask whether such manifestation are so reliable that no amount of knowledge gained in any other way can overcome them? By the way, don't Mormon splinter groups such as the FLDS rely on the same spiritual manifestations to determine truth?

I really admire the mental construct you have developed to eliminate this problem. I, on the other hand, just can't overlook what seems so obvious - the BOM is not historical.

[Palerider]

And neither can you.

You certainly sound like one.

And here I was silly enough to anticipate that when someone took a particular postion, they might actually support it with some sort of reasonable, scriptural or even spiritual defence, showing me something in the passage of Isaiah that I had overlooked or misunderstood. Something that would make sense......be intelligible. Instead I receive something that only confirms and strengthens my conviction and manifests someone else's great prejudice. Sad. Sad.

[volgadon]

I'm really glad you folks have raised this topic because it gives me opportunity to voice something that has bothered me for years.

In the 11^th chapter of Isaiah verse 1 reads:

[zerinus]

And here I was silly enough to anticipate that when someone took a particular postion, they might actually support it with some sort of reasonable, scriptural or even spiritual defence, showing me something in the passage of Isaiah that I had overlooked or misunderstood. Something that would make sense......be intelligible. Instead I receive something that only confirms and strengthens my conviction and manifests someone else's great prejudice. Sad. Sad.

Your post made it clear you had already made up your mind. You weren't looking for any explanations, therefore none was given. I never believed in wasting my time.

[Palerider]

Your post made it clear you had already made up your mind. You weren't looking for any explanations, therefore none was given. I never believed in wasting my time.

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." Ben Franklin

Just because I have taken a strong stand that means you have the right to demean that stand rather than defend your own? Shame........

[zerinus]

Just because I have taken a strong stand that means you have the right to demean that stand rather than defend your own? Shame........

It is obvious that you still don't want an explanation. When you have decided that is what you really want, come back, and make it clear, and you might get one.

Have a nice day.

[Palerider]

Yet Paul's approach is no less problematic, unless we consider both as what they are, midrashic statements.

Then are you saying that it's a toss up and either (or neither) could be accurate?

[Palerider]

It is obvious that you still don't want an explanation. When you have decided that is what you really want, come back, and make it clear, and you might get one.

Have a nice day.

Continuing to make one assumption after another regarding someone else is a great way to avoid having to confront your own weaknesses. I'm already having a great day, thankyou

[Mortal Man]

What Andrew's suggestion do is provide ways to talk about the text - but don't actually interact with the text.

This is an unwarranted sophistry.

Take his suggestions for Lesson 38:

After a little thinking about this, the first thing we realize is that breaking the text into first, and second, and third Isaiahs tends to deal with something quite different than the text that it is. Yes, it may have a complex history of authorship (probably even more complex than the idea of merely having a first, and a second, and a third Isaiah).

I agree that the history of authorship is probably more complex than 1, 2, 3, but those are the major time divisions.

But, breaking it up into pieces is only really of interest when we aren't really interested in reading the text any more.

Huh? So not understanding the historical context leads to better reading comprehension? Is this a new apologetic fad?

We don't actually have a first Isaiah, or a second Isaiah, or even a third Isaiah. We have a Book of Isaiah that may be a bit of an amalgam of all of these.

Ok, lets suppose that the BoM authors had all written pseudopigraphically, thus leaving us with just one long Book of Nephi. Would it then be better to read the whole history of the Nephites and Lamanites as one person's epic vision of the future?

Second, we could talk about its intertextuality - after all, the parts of Isaiah we tend to identify with the second Isaiah fellow are highly intertextual - including with First Isaiah, right?

Second Isaiah clearly reworked a lot of First Isaiah

[Bill Hamblin]

So what is there, exactly, in Isaiah 40-44 that indicates it was written after 600 BC?

I can see two things, but I'm wondering if anyone else has more?