Isaiah 101

[Mortal Man]

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?

I simply recognize the fact that 1 Nephi 20-21 & 2 Nephi 7-8 must postdate 539 BC.

[Mortal Man]

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:

[Mortal Man]

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?

I see allusions and direct references to Cyrus the Great, aka the messiah, aka the Lord's anointed (41:2, 44:28); celebration of the crossing of the Euphrates moat around Babylon (42:15, 43:2, 43:16, 44:27); the peaceful taking of Babylon (43:17), and the Edict of Restoration (44:26) to name a few. The sacking of the temple is clearly in the past and the return to Jerusalem and rebuilding of the temple are imminent.

We celebrate Cyrus today with the angel Moroni, who looks east to the Persian king for redemption.

[Palerider]

I'd simply say that if you allow each author his own voice then you can make sense of things.

If you insist that every author's treatment of a subject must be made to match, well, good luck.

I think I see what you're saying but from my naive (probably less-informed) point of view, I have to say that the "rod" that grows out of the stem of Jesse cannot be Joseph Smith (as he claims) and Jesus Christ (as Paul claims) at the same time. It just doesn't make sense on a number of levels for me. And so I have to give the Bible the last say.

I wouldn't disagree that the Bible has it's share of issues but for me it stands on firmer territory than the claim Joseph makes for new revelation and the BoM. And I'm not one to say that there can't be new revelation or visitations of angels or new scripture discovered. I'm just saying anything new will have to hold up better under scrutiny than what Joseph has produced. There are too many strained, un-reasonable, inconsistent answers to questions that really should never have been there in the first place. It reminds me a great deal of the Saviors phrase "straining at gnats and swallowing camels".

[Mortal Man]

I think I see what you're saying but from my naive (probably less-informed) point of view, I have to say that the "rod" that grows out of the stem of Jesse cannot be Joseph Smith (as he claims) and Jesus Christ (as Paul claims) at the same time. It just doesn't make sense on a number of levels for me. And so I have to give the Bible the last say.

I'll go along with that.

[Bill Hamblin]

I see allusions and direct references to Cyrus the Great, aka the messiah, aka the Lord's anointed (41:2, 44:28); celebration of the crossing of the Euphrates moat around Babylon (42:15, 43:2, 43:16, 44:27); the peaceful taking of Babylon (43:17), and the Edict of Restoration (44:26) to name a few. The sacking of the temple is clearly in the past and the return to Jerusalem and rebuilding of the temple are imminent.

41:2 is not an explicit reference to Cyrus. It could be any eastern conquering king.

None of the the passages 42:15, 43:2, 43:16, 44:27 are even vaguely explicit about Cyrus and the canals of Babylon. These texts talk of Yahweh drying up the waters, allusions to the Red/Reed Sea and the Jordan. The fact that such controlling of waters is found earlier in Isaiah (8:7, 19:5, 41:17-20, 48:21), demonstrates this. These are passages about how God will control nature to facilitate his purposes. Furthermore, the passage concludes that parting the waters is an "old thing" (18), while God will do a "new thing" bringing water to the wilderness.

Furthermore, Herodotus' account (1.189-191) was written a century after the event, and is highly legendary. Many, if not most, scholars doubt it is accurate. (Herodotus' primary rule of writing history was never let the truth get in the way of a good story.) What you are doing is eisegesis--reading your interpretation back into the text--related to an event that probably never happened.

So, what you are left with is the name Cyrus, and the prophecy of the restoration of Jerusalem and the temple. Of course prophecies of the building of a temple are also found in First Isaiah (2:2-4, 4:3-6, 24:5, 28:16-17). Are we to assume that they were all written after the 586 destruction of the temple? Or could they be more generic prophecies? Or related to Hezekiah's restoration of temple reforms?

So, we are left with Cyrus in 44:28 and 45:1. The existence of Cyrus' name in these two passages can be explained in one of three ways: 1- Isaiah was a true prophet, and could actual prophesy of the future. 2- The Cyrus passages were written after the rise of Cyrus (i.e. the Second Isaiah theory). 3- That the name Cyrus was added to the text of Isaiah during the time of Cyrus to convince him that his name was mentioned in Jewish prophecies so he would favor the Jews.

(Josephus says Cyrus was shown the Isaiah prophecy in Antiquities, 11.1.2, but of course this is a late tradition.)

In other words, other than the existence of the name Cyrus, there is no compelling reason to date Isaiah 40-44 to post 600 BC. And the name Cyrus is actually not decisive, since it may be a true prophecy, or a late editorial emendation.

[zerinus]

I think I see what you're saying but from my naive (probably less-informed) point of view, I have to say that the "rod" that grows out of the stem of Jesse cannot be Joseph Smith (as he claims) and Jesus Christ (as Paul claims) at the same time. It just doesn't make sense on a number of levels for me. And so I have to give the Bible the last say.

I don't recall Joseph Smith claiming that he was "rod that grew out of the stem of Jesse," nor Paul claiming that it was Christ.

Isaiah talks about three different things: a "rod," a "stem," and a "root".

D&C 113 gives three distinct and separate meanings to each of these:

stem = Christ

rod = a servant

root = descendant

Paul is not being precise in his language at all. He mentions "root," but a closer reading shows that he is actually paraphrasing Isaiah. He is quoting from memory, not giving a verbatim quote, and he is simply referring to that aspect of the passage that has reference to Christ, which does not contradict anything that Joseph Smith has said. So you don't really know what the heck you are talking about, do you.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

prophecy in Antiquities, 11.1.2, but of course this is a late tradition.)

In other words, other than the existence of the name Cyrus, there is no compelling reason to date Isaiah 40-44 to post 600 BC. And the name Cyrus is actually not decisive, since it may be a true prophecy, or a late editorial emendation.

So I decided to look into this Cyrus fellow. It appears that his name does not appear in the BoM. Does that mean anything to anyone here?

[volgadon]

I think I see what you're saying but from my naive (probably less-informed) point of view, I have to say that the "rod" that grows out of the stem of Jesse cannot be Joseph Smith (as he claims) and Jesus Christ (as Paul claims) at the same time. It just doesn't make sense on a number of levels for me. And so I have to give the Bible the last say.

Scriptural interpretation is rarely either/or. The point is, both Paul and Joseph re-interpreted Isaiah to teach valuable lessons. Matthew regularly did the same.

[ELF1024]

I simply recognize the fact that 1 Nephi 20-21 & 2 Nephi 7-8 must postdate 539 BC.

That's an interesting conclusion... I'm not sure I can buy into it...

As I understand it, 1st and 2nd Nephi were written on the small plates of Nephi.

It seems that after Omni, the plates were full...

30 And I, Amaleki, had a brother, who also went with them; and I have not since known concerning them. And I am about to lie down in my grave; and ^athese plates are full. And I make an end of my speaking.

So, sometime after the plates were full, someone would have to make plates to add to the small set of Nephi to add to the quoted sections.

Unless Mormon added it to the abridgment....

Never mind, I see no compelling evidence that you are incorrect.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Andrew writes:

This is an unwarranted sophistry.

I don't think so Andrew. Because we have a text. But you aren't interested in the text. Yes, it may be true that the text has a complex history. But that doesn't change the fact that the text that we have isn't itself a fragmented work. It is presented as a single unit - as a Book of Isaiah. For us to focus not on the text of the Book of Isaiah, but to instead engage in discussion over the way it was produced (its various possible authors, and so on) is in fact to avoid reading the text. Nephi discusses reading the text. He isn't all that interested (although he mentions it quite often in his writings) determining what the plain and precious things that were removed are. He isn't too worried even about sources and context - things that he explicitly writes that he has taken from his descendants so that they cannot read the text in the same way that Nephi did. There isn't unwarranted sophistry - as I think this entire thread holds out. When we start talking about multiple authorship, we stop talking about the text and how it reads in the form that we have it.

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

Not at all. There was a comment some time ago by a gentleman I enjoy reading named Walter Bruggemann. He wrote this in his article (which is relevant to some extent to this discussion) "Narrative Coherence and Theological Intentionality in 1 Samuel 18" in CBQ, Vol. 55, No. 2 (April 1993), p. 225:

Unless we stay with the internal coherence and intentionality of the text, the various fragments and elements fall apart, as they have with many efforts in conventional historical criticism. When the text falls apart methodologically, we face only interesting factual questions and literary fragments; we likely will miss the hidden cunning that the narrative invites us to ponder.

So, here is the problem. You want to suggest that talking about multiple authors - reducing the text in this historical/critical way is in fact providing a context for understanding. But this simply isn't the case. It is an invaluable pursuit in its own right - but, we don't have a First Isaiah text, and we don't have a Second Isaiah text, and we don't have a Third Isaiah text. And in fact, there isn't all that much consensus as to what these notions actually represent in the text that we do have. Reading the text that we do have is a valuable thing in its own right. It may not entirely represent the perspective of an original Isaiah - but I think, given the context of an LDS Sunday School lesson, that is hardly going to be that much of a problem. Your proposal though, makes the class entirely about the process and not at all about the text. Your discussion here, and your description matches Bruggemann's comments quite well. You really aren't that concerned with the narrative of Isaiah. And so, as I pointed out, you want to talk about the text as opposed to reading it.

I have

[volgadon]

And so, as I pointed out, you want to talk about the text as opposed to reading it.

Not only that, but he wishes to talk entirely of points that he thinks should be used against the truth claims of the church.

[zerinus]

So I decided to look into this Cyrus fellow. It appears that his name does not appear in the BoM. Does that mean anything to anyone here?

Not really. It does not occur in those passages of Isaiah that are quoted in the Book of Mormon, so why should it appear in the Book of Mormon?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Not really. It does not occur in those passages of Isaiah that are quoted in the Book of Mormon, so why should it appear in the Book of Mormon?

Bill is pointing out that one of the evidences for a 2nd Isaiah is the mention of Cyrus. Since his name never appears in the BoM, that to me suggest something. It suggest that this whole 2nd Isaiah is not an issue and Nephi never quotes anything that has to do with the few verses that some scholars think, suggest a latter date for authorship.

Of course I could be wrong and I am just looking at things in a silly manner. I was just throwing it out there.

[David T]

Bill is pointing out that one of the evidences for a 2nd Isaiah is the mention of Cyrus. Since his name never appears in the BoM, that to me suggest something. It suggest that this whole 2nd Isaiah is not an issue and Nephi never quotes anything that has to do with the few verses that some scholars think, suggest a latter date for authorship.

Of course I could be wrong and I am just looking at things in a silly manner. I was just throwing it out there.

The name of Cyrus, while being one element and serves as additional evidence, is certainly not what the Multiple Authorship claims, and the specific divisions of the text where they are, is based on. A huge difference in theology, outlook, language, lack of Isaiah's name after chapter 39, change in how elements of the captivity are referred to (First Isaiah is clearly historically before the exile, while DeuteroIsaiah appears to be during the exile, and Trito following the return) among other elements, play a far more important role than simply the name Cyrus showing up. It's not simply a matter of individuals not believing in stating-a-name exactness of prophecy, and trying to prove it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The name of Cyrus, while being one element and serves as additional evidence, is certainly not what the Multiple Authorship claims, and the specific divisions of the text where they are, is based on. A huge difference in theology, outlook, language, lack of Isaiah's name after chapter 39, change in how elements of the captivity are referred to (First Isaiah is clearly historically before the exile, while DeuteroIsaiah appears to be during the exile, and Trito following the return) among other elements, play a far more important role than simply the name Cyrus showing up. It's not simply a matter of individuals not believing in stating-a-name exactness of prophecy, and trying to prove it.

Ok, sounds good to me. I was just posting what I thought Bill had in mind. And thus I was being silly??

Of course the best explination for me is that I see Isaiah as true porphet and thus able to fortell future events. IOW God told him exactly what to say.

[zerinus]

Bill is pointing out that one of the evidences for a 2nd Isaiah is the mention of Cyrus. Since his name never appears in the BoM, that to me suggest something. It suggest that this whole 2nd Isaiah is not an issue and Nephi never quotes anything that has to do with the few verses that some scholars think, suggest a latter date for authorship.

Of course I could be wrong and I am just looking at things in a silly manner. I was just throwing it out there.

Modern scholars assume the whole of Isaiah 40-66 to have been written post-exile, not just the passages in which Cyrus occurs.

[zerinus]

duplicate post

[Bill Hamblin]

The name of Cyrus, while being one element and serves as additional evidence, is certainly not what the Multiple Authorship claims, and the specific divisions of the text where they are, is based on. A huge difference in theology, outlook, language, lack of Isaiah's name after chapter 39, change in how elements of the captivity are referred to (First Isaiah is clearly historically before the exile, while DeuteroIsaiah appears to be during the exile, and Trito following the return) among other elements, play a far more important role than simply the name Cyrus showing up. It's not simply a matter of individuals not believing in stating-a-name exactness of prophecy, and trying to prove it.

Of course multiple authorship is a different question than the date of Second Isaiah. If there is a Second Isaiah (question 1), what is the date of Second Isaiah (question 2). The question I was asking is why should we date 40-44 after 600 BC. There are, in fact, not many reasons to do so. At any rate, to understand the issues, we must separate the question of multiple authorship from the question of the date of Second Isaiah. I was dealing only with the second question.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Of course multiple authorship is a different question than the date of Second Isaiah. If there is a Second Isaiah (question 1), what is the date of Second Isaiah (question 2). The question I was asking is why should we date 40-44 after 600 BC. There are, in fact, not many reasons to do so. At any rate, to understand the issues, we must separate the question of multiple authorship from the question of the date of Second Isaiah. I was dealing only with the second question.

Thanks for clarifying. I see, that is indeed a relevant question.

[Mortal Man]

41:2 is not an explicit reference to Cyrus. It could be any eastern conquering king.

Like Sennacherib? Did First Isaiah view him as a

[volgadon]

Note also the similar phrasing in 46:11 where the Lord calls a

[volgadon]

The Reed Sea and Jordan River crossings were written ~8 centuries after the events, and have no extrabiblical support.

Immaterial. It would hardly matter even if they were completely fictitious. The Isaiah passages in questions contain clear references to them, including one you incorrectly claim indicates a peaceful takeover of Babylon. I mean of course the one about the horses.

Nothing vague here.

[Mortal Man]

MM, would you like a biblical concordance?

?

Ok "bird of prey" is probably a better translation. Is the Derafsh-e Shahbaz-e-Talayi (Golden Falcon) not a bird of prey?

Immaterial. It would hardly matter even if they were completely fictitious. The Isaiah passages in questions contain clear references to them, including one you incorrectly claim indicates a peaceful takeover of Babylon. I mean of course the one about the horses.

Nothing vague here.

Okay, I'll give you 43:16 (see, I can be reasonable) but you'll have to make a better case for the rest.

[Bill Hamblin]

?

Ok "bird of prey" is probably a better translation. Is the Derafsh-e Shahbaz-e-Talayi (Golden Falcon) not a bird of prey?

Sorry, this is completely bogus. The source for this is Xenophon's Cyropaedia, a fictional Greek novel about Cyrus as ideal ruler, written about a century and a half after Cyrus' death. Its value for the historical life of Cyrus is marginal. Xenophon was knowledgable about the fourth century Persian army, since he served as a mercenary for them (Anabasis); the standard he describes is undoubtedly one he saw on campaign retrojected to Cyrus. The Persian phrase you cite is Neo-Persian, not Achaemenid Persian. (The Persian means "the banner of the golden royal falcon.") It has nothing to do with Cyrus. The picture you show is a modern hypothetical reconstruction.