Isaiah 101

[Bill Hamblin]

The top of this bas-relief was once inscribed in three languages: "I am Cyrus the king, an Achaemenian."

Sorry, I don't mean to be mean, but I'm done correcting your endless misunderstandings of googled references to ancient history, religion and iconography. I am wasting my time. If you wish to say something cogent about reasons for dating 2 Isaiah, please do. Otherwise, I'm done.

Look at the google source you cite.

First, it shows an cuneiform inscription on a column that reads "I am Cyrus the king, an Achaemenid." Does that demonstrate that the column is a statue of Cyrus?

It also cites the Cyrus Cylinder, reads in part: " I am Cyrus, king of the world." Are we to assume that Cyrus is a cylinder?

(Are we to assume that Michelangelo's Pieta is a self-portrait because he signed it?)

But the clincher is in the very source you cite. It describes the statue as: "The four winged guardian figure." It is not a portrait of Cyrus. The inscription says: "I am Cyrus the king an Achaemenian," but it is not a portrait of Cyrus, it is a builder's inscription, precisely the same as the exact same inscription on the column.

At any rate, let's say you're right, and Cyrus is associated with a bird of prey. Does that help us date 2 Isaiah? No. Association of kings and gods with birds of prey is ubiquitous in ancient Near Eastern cultures. The king of Egypt as Horus the Hawk. Asshur or Ahura Mazda depicted as a winged divinity. Ptolemaic and Tyrian coins with divine eagles on them. Roman legionary eagles. The double eagle sign of the Byzantine Christian emperors. It's everywhere.

[Mark Beesley]

I

[Bill Hamblin]

So, let's do a little quiz on Isaiah.

1- How many dates are given in 2 Isaiah (Isa 40-55)?

2- How many historically identifiable people are mentioned in 2 Isaiah?

3- How many datable historical events are specifically referenced in 2 Isaiah?

4- How many times in Persia mentioned in 2 Isaiah?

5- In Isaiah, when is the first mention Jews being exiled to Babylon?

6- In Isaiah, when is the first mention Jews returning from exile in Babylon?

7- According to 2 Isaiah, from where will the Jews return from exile?

[Mortal Man]

So, what evidence is there in Isaiah 48-51 that allow us to date the text?

I'll work off Miller's "word for word" translation of the Qumran Great Isaiah Scroll.

Chapter 48 addresses the Jews who

[Bill Hamblin]

And why does the mention of going out of Babylon--which is the only explicit thing in the passage--allow us to date the text?

You are presenting a lot of extraneous material and assumptions, but no specifically datable material.

So I ask my questions again:

5- In Isaiah, when is the first mention Jews being exiled to Babylon?

6- In Isaiah, when is the first mention Jews returning from exile in Babylon?

Let me help.

5- In Isaiah, when is the first mention Jews being exiled to Babylon?

Isa 39 prophesies of a Babylonian exile of Jews (39:6-7). That's in First Isaiah.

6- In Isaiah, when is the first mention Jews returning from exile in Babylon?

In Isa 11:11 says that God will gather his people from Shinar, among other places. Babylon is in the land of Shinar (Gen 10:10, where Babel in KJV is the standard Hebrew word for Babylon, though it is transliterated rather than translated in this passage.) Dan 1:2 also mentions Shinar as Babylon.

So, Isa 11:11 describes Jews returning from captivity in Babylon. That's in First Isaiah.

In other words, the concepts of both Babylonian captivity and return are already known in First Isaiah.

So how does the mention of Babylonian captivity and return allow us to date Second Isaiah?

[Fifth Columnist]

Both sources you mention use Cyrus as their fundamental reason for dating 2Isa. They use the references to restoration of Jerusalem and its temple as the second reason. These are the two major reasons for dating Isaiah after 600 BC, precisely as I've already said.

I don't know of anyone who has argued for a pre-600 BC date for parts of 2Isa, but I'm not an expert on Isaiah.

This confirms what I suspected based on my research. Isaiah experts have been studying this for 200+ years and a) the vast majority of them, at present, accept the dating described in the sources I cited, b) very few, at present, accept a pre 600 BC dating for deutero Isaiah, and c) none of them have ever argued for a pre 600 BC date for parts of deutero Isaiah. This is another example that apologetics is the art of maintaining plausibility in the face of probability.

The possible argument is simply this. Jerusalem became tributary to Babylon around 604 BC, after the Babylonian defeat of Egypt at Charchemish, and Babylonian campaigns in Philistia. It rebelled three years later (2 Kgs 24:1). Zedekiah was installed as Babylonian puppet in 597 BC, the "first year of Zedekiah" when the BOM begins. Thus there are seven years in which some chapters of 2 Isa could have been written in the context of Babylonian domination of Judah. The BOM chapters of 2Isa (Isa 48-51) could have been written during this time and therefore have been available to Lehi. 2Isa would thus have been one of the "many prophets" mentioned in1 Ne 1:4, with whose teachings Lehi was obviously familiar. Other chapters in 2 Isa could have been written much later, and the entire 2 Isaiah compiled at the time of Cyrus. I haven't worked this up into a formal argument, but that's one possible explanation for the existence of 2 Isaiah (Isa 48-51) in the Book of Mormon that is consistent with a historicity of the Book of Mormon, and with the theory of Second Isaiah.

Babylonian domination of Judah between 604 BC to 597 BC isn't enough. Deutero Isaiah is dated by virtually all modern scholars later than 597 BC because it really only makes sense if the Jews are in exile.

I would like to see you write this up as a formal argument and submit it to the Isaiah scholarly community (don't just limit it to apologetics). I would be interested to see their response.

[Mortal Man]

And why does the mention of going out of Babylon--which is the only explicit thing in the passage--allow us to date the text?

Because we know the date when the Jews left Babylon. Anyway, there

[ELF1024]

Deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon?

To overthrow an existing theory, one needs to show that the existing theory's facts are not proven, and one needs to propose a new theory with sufficient factual backing that the new one can replace the old. Here we have a case where the premier non-LDS commentary on "Second" Isaiah--the Anchor Bible--admits that there is insufficient evidence from wordprint analysis that Isaiah was written by anything other than a single author, and we have a new model, proposed by Avraham Gileadi, which shows that Isaiah contains a far more profound and sophisticated literary paradigm, if we accept that it is a unitary work. No wonder this new unitary theory, which just happens to get around a traditional objection to the Book of Mormon, is gaining ground.

[Palerider]

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.

Sorry Zerinus, I was away on vacation and failed to see your last post to me, thus it took me a while to get back to you. To quote the LDS institute study guide:

"One might assume

[zerinus]

Sorry Zerinus, I was away on vacation and failed to see your last post to me, thus it took me a while to get back to you. To quote the LDS institute study guide:

"One might assume

[Palerider]

Your original statement was that Joseph Smith claimed to be the rod. Now that you have been proved wrong you maneuvering the Institute Manual into it to cover your back. The Institute Manual doesn't mean a thing. I it neither revelation nor scripture. There is nothing in his own teachings, or in the D&C that claims that he was the "rod". And you have misread Paul's teachings as much Joseph Smith's.

Game and match! Or as some might say......checkmate!

[Bill Hamblin]

This confirms what I suspected based on my research. Isaiah experts have been studying this for 200+ years and a) the vast majority of them, at present, accept the dating described in the sources I cited,

I believe 2Isa theory developed in the late 19th century. It hasn't been around for 200 years.

I also believe that the "vast majority" excludes many Evangelical scholars (as is usually done by secular scholars when claiming unanimity.)

This is another example that apologetics is the art of maintaining plausibility in the face of probability.

Well, that's not what I'm doing; you are obviously missing the point. I'm asking if one accepts 2Isa does it require rejecting the historicity of the BOM? The answer to this question centers on the date of some chapters of 2Isa being potentially available to Lehi. In fact, we have at least eight years of Babylonian domination in which parts of 2Isa could have been written (and, of course, the chapters in question could actually have been written in a day or two).

[Bill Hamblin]

Babylonian domination of Judah between 604 BC to 597 BC isn't enough. Deutero Isaiah is dated by virtually all modern scholars later than 597 BC because it really only makes sense if the Jews are in exile.

So you are telling me that no Jews were enslaved or taken hostage during Babylonian campaigns in the area from 605-596 during which was incorporated into the Babylonian empire by surrender? Really? Are you telling me that no Jews were taken captive during the Assyrian wars during the life of Isaiah in which the entire kingdom of Judah was conquered except Jerusalem? (Have you seen the Lachish reliefs from Nineveh?) None of these were sold in slave markets of Babylon? Really?

Now, clearly, the captivity of Jews to Babylon was worse after 586. But it didn't by any means begin then. The most famous pre-586 captive is Ezekiel, who is in Babylonia and begins his book in "the fifth year of the exile of King Jehoiachin," which is 593 BC, Jehoiachin having gone into exile when Nebuchadnezzar too Jerusalem in winter 597 (according to the Babylonian Chronicle). Thus, we clearly have Jews in exile in Babylon before the second conquest of Jerusalem in 586. And they're already concerned about exile, restoration, etc.

Dating 2Isa to the period of the Babylonian exile means it could date any time after 604 (though of course there were Jews in exile in Babylon from the time of the Assyrian deportations.)

The reason for dating parts of 2Isa to after 586 is because it makes allusion to a destroyed Jerusalem the rebuilding of the temple.

The only reason for dating 2Isa to the 540s is because of the mention of Cyrus' name is mentioned (in a passage not quoted in the BOM).

Those are the only three pieces of data we have for dating 2Isa. If we wish to understand the question of 2Isa and the BOM, we must begin by not conflating these three strands of evidence. Which passages of 2Isa appear in the BOM? Those involving rebuilding Jerusalem and the Temple? Or those involving Cyrus?

We obviously need more clarity of thought on these matters than they have received thus far.

Photo of Judean captives from Lachish being deported into exile in 701 BC from the Assyrian reliefs of Nineveh.

[Bill Hamblin]

Because we know the date when the Jews left Babylon. Anyway, there

[Mortal Man]

The answer to this question centers on the date of some chapters of 2Isa being potentially available to Lehi. In fact, we have at least eight years of Babylonian domination in which parts of 2Isa could have been written (and, of course, the chapters in question could actually have been written in a day or two).

Let me get this straight. You are saying that Second Isaiah whipped out chapters 48

[Bill Hamblin]

Isaiah 36-39 were compiled by the writer of 2 Kings 18:13-20:19. This is the cause of the

[Bill Hamblin]

Let me get this straight. You are saying that Second Isaiah whipped out chapters 48

[Bill Hamblin]

The question of the presumed existence or non-existence of the Temple in 2Isa is another interesting issue.

44:28b is the key text. In it Yahweh says: "of the temple,

[Fifth Columnist]

I believe 2Isa theory developed in the late 19th century. It hasn't been around for 200 years.

Yes it has. I cited two sources and MM cited another. All three explain that the deutero Isaiah theory was first postulated in the late 1700s and has become widely accepted since then.

I also believe that the "vast majority" excludes many Evangelical scholars (as is usually done by secular scholars when claiming unanimity.)

Who are these Evangelical scholars you refer to? Oh, I hope you refute your claim of "unanimity" since it was one I never made nor am I aware of any others making it.

The sources I and MM have cited state:

but the thesis that nothing after chapter 39 can be attributed to the eighth-century prophet, and that chapters 40-66 cannot be pre-exilic has been almost universally accepted and remains the standard opinion up to the present time.

The first person to differentiate between them was Doderlein, in 1775; his thesis was accepted by Eichhorn (1780-83); and since then, it has steadily won its way to universal recognition in Old Testament scholarship.

Well, that's not what I'm doing; you are obviously missing the point. I'm asking if one accepts 2Isa does it require rejecting the historicity of the BOM? The answer to this question centers on the date of some chapters of 2Isa being potentially available to Lehi.

The fact is that the overwhelming majority of Isaiah experts have dated deutero Isaiah in a way that rejects the historicity of the BOM (or at least requires some serious mental gymnastics). You come along, dismiss 200 years of scholarship with a wave of your hand in an attempt to demonstrate that "some chapters of 2Isa [were] potentially available to Lehi." If that isn't trying to maintain the plausibility of the historicity of the BOM in the face of probability, I don't know what is.

[Fifth Columnist]

So you are telling me that no Jews were enslaved or taken hostage during Babylonian campaigns in the area from 605-596 during which was incorporated into the Babylonian empire by surrender? Really?

Bill, so are you saying that deutero Isaiah began discussing the salvation of the Jews as soon as one wandering hebraic herdsman was taken captive a couple of hundred miles away from Jerusalem? Is the bar really that low to maintaining plausibility? Do you have evidence of a Jewish exile that occurred between 605-597 BC?

Are you telling me that no Jews were taken captive during the Assyrian wars during the life of Isaiah in which the entire kingdom of Judah was conquered except Jerusalem? (Have you seen the Lachish reliefs from Nineveh?) None of these were sold in slave markets of Babylon? Really?

How is this relevant to your argument? You argued that deutero Isaiah could have been written between 605 and 597 BC so how is it helpful for you to point out that some Jews taken captive during the Assyrian wars may have been sold in the slave markets in Babylon?

Now, clearly, the captivity of Jews to Babylon was worse after 586. But it didn't by any means begin then. The most famous pre-586 captive is Ezekiel, who is in Babylonia and begins his book in "the fifth year of the exile of King Jehoiachin," which is 593 BC, Jehoiachin having gone into exile when Nebuchadnezzar too Jerusalem in winter 597 (according to the Babylonian Chronicle). Thus, we clearly have Jews in exile in Babylon before the second conquest of Jerusalem in 586. And they're already concerned about exile, restoration, etc.

I agree. Isaiah scholars uniformly agree that some Jews were taken into exile as early 597 BC. That still creates problems with the BOM timeline.

Dating 2Isa to the period of the Babylonian exile means it could date any time after 604 (though of course there were Jews in exile in Babylon from the time of the Assyrian deportations.)

What evidence do you have of Jews being exiled from 604-597 BC? I know you have speculated that some were exiled, but I would like to know if you have something more than that to back you up.

Also, if your theory depends on the Assyrian deportations, please state it explicitly. Otherwise, their mention seems to be a complete red herring.

The reason for dating parts of 2Isa to after 586 is because it makes allusion to a destroyed Jerusalem the rebuilding of the temple.

The only reason for dating 2Isa to the 540s is because of the mention of Cyrus' name is mentioned (in a passage not quoted in the BOM).

Those are some good reasons.

Those are the only three pieces of data we have for dating 2Isa. If we wish to understand the question of 2Isa and the BOM, we must begin by not conflating these three strands of evidence. Which passages of 2Isa appear in the BOM? Those involving rebuilding Jerusalem and the Temple? Or those involving Cyrus?

Does it make a difference to your apologetic? Are you going to make a formal argument that the passages that appear in the BOM should have a different date than the rest of deutero Isaiah?

[zerinus]

Game and match! Or as some might say......checkmate!

In your imagination maybe.

[volgadon]

Yes it has. I cited two sources and MM cited another. All three explain that the deutero Isaiah theory was first postulated in the late 1700s and has become widely accepted since then.

If you really want to be pedantic, it was noticed by ibn Ezra.

[Bill Hamblin]

Yes it has. I cited two sources and MM cited another. All three explain that the deutero Isaiah theory was first postulated in the late 1700s and has become widely accepted since then.

Right. I misspoke. It originated in the 18th century, but did not become widely accepted until the late 19th century.

[Bill Hamblin]

The fact is that the overwhelming majority of Isaiah experts have dated deutero Isaiah in a way that rejects the historicity of the BOM (or at least requires some serious mental gymnastics). You come along, dismiss 200 years of scholarship with a wave of your hand in an attempt to demonstrate that "some chapters of 2Isa [were] potentially available to Lehi." If that isn't trying to maintain the plausibility of the historicity of the BOM in the face of probability, I don't know what is.

This is preposterous. My question is: does acceptance of 2Isa require rejection of the historicity of the BOM (as many anti-Mormons claim)? Note that my entire discussion is based on the assumption of the ACCEPTANCE of 2Isa! I am not dismissing 200 years of scholarship with a wave of the hand. I'm ACCEPTING it! My conclusion is that 2Isa and BOM historicity can be reconciled if we assume some parts of 2Isa date to the beginning of Babylonian domination of Israel rather than the end. (Note Babylonian domination of Israel only last 65 years (604-539 BC). Do you agree with my conclusion or not?

I have also given one line of argument for possibly dating parts of 2Isa earlier--that some passages of 2Isa make more sense if we assume the temple exists. You have not engaged this evidence. I have also noted that Jews (like Ezekiel) began to worry about redemption from Babylon at the very beginning of the captivity. (Do you disagree?) Indeed, I note that note once have you actually engaged what the text says, or the reasons given by scholars for dating the text. Not once. Instead you continually retreat to you apologetic posturing that I'm disagreeing with all the scholars.

Why am I wasting my time discussing these things with you people? Well, I'm not any more. Bye.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill, so are you saying that deutero Isaiah began discussing the salvation of the Jews as soon as one wandering hebraic herdsman was taken captive a couple of hundred miles away from Jerusalem? Is the bar really that low to maintaining plausibility? Do you have evidence of a Jewish exile that occurred between 605-597 BC?

Yes. And Ezekiel demonstrates this. As soon as Babylonian domination began, Jews began worrying about redemption. This is, in fact, one of the primary concerns of the entire Hebrew Bible. If Yahweh is supreme, why does Israel lose to idol-worshippers? Has Yahweh rejected Israel forever, or will he renew the covenant and redeem Israel? This is, of course a major theme of First Isaiah! And if you knew anything about Near Eastern warfare, you would know that any Jews captured during Nebuchadnezzar's campaigns would have been taken into Exile.