Isaiah 101

[Bill Hamblin]

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?

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.

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.

Jews were in exile in Mesopotamia from at least the 720s. This was of concern to First Isaiah who mentions the gathering and redemption of Jews in Shinar/Babylonia in 11:11. The point is, gathering of Jews from Babylon is not a unique theme only found in 2Isa. Indeed we should note that in 2Isa, the return of Jews from Babylon is emphasized in 48:20, but the gathering and redemption of Israel from the entire world is emphasized in 43:5-6 and 49:5-6,12.

The evidence for Jews in Babylonian exile before 597 is standard Babylonian (and universal ancient Near Eastern) military practice of taking war captives as slaves. It would be impossible for Nebuchadnezzer to campaign extensively in the region, and receive the submission of Judah without taking Jewish slaves. Or do you wish to argue that Nebuchadnezzar was a uniquely benevolent warlord who refused to enslave war captives like EVERY other Near Eastern king had been doing for over 2000 years?

[Bill Hamblin]

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:

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.

Can't you read? The source you cite say the 2Isa theory has "UNIVERSAL" acceptance. I simply noted that it does not. The vast majority of secular scholars accept it. A few don't. Many Evangelical scholars reject it. I'm simply seeking a bit of clarity in the discussion.

[J Green]

I haven't reached a conclusion about the dating of II Isa in regards to the BoM, but I did find interesting the comments of John Oswalt (one of the conservative Evangelical scholars that Bill probably has in mind) on 40-66 in comparison to I Isa:

That is, if Isaiah of Jerusalem did write these chapters [40-66], then he had a knowledge of the future that was more detailed than that displayed by other OT prophets. Furthermore, this view means that these chapters are speaking

to

people in the future, not merely

about

them. This is also unique. (John Oswalt,

The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66

[Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1998] 5; emphasis in the original.)

These two observations are interesting to me because they are exactly the type of thing we see in and around Nephi's Isaiah pesher: very detailed prophecy (often criticized as too detailed) and speaking to people in the future, not merely about them. (After quoting his large block from Isaiah, he immediately starts addressing future readers from the House of Israel.) I find this overlap interesting.

Regards

[Mark Beesley]

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).

Maybe the "overwhelming majority" is wrong. It doesn't take serious mental gymnastics (something I am incapable of), to believe that scholars can be universally wrong about something like this. They are looking at translations and iterations of texts that were orignally written around 700 B.C., do not have the benefit of a single original autograph, make lots of assumptions, and try to read history into prophecy. In other words, they are relying on the arm of flesh. Bad move . . . even Deutero-Isaiah says so, (or maybe it was Trito-Isaiah ):

10 Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God.

11 Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.

Isaiah 50

[rameumptom]

Having taught the class for a few months, and blogged the OT lessons so far, I would like to see the Church give more historical background and original intent. It is good to "liken it unto ourselves", but if that's all we do, we often will miss some of the major teachings and concepts found in scripture.

Isaiah 6 should lead us to a discussion on theophanies, and how the temple fulfills that for us today. It should also open the door to discuss the divine council, comparing Isaiah's experience with what is taught in Abraham 3: how is Isaiah a proto-Messiah?

Or better, give us a monthly theme and scriptures tied to the theme, to discuss in class. Teach on the divine council, one week focus on OT scriptures, another on modern scripture, etc. Teach another month on the atonement, hitting it from different angles for 4 weeks. THAT is how we will teach and learn doctrine.

[David T]

Isaiah 6 should lead us to a discussion on theophanies, and how the temple fulfills that for us today.

Yes! Which was actually a key point of a post I made here Saturday, which I revised into a blog post here.

[gtaggart]

Can't you read? The source you cite say the 2Isa theory has "UNIVERSAL" acceptance. I simply noted that it does not. The vast majority of secular scholars accept it. A few don't. Many Evangelical scholars reject it. I'm simply seeking a bit of clarity in the discussion.

Bill, I hate to point out the obvious, but Evangelical scholars--much like every jot and tittle of their Mormon counterparts--are biased. Secular scholars are not. Thus, "vast majority of secular scholars" = "UNIVERSAL acceptance."

Edited to change 'very' to 'every.'

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill, I hate to point out the obvious, but Evangelical scholars--much like very jot and tittle of their Mormon counterparts--are biased. Secular scholars are not. Thus, "vast majority of secular scholars" = "UNIVERSAL acceptance."

Drat! I keep forgetting that!

[Mortal Man]

Finally there is 52:7-11

7 How beautiful upon the mountains

are the feet of him who brings good news,

who publishes peace, who brings good news of happiness,

who publishes salvation,

who says to Zion,

[volgadon]

The "mountains" (plural) are the Judean Mountains (e.g., Mount Nebo), which the exiles would cross on their way back to Jerusalem.

Umm, yes and no. I agree that the mountains are probably the Judean ones (Mt. Nebo is NOT part of that at all), yet the language is of someone already there , seeing a messenger, a runner, approaching. I am afraid your post is as accurate as your geography.

[Bill Hamblin]

These verses (which appear in 3 Nephi 20:40-41) are a celebration of Cyrus

[Mortal Man]

I agree that the mountains are probably the Judean ones (Mt. Nebo is NOT part of that at all)

Yes, but on a clear day you can see Jerusalem from the summit.

[Bill Hamblin]

Yes, but on a clear day you can see Jerusalem from the summit.

No you can't. The Mount of Olives in the way. Today you can theoretically see the towers on the Mt of Olives from Nebo, but they did not exist in ancient times.

Anciently you could possibly see the column of smoke rising from the sacrifices burning on the temple altar, but only if the temple was functioning.

At any rate, what has that go to do with exegesis of this passage?

[Mortal Man]

No you can't. The Mount of Olives in the way. Today you can theoretically see the towers on the Mt of Olives from Nebo, but they did not exist in ancient times.

Anciently you could possibly see the column of smoke rising from the sacrifices burning on the temple altar, but only if the temple was functioning.

I guess Moses was taller than you.

[volgadon]

Yes, but on a clear day you can see Jerusalem from the summit.

And clear days are few and far between, so? That still doesnt make it part of the Judean hills.

[Bill Hamblin]

You'll have to take that up with Moses.

Why do you insist on endlessly quibbling about non-issues instead of focusing on the argument at hand? First of all, I've been to Mt Nebo nearly a dozen times. You can't see ancient Jerusalem from there. The Mount of Olives is in the way!

The passage you cite is about the Lord showing Moses a vision of the Holy Land because he will not enter it. He sees the ocean and Dan for heavens sake!

But, for the sake of argument, I'll pretend that you can see Jerusalem from Mt Nebo. SO WHAT? What has that possibly got to do with the exegesis of Isa 52?

[volgadon]

You'll have to take that up with Moses.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

[David Bokovoy]

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?

In case anyone is interested, as one who fully accepts the legitimacy of Deutero-Isaiah, I agree with this conclusion. Still, speaking personally, I would love attending Andrew's Gospel Doctrine class exploring these issues.

[Fifth Columnist]

In case anyone is interested, as one who fully accepts the legitimacy of Deutero-Isaiah, I agree with this conclusion. Still, speaking personally, I would love attending Andrew's Gospel Doctrine class exploring these issues.

David, do you believe that any part of Deutero Isaiah should be dated to pre 597 BC? If so, which portions and why, and do you agree with Bill's reasoning or do you have some other reasons? Also, do you know any other Isaiah scholars that feel likewise?

Bill has asked me to address the merits of his arguments, which has required me to refresh my understanding of the issues. I haven't had time to put together a formal response yet, but so far I have found very little to support his temple related arguments (which are actually quite muddled if you start from the beginning of this thread). I would like to get your input to the questions I posed above before going too much further to make sure I get a view of the whole landscape.

[Bill Hamblin]

Alas I'm leaving on a trip soon, and will have to drop out of the discussion. Have fun!

[Mortal Man]

In case anyone is interested, as one who fully accepts the legitimacy of Deutero-Isaiah, I agree with this conclusion. Still, speaking personally, I would love attending Andrew's Gospel Doctrine class exploring these issues.

Hi David, thanks for showing up.

1) What are your thoughts on the unity of Deutero-Isaiah's voice? I see 40-55 as being written by a single person in Babylon in a very short period of time around 539 BC.

2) If Deutero-Isaiah lived and wrote in Jerusalem just prior to Lehi's departure, then how could Nephi et al. have been completely unaware of his distinct indentity from (long dead) Proto-Isaiah? Could President Monson pass himself off as Joseph Smith and add several chapters to the Book of Mormon without anyone noticing?

[Mortal Man]

Alas I'm leaving on a trip soon, and will have to drop out of the discussion. Have fun!

A trip to Mt. Nebo? Be sure to stand on your tippy toes and tell us what you see.

[David Bokovoy]

David, do you believe that any part of Deutero Isaiah should be dated to pre 597 BC? If so, which portions and why, and do you agree with Bill's reasoning or do you have some other reasons? Also, do you know any other Isaiah scholars that feel likewise?

I agree with Bill

[David Bokovoy]

Hi David, thanks for showing up.

1) What are your thoughts on the unity of Deutero-Isaiah's voice? I see 40-55 as being written by a single person in Babylon in a very short period of time around 539 BC.

2) If Deutero-Isaiah lived and wrote in Jerusalem just prior to Lehi's departure, then how could Nephi et al. have been completely unaware of his distinct indentity from (long dead) Proto-Isaiah? Could President Monson pass himself off as Joseph Smith and add several chapters to the Book of Mormon without anyone noticing?

About all I have time to say is that there's no way that Lehi and his family would have had much if any exposure to the prophetic writings prior to obtaining the Brass Plates.

Best,

--DB