Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Textual Divisions in Isaiah and the BofM

David Bokovoy

By David Bokovoy
in Book of Abraham

Recommended Posts

ELF1024 Community Regular

ELF1024

Posted
Posted

For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so... righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. -- 2 Nephi 2:11

:P and what in the world does that have to do with winning?

Again, this isn't a football game. There isn't anyone with a scoreboard, and nobody is going to be coming out and holding up the winner's hand. This isn't a "Black or White", "Good or Evil", kind of thing. This is a discussion. This an exchange of view points.

Link to comment
Mortal Man Community Regular

Mortal Man

Posted
Posted

I stated that some of the Masoretes divided the text in the same why Abinadi did, but I never said, nor implied that they did so for the same reason.

Okay, let's say that Abinadi and the Masoretes both divided the text at 53:1 for completely independent and unrelated reasons. This leaves us with a remarkable unexplained coincidence.

On the other hand, if we say that "some of the MT MSS explanations of textual divisions feature a connection with the literary separation marked in Abinadi

Link to comment
Mansquatch Enthusiast

Mansquatch

Posted
Posted

Excellent post Bokovoy. Very enlightening. Context is indeed most important. **sarc** But since Abinidi's quote happens to coincide with a chapter break I don't believe it. **end sarc** Let this be a lesson to us all to always quote scripture beginning a few verses before the applicable material.

Link to comment
David Bokovoy Mentor

David Bokovoy

Posted
  • Author
Posted

You know David, if you had just offered me one of your smoked BBQ ribs, I might not have become such a hardened heretic.

What are you talking about, Andrew?!! Half of my friends are hardened heretics and many of the rest are apostates. You know you've got an open invite for smoked ribs at my house.

Link to comment
Vance Grand Master

Vance

Posted
Posted

As I mentioned four days ago, I have a lot of other issues I need to address. If I have time, I may come back and post a response to David, but honestly, I'm just too busy at the moment.

I suppose then that you don't have time to respond to Brant's post either.

Link to comment
Kevin Christensen Grand Master

Kevin Christensen

Posted
Posted

This morning on the train to work, I re-read John Welch's essay "Isaiah 53, Mosiah 14, and the Book of Mormon" in the Isaiah in the Book of Mormon volume. One of the things that stands out is how much crucial information that Welch gleans from the fact that Abinadi is on trial, and that Noah's priest's cite Isaiah 52 as part of an approach designed to convict Abinadi of false prophesy. David mentions this in passing, but Welch's legal expertise brings out more telling details. Reading Welch's essay compared to Rob's reading in this thread will highlight just how little of the relevant legal context that Rob sees in his critique. Again, for those who want to understand what is happening, I recommend reaching this essay, just one of several very interesting ones in the book. And of course, I also like Margaret Barker's essay on "The Original Background of the Fourth Servant Song" as being Hezekiah's bout with the plague in light of the role of the atoning high priest.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Link to comment
David Bokovoy Mentor

David Bokovoy

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hello Rob,

As always, I enjoy reading your posts. Thanks for the thoughtful response. I too have moved on to some other projects now, and have little time to devote to this thread. I'll simply state:

1. I apologize for overstating your claim regarding this specific issue. It was unintentional. While I believe you've raised a good question here (hence my efforts at writing a response), in my mind this is not a very big "straw," (to adopt your terminology). As I have attempted to illustrate, I don't believe it's an issue. If we want to talk big straws, in my mind we would have to address Mortal Man's goalposts on Deutero-Isaiah.

2. We'll simply have to agree to disagree on Genesis 2:4. I'm convinced that it creates closure to the Priestly version of creation via an inclusio with 1:1.

3. I felt that I had addressed the Mosiah section you suggest that I skipped over by showing how Abinadi's message of redemption was central to his prophetic commission. Moreover, the fact that the material in Mosiah 12 and 14 is separated by the material in 13 in my mind doesn't negate my analysis, but instead simply illustrates the literary complexity of this amazing book.

4. I'm not convinced that Watts is correct. My use of his commentary simply illustrates that the issue of the suffering servant(s) is open for debate (a fact which provides more evidence that this issue is not a "straw," let alone a big one.

Best,

---DB

Link to comment
Rob Bowman Grand Master

Rob Bowman

Posted
Posted

David,

Thanks for the stimulating discussion. I appreciate it.

For what it's worth, I reject the Deutero-Isaiah theory, so I do not support criticism of the inclusion of Isaiah 48-54 in the Book of Mormon on that basis. Oddly, though, at least one LDS scholar who frequents this forum does accept the idea of a postexilic Deutero-Isaiah. I don't see any plausible way to square that idea with the Book of Mormon.

Hello Rob,

As always, I enjoy reading your posts. Thanks for the thoughtful response. I too have moved on to some other projects now, and have little time to devote to this thread. I'll simply state:

1. I apologize for overstating your claim regarding this specific issue. It was unintentional. While I believe you've raised a good question here (hence my efforts at writing a response), in my mind this is not a very big "straw," (to adopt your terminology). As I have attempted to illustrate, I don't believe it's an issue. If we want to talk big straws, in my mind we would have to address Mortal Man's goalposts on Deutero-Isaiah.

2. We'll simply have to agree to disagree on Genesis 2:4. I'm convinced that it creates closure to the Priestly version of creation via an inclusio with 1:1.

3. I felt that I had addressed the Mosiah section you suggest that I skipped over by showing how Abinadi's message of redemption was central to his prophetic commission. Moreover, the fact that the material in Mosiah 12 and 14 is separated by the material in 13 in my mind doesn't negate my analysis, but instead simply illustrates the literary complexity of this amazing book.

4. I'm not convinced that Watts is correct. My use of his commentary simply illustrates that the issue of the suffering servant(s) is open for debate (a fact which provides more evidence that this issue is not a "straw," let alone a big one.

Best,

---DB

Link to comment
Mortal Man Community Regular

Mortal Man

Posted
Posted

For what it's worth, I reject the Deutero-Isaiah theory

No doubt, since it presents a severe problem not just for Mormonism but all of Christianity. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied; Isaiah 40-55 were written near the end of the Babylonian captivity.

I sense another thread coming on where the teams might get switched around. I'd actually like to see you defend the unity of Isaiah. I hope you could do a better job than Bill did.

Link to comment
Bill Hamblin Mentor

Bill Hamblin

Posted
Posted

No doubt, since it presents a severe problem not just for Mormonism but all of Christianity. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied. Isaiah 40-55 were written at the end of the Babylonian captivity.

I sense another thread coming on where the teams might get switched around a bit. I'd actually like to see you defend the unity of Isaiah. I hope you could do a better job than Bill did.

Obviously you've learned nothing from our discussions. You don't have to agree with me, but you certainly need to be able to accurately describe my position. Otherwise, what's the point of talking to you? (I've concluded there is none.)

1- It's not a problem for Christianity. How could it possibly be a problem?

2- It can be denied. Lots of very good scholars do. They may be wrong, but they can make the argument

3- I never defended the unity of Isaiah. (I'm agnostic on the matter, though I lean in favor of it.) My position was that the issue for the BOM is not Deutero-Isaiah, but the dating of the chapters of Deutero-Isaiah that appear in the BOM.

Link to comment
Rob Bowman Grand Master

Rob Bowman

Posted
Posted

Bill,

Could there be any position less satisfactory, scholastically speaking, than denying the unity of Isaiah but dating "Deutero-Isaiah" before the Babylonian Exile (and before Cyrus!)? Such a position would seem to have all of the supposed difficulties of the traditional view (to which I adhere) but few or none of the supposed benefits of the multiple-Isaiah theory. It's like not having your cake and not having eaten it, either.

Obviously you've learned nothing from our discussions. You don't have to agree with me, but you certainly need to be able to accurately describe my position. Otherwise, what's the point of talking to you? (I've concluded there is none.)

1- It's not a problem for Christianity. How could it possibly be a problem?

2- It can be denied. Lots of very good scholars do. They may be wrong, but they can make the argument

3- I never defended the unity of Isaiah. (I'm agnostic on the matter, though I lean in favor of it.) My position was that the issue for the BOM is not Deutero-Isaiah, but the dating of the chapters of Deutero-Isaiah that appear in the BOM.

Link to comment
Mortal Man Community Regular

Mortal Man

Posted
Posted

Bill,

Could there be any position less satisfactory, scholastically speaking, than denying the unity of Isaiah but dating "Deutero-Isaiah" before the Babylonian Exile (and before Cyrus!)? Such a position would seem to have all of the supposed difficulties of the traditional view (to which I adhere) but few or none of the supposed benefits of the multiple-Isaiah theory. It's like not having your cake and not having eaten it, either.

Indeed, if Deutero-Isaiah was a contemporary of Lehi and Jeremiah then how could Nephi et al. have confused him with Proto-Isaiah?

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...