Deutero-Isaiah In Book Of Mormon

[diglot]

I am curious as to how Mormons deal with fact that the Book of Mormon contains chapters of Deutero-Isaiah [e.g. Isa. 48-49 in 1 Nephi 20-21; and Isa 50-51 in 2 Nephi 7-8]. Here is a brief overview regarding the authorship of Isaiah...

In terms of literary style, theme, and vocabulary, the book of Isaiah falls into three neat sections:

First (or Proto) Isaiah, chapters 1-39. These chapters are generally seen as being written in the period of 750-700 BC. These chapters deal with such things as the development of the Assyrian Empire.

Second (or Deutero) Isaiah, chapters 40-55. These chapters are usually seen as written sometime around 550-530 BC. Despite the uncertainty of the specific year (though sometime towards the end of captivity is agreed upon) , what is important is that scholars all agree that these chapters are thought to have been composed decades after the capture of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and the consequence exile.

Third (or Trito) Isaiah, chapters 56-66. These chapters were probably written later than Deutero-Isaiah, sometime around 520-500 BC, after the Jews had returned from exile.

This view of the authorship of Isaiah is an axiomatic truth in Old Testament scholarship. And so the question arises that even if you assign a late date for the departure of Lehi and company (to ca. 587 BC when the temple was actually destroyed), there is still decades separating their departure and the writings of Deutero-Isaiah. So how could Lehi have in his possession a copy of the text of Deutero-Isaiah when they left Jerusalem? The only possible answer I can see is that you would simply have to reject the scholarly consensus at this point and believe that those chapters actually were written in the 8^th century before Lehi left.

Is there any other option?

[Hamba Tuhan]

One of the arguments in favour of multiple authors of Isaiah is that events discussed in 'Deutero Isaiah' occurred after the prophet Isaiah supposedly lived; therefore, those chapters must have been composed later...because otherwise we might have to deal with the issue of prophets actually seeing the future, and we all know they just pretend to do that.

[cinepro]

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.

Fair Wiki

In other words, from what I can tell, LDS scholars (and certainly the non-scholarly members) don't support the multiple authorship theories of the Book of Isaiah.

Edited September 29, 2011 by cinepro

[Hamba Tuhan]

In other words, from what I can tell, LDS scholars (and certainly the non-scholarly members) don't support the multiple authorship theories of the Book of Isaiah.

For better or for worse, the apostle John apparently didn't, either.

From chapter 12 of his gospel:

³⁷But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:

³⁸That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? [Taken from 'Deutero Isaiah.']

³⁹Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,

⁴⁰He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. [Taken from 'Proto Isaiah.']

⁴¹These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

[Zakuska]

For better or for worse, the apostle John apparently didn't, either.

From chapter 12 of his gospel:

³⁷But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:

³⁸That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? [Taken from 'Deutero Isaiah.']

³⁹Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,

⁴⁰He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. [Taken from 'Proto Isaiah.']

⁴¹These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

The beleif that Isaiah was one author predates John by about 240 years. (From cinepro's link)

The second example is the Dead Sea Scrolls. Two of the best known texts of Isaiah found at Qumran are the Great Isaiah Scroll and the St. Mark's Isaiah Scroll. The former is in the Shrine of the Book in Jerusalem (and is referred to as 1QIsb) and the latter is in St. Mark's Monastery in Israel (and is referred to as 1QIsa). Both of these texts are over 2000 years old, having been dated to around 200 BC, and yet the difference between the Qumran Isaiah texts and the Hebrew text upon which our modern Bibles (i.e. the King James Version) is based are almost non-existent. This indicates that the tradition of treating Isaiah as a single book dates back at least to 200 BC. Keep in mind that this was only about 300 years after the return from Babylon, so the minor changes (such as the insertion of the name of Cyrus for the messianic reference-if that's what happened) must have happened shortly after the Jews returned from Babylon in the middle of the 5th century BC.

Even the Anchor bible comentary admits that the word print data is inconclusive to prove or disprove dual authorship of Isaiah.

Some doubt concerning the unity of the Book of Isaiah was first expressed in the twelfth century by Rabbi ibn Ezra [a famous Talmudic scholar]. In modern scholarship the theory that Isa xl-lxvi were written later than the prophecies of Isaiah of Jerusalem (Isa i-xxxix) was proposed by two German scholars, Eichhorn in 1783 and Döderlein in 1789. The anonymous author was called Deutero-Isaiah (often in English Second Isaiah). Bernhard Duhm suggested in 1892 that Isa lvi-lxvi is still later than Second Isaiah; and this second anonymous author was called Trito-Isaiah (often in English Third Isaiah). The distinction between First Isaiah and Second Isaiah is so widely accepted in modern scholarship that the argument against it need not be examined at length. The distinction between Second Isaiah and Third Isaiah is almost as widely accepted…

The distinction between First Isiah and Second Isaiah has been made on the basis of vocabulary, style, and thought. The most striking feature of Second Isaiah is the two occurrences of the name of Cyrus (xliv 28, slv 1). That Isaiah of Jerusalem (First Isiah) could use the name of a king, in a language unknown to him, who ruled in a kingdom which did not exist in the eighth century BC, taxes probability too far. It is not a question of placing limits to the vision of prophecy but of the limits of intelligibility; even if the name were by hypothesis meaningful to the prophet, it could not be meaningful to his readers or listeners. Yet Cyrus is introduced without any explanation of his identity, or of why he should be an anchor of hope to the Israelites whom the prophet addresses. If the prophecy is to be attributed to Isaiah of Jerusalem, then these passages must be regarded as later expansions. "But if they are so regarded, other questions remain unanswered. The reader of Second Isaiah becomes convinced that the work has a style and vocabulary of its own. In an unpublished dissertation at the University of Chicago, Mrs. Judith Reinken has made a vocabulary study according to modern statistical methods which simply does not support the thesis of different authorship; nor does it support the thesis of unity of authorship. This is to say that the vocabulary alone is not decisive. Nor is the style alone any more decisive

What is decisive-for chapters xl-lxvi as a whole, postponing for the moment the consideration of a Third Isaiah-is that the work moves in a different world of discourse from that of First Isaiah…

There is no period of Israelite history known to us which offers a suitable background in which such a community could exist except the period between the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 587 BC and the surrender of Babylon to Cyrus of Persia in 539 BC.1 [emphasis added]

Edited September 29, 2011 by Zakuska

[diglot]

One of the arguments in favour of multiple authors of Isaiah is that events discussed in 'Deutero Isaiah' occurred after the prophet Isaiah supposedly lived; therefore, those chapters must have been composed later...because otherwise we might have to deal with the issue of prophets actually seeing the future, and we all know they just pretend to do that.

While that is an argument used to support Deutero-Isaiah, it certainly doesn't hinge on it. Take, for instance, the most explicit prophecy found in Deutero-Isaiah: the appearance of the 6^th century Persian king Cyrus’ name in the text (Isa 44.28 and 45.1). Even if you cut out those verses which mention Cyrus, the Deutero-Isaiah view would still held by scholars with just as much confidence. Why? Well, one reason is that the Deutero-Isaiah chapters just don't make sense from the view that the author was living in the 8^th century when the Jews were still living in Jerusalem. Those chapters read as if written to a group of people who have already been exiled. Another reason is that name "Isaiah" stops occurring in the text after chapter 39. The anonymity of chapters 40-66 would explain why they exhibit different literary style and so forth.

Edited September 29, 2011 by diglot

[diglot]

In other words, from what I can tell, LDS scholars (and certainly the non-scholarly members) don't support the multiple authorship theories of the Book of Isaiah.

Thanks, that is what I suspected.

[diglot]

Even the Anchor bible comentary admits that the word print data is inconclusive to prove or disprove dual authorship of Isaiah.

Interestingly, there was a recent analysis of Isaiah performed by using a computer algorithm which looks at literary style and vocabulary (see here). This computer analysis agreed with the Deutero-Isaiah theory of authorship (though it decided Deutero-Isaiah began six chapters earlier in ch. 33).

[Vance]

This computer analysis agreed with the Deutero-Isaiah theory of authorship

Apparently not, because of this,

(though it decided Deutero-Isaiah began six chapters earlier in ch. 33).

Which is a direct contradiction to what you said in the OP.

First (or Proto) Isaiah, chapters 1-39.

. . .

Second (or Deutero) Isaiah, chapters 40-55.

. . .

Third (or Trito) Isaiah, chapters 56-66.

[diglot]

Apparently not, because of this,

Which is a direct contradiction to what you said in the OP.

Uh, yea I did mention that the computer analysis started Deutero-Isaiah six chapters earlier than is commonly thought. That doesn't overturn the fact that it agrees with the Deutero-Isaiah model of authorship.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Well, one reason is that the Deutero-Isaiah chapters just don't make sense from the view that the author was living in the 8^th century when the Jews were still living in Jerusalem. Those chapters read as if written to a group of people who have already been exiled.

You mean something like this? 'Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.'

[David T]

Actually, the last few chapters of "Isaiah Prime" (36-39) aren't thought at all to be written by Isaiah of Jerusalem, but taken from the 1-2 Kings narrative record (which are about Isaiah of Jerusalem), and interpolated into the text. It's a narrative editorial addition inbetween the authentic orcacles of Isaiah of Jerusalem and the new text beginning with Deutero Isaiah in Chapter 40.

Anyone reading Isaiah can note the difference in style and approach with those intermediate narrative chapters.

It's also very much recognized that there's been some subtle structural updating and revising (kind of like Joseph Smith did with his revision of D&C sections) with the earlier Isaiah Oracles by the later prophetic writers continuing Isaiah's tradition, and interpreting them and expanding them in light of what actually has occured.

There are those LDS who recognize multiple authorship and editorizalization of Isaiah. I think they key argument is going for an earlier underlying version of Detero Isaiah that was written by Isaiah of Jerusalem, and then heavily redacted and edited by the anonymous Detutero Isaiah prophet (again, JST style), which is what we have existing today, and prepresented in the KJV. Instead of representing the original Isaiah of Jerusalem text in the English BoM, Joseph utilized the English version available and familiar to him and his readers - the KJV Detero-Isaiah redaction, which includes anachronisms not part of what would have been Nephi's actual plate-text source redaction.

Interesting enough, the Book of Mormon does not contain any of the Trito Isaiah (post-exilic) chapters. Which can lend support to at least that portion being substantially later.

Edited September 29, 2011 by nackhadlow

[diglot]

You mean something like this? 'Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.'

I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at.

Deutero-Isaiah naturally reads as if it is written post-exile and there is no plausible reason to suggest that it was in fact written before the exile (the only reason I can see is a dogmatic religious one). As I said in the original post, the Deutero-Isaiah model of authorship is an axiomatic truth in scholarship.

[diglot]

There are those LDS who recognize multiple authorship and editorizalization of Isaiah. I think they key argument is going for an earlier underlying version of Detero Isaiah that was written by Isaiah of Jerusalem, and then heavily redacted and edited by the anonymous Detutero Isaiah prophet (again, JST style), which is what we have existing today, and prepresented in the KJV. Instead of representing the original Isaiah of Jerusalem text in the English BoM, Joseph utilized the English version available and familiar to him and his readers - the KJV Detero-Isaiah redaction, which includes anachronisms not part of what would have been Nephi's actual plate-text source redaction.

Interesting, I was wondering how LDS could reconcile Deutero-Isaiah while also accepting the BoM. Thanks!

Edited September 29, 2011 by diglot

[Kevin Christensen]

I did this, FWIW.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=6&chapterID=53

Had I read this article by Margaret Barker on "The Original Setting of the Fourth Servant Song, I would have included its implications in my 2001 essay. She makes that case that Isaiah 53 was composed in response to Hezekiah's bout with the plague, which would mean that it was written by the First Isaiah, not the second.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/FourthServantSong.pdf

More recently, there is this interesting note on recent scholarship from David Larsen's site:

http://www.heavenlyascents.com/2010/10/15/what-did-the-authors-of-isaiah-40-55-really-know-about-babylon-dr-lena-sophia-tiemeyer/

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[diglot]

I did this, FWIW.

http://maxwellinstit...=6&chapterID=53

Had I read this article by Margaret Barker on "The Original Setting of the Fourth Servant Song, I would have included its implications in my 2001 essay. She makes that case that Isaiah 53 was composed in response to Hezekiah's bout with the plague, which would mean that it was written by the First Isaiah, not the second.

http://www.margaretb...ServantSong.pdf

More recently, there is this interesting note on recent scholarship from David Larsen's site:

http://www.heavenlya...ophia-tiemeyer/

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Thanks for the links. I will give them a read later.

[maklelan]

In other words, from what I can tell, LDS scholars (and certainly the non-scholarly members) don't support the multiple authorship theories of the Book of Isaiah.

There are numerous LDS scholars who do support the multiple authorship theories, including me.

[Rivers]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whebRdHPAAk&feature=related

This guy has an interesting theory. He talks about it at the six minute mark.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Rivers

[diglot]

There are numerous LDS scholars who do support the multiple authorship theories, including me.

I thought you would be one who accepts multiple Isaianic authorship. What are your thoughts on this as it relates the the Book of Mormon? Do you see Deutero-Isaiah as being pre-exilic (or, at least, the chapters of it quoted in the BoM)?

[diglot]

This guy has an interesting theory. He talks about it at the six minute mark.

Thanks, I just watched it. If I understood the speaker correctly, he was saying that Joseph Smith may have been divinely inspired to add those chapters of Deutero-Isaiah into the text of the BoM. Is that what he was saying?

Edited September 29, 2011 by diglot

[Rivers]

Thanks, I just watched it. If I understood the speaker correctly, he was saying that Joseph Smith may have been divinely inspired to add those chapters of Deutero-Isaiah into the text of the BoM. Is that what he was saying?

Yep. My guess is that that some parts of the Bible are so important (like the sermon on the mount) that the Lord put them in the Book of Mormon.

[Questing Beast]

As I pointed out on the other thread, my pre 1981 missionary Bible dictionary asserts the existence of pre and post exile "Isaiah" authorship. The post exile authorship is quoted in the "Isaiah parts" of the BofM; a fact impossible to reconcile with the contents of "the brass plates".

That LDS scholars reject this consensus of dual authorship of Isaiah (pre and post exile, "First" and "Second Isaiah") is not news. And of course, rejecting multiple "Isaiah" authorship, they will perforce come up with ingenious explanations.

The evidence is clear: scripture writers edit their own and predecessors' works. Joseph Smith heavily edited the BofC into the first edition of the D&C. Why would this be necessary, if the revelations were directly the word of the Lord? Why cut out whole swathes of some parts and add in material elsewhere, that was not part of the original revelations? Obviously, because of expediency: and a huge part of that expediency is to just make the changes and keep mum. Eventually, the believers will only have the current version. Except, the real world doesn't work that way: especially in the age of the Internet....

[Cobalt-70]

I'm a Mormon who agrees with multiple Isaiah authorship. For me, the clincher is the fact that Deutero-Isaiah was a monotheist, while Isaiah himself was a monolatrist. If it were the same author, you would think he would have a consistent theology.

[mfbukowski]

This guy has an interesting theory. He talks about it at the six minute mark.

"This guy" is David Bokovoy, notable LDS scholar.

If you did not know him, his name is clearly visible on his name tag.

Edited September 29, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Thanks, I just watched it. If I understood the speaker correctly, he was saying that Joseph Smith may have been divinely inspired to add those chapters of Deutero-Isaiah into the text of the BoM. Is that what he was saying?

That is my understanding of his point, put in basic terms. Many of us view the process of "translation" to be more one describable as "revelation", and if you listen toward the end of the video, in which Brigham Young is quoted, this understanding is not new