maklelan Posted September 30, 2011 Posted September 30, 2011 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)?I don't think Deutero-Isaiah is pre-exilic. I view the Book of Mormon as a highly anaphoric translation that has as much of Joseph Smith's own worldview and imagination in it as ancient ideology and narrative.
Olavarria Posted September 30, 2011 Posted September 30, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whebRdHPAAk&feature=relatedThis guy has an interesting theory. He talks about it at the six minute mark.The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source
diglot Posted September 30, 2011 Author Posted September 30, 2011 I don't think Deutero-Isaiah is pre-exilic. I view the Book of Mormon as a highly anaphoric translation that has as much of Joseph Smith's own worldview and imagination in it as ancient ideology and narrative.Yea, I didn't think you would think Deutero-Isaiah was pre-exilic.Your comment about the BoM being an anaphoric translation is definitely intriguing! It kind of sounds like you are saying that the BoM is mainly a literary composition by Joseph Smith. So why not just drop the additional notion that it is the word of God? I assume that you do not do that because: (1) From a spiritual perspective you feel that the inspiration of the BoM has been confirmed to you; and (2) from an academic perspective you may possibly believe that the BoM exhibits traces of its ancient provenance. Would I be correct in saying that?
maklelan Posted September 30, 2011 Posted September 30, 2011 Yea, I didn't think you would think Deutero-Isaiah was pre-exilic.Your comment about the BoM being an anaphoric translation is definitely intriguing! It kind of sounds like you are saying that the BoM is mainly a literary composition by Joseph Smith. So why not just drop the additional notion that it is the word of God? I assume that you do not do that because: (1) From a spiritual perspective you feel that the inspiration of the BoM has been confirmed to you; and (2) from an academic perspective you may possibly believe that the BoM exhibits traces of its ancient provenance. Would I be correct in saying that?I don't think it's entirely the product of Joseph Smith's mind. I think there are several aspects of the book that aren't adequately explained by any naturalistic theories, although I don't pretend that those elements alone constitute a strong case for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. The main reason I believe the book is of ancient provenance is because I believe I've received a spiritual confirmation that it is the word of God. What exactly that means, however, is debatable.
Cobalt-70 Posted September 30, 2011 Posted September 30, 2011 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 newThat would be consistent with what we know about Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham, in which the actual papyri seem to have served as a source of inspiration for Smith, rather than a literal word-for-word manuscript of the text. It is also consistent with the fact that Smith did not actually look at the golden plates during the translation, but derived the text directly from the seer stone.
mfbukowski Posted September 30, 2011 Posted September 30, 2011 (edited) That would be consistent with what we know about Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham, in which the actual papyri seem to have served as a source of inspiration for Smith, rather than a literal word-for-word manuscript of the text. It is also consistent with the fact that Smith did not actually look at the golden plates during the translation, but derived the text directly from the seer stone.I agree. As far as I am concerned, and I have said this before, Joseph might just as well have been "translating" the patterns on the wallpaper as he was receiving revelation. I have even said, and I think it possible that Moses might have been staring into a fire- the "burning bush" as he received his revelations. There is something hypnotic about looking into moving water, fires and other visual stimuli which make me quite creative; I have even noticed that I get my best ideas sometimes when I am driving a car over a route I know well when there is little traffic, and I am engaged in thought with the world whirling past. This video is a little long, but it is totally fascinating. It is about the brain operates in situations like this. Edit: I haven't seen that video in maybe 3 years but just re-watching it, as I recalled, it is very profound indeed and highly relevant in my opinion, to this discussion.For some reason, it did not want to open here, so I just posted the link. Edited September 30, 2011 by mfbukowski
Sargon Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 Here are some earlier LDS writers pondering this topic:From 1984: (pp. 4-7) http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=14487&REC=3From 1988: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=74&chapid=913From 2000: (footnote 68) http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=8945&CISOSHOW=8811Others have provided links to more recent discussions. The bottom line is that LDS researchers are not simply brushing aside the multiple authorship of Isaiah, but are taking it seriously. I'm not a scholar, but I tend to think that attributing the Deutero-Isaiah portions to prophetic expansion on the part of Joseph Smith is giving too much credit to Joseph. Nephi deftly weaves Deutero-Isaiah into his overall thesis in a way that I don't believe Joseph Smith would or could have done. That isn't to say that Joseph did not prophetically expand every now and then, but this is an enormous chunk of text and it makes me wary to simply attribute it to him.
Sargon Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) I'm not a scholar, but I tend to think that attributing the Deutero-Isaiah portions to prophetic expansion on the part of Joseph Smith is giving too much credit to Joseph. Nephi deftly weaves Deutero-Isaiah into his overall thesis in a way that I don't believe Joseph Smith would or could have done. That isn't to say that Joseph did not prophetically expand every now and then, but this is an enormous chunk of text and it makes me wary to simply attribute it to him.To clarify, I think it is fine if Joseph simply used the KJV text everywhere where he saw that Nephi was quoting Isaiah. Remember, we only need to account for chapters 48-55. I can imagine a scenario in which these particular chapters were authored previous to the exile, and then modified or appended by a later author during the exile. Nephi would have quoted the original pre-exile version, but Joseph may have simply quoted the later version as it stands in the KJV. This seems to have been MO with all of the Isaiah chapters.Just brainstorming. Edited October 2, 2011 by Sargon
mfbukowski Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) To clarify, I think it is fine if Joseph simply used the KJV text everywhere where he saw that Nephi was quoting Isaiah. Remember, we only need to account for chapters 48-51 and 52:1-2. I can imagine a scenario in which these particular chapters were authored previous to the exile, and then modified or appended by a later author during the exile. Nephi would have quoted the original pre-exile version, but Joseph may have simply quoted the later version as it stands in the KJV. This seems to have been MO with all of the Isaiah chapters. Just brainstorming.Agreed. And this of course accounts for the language of the King James translation appearing in the BOM.It always amazes me how the cases of most critics against the church require a simplistic and literalistic interpretation of events, with little sophistication. The irony is that we are usually seen as the country bumpkins being hoodwinked by a fraud, when in fact, it is the arguments of the critics which are, ... well, a mite unsophisticated to say the least. Edited October 1, 2011 by mfbukowski
cdowis Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 I can imagine a scenario in which these particular chapters were authored previous to the exile, and then modified or appended by a later author during the exile. Nephi would have quoted the original pre-exile version, but Joseph may have simply quoted the later version as it stands in the KJV. This seems to have been MO with all of the Isaiah chapters.Just brainstorming.The problem is that that there are many variations from the KJV text. He quoted the KJV but used the Nephite text where there were differences. Clearly anything found in the BOM Isaiah chapters were on the Brass Plates. That scenario just doesn't fly.
Sargon Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 (edited) The problem is that that there are many variations from the KJV text. He quoted the KJV but used the Nephite text where there were differences. Clearly anything found in the BOM Isaiah chapters were on the Brass Plates.That scenario just doesn't fly.I think you raise a good point. This is a separate but corollary issue. I'm not sure that we've closed the case on the nature and origin of those variants. One thing is indisputable, the translation relies heavily on KJV Isaiah. The variants then have to be explained, and we have the following possibilities:(a) The variants exist in the Nephite version of Isaiah(b) The variants are the result of prophetic editing during translation(c ) Some other creative explanationBy the way, I haven't finished Brant's discussion of this issue in the first volume of his commentary, but I'm fairly certain he proposes something like what I've outlined above. That is, the portions of Deutero-Isaiah that we have in the BoM were penned by proto-Isaiah before Lehi left Jerusalem, and then recontextualized by a later deutero-Isaiah to be relevant to the Babylonian crisis. Brant also suggests that most of the variants between the KJV Isaiah and the BOM Isaiah are artifacts, whether accidental or conscious, of the translation process. Edited October 2, 2011 by Sargon
cdowis Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 I think you raise a good point. This is a separate but corollary issue. I'm not sure that we've closed the case on the nature and origin of those variants. One thing is indisputable, the translation relies heavily on KJV Isaiah. The variants then have to be explained, and we have the following possibilities:(a) The variants exist in the Nephite version of Isaiah(b) The variants are the result of prophetic editing during translation(c ) Some other creative explanationAs I suggested above==--- the result of two different transmissions or families of documents, Joseph and Judah. Each one has different editors.
Recommended Posts