Higher Criticism And Isaiah

[rongo]

We're reading Isaiah in our family scripture study (we're reading the Old Testament straight through, then on to the New). I've shared some of Sidney B. Sperry's writings on "the Isaiah problem," and I'm firmly in the conservative camp (i.e., I think that one Isaiah is the only tenable position for Mormons, mainly because the Book of Mormon quotes from all three "sections" (proto/deutero/trito) --- thus showing that Isaiah was already a unified whole when the brass plates were recorded --- if the Book of Mormon is true).

 

A couple of questions:

 

1) Have there been any wordprint analyses done between the different "sections" of Isaiah? I'm not a big fan of wordprints, but I'm curious what they show. Supposedly, wordprints survive translation.

 

2) How do Mormon "higher critics" deal with the "Book of Mormon problem" with Isaiah?

 

Thanks!

Edited June 6, 2014 by rongo

[omni]

I'm interested in this too, as I've heard from a number of critics this issue is one of the most damming evidences against the BoM and hasn't been adequately addressed by apologists because there really isn't a good response available.  Could just be hyperbole, I don't know...

[knowone]

i didnt know what the 'isaiah problem' was until reading your post..  i started reading up on it on the website:

 

http://www.shields-research.org/Books/Sperry/Spry_Isa.html

 

the first thing that hit me, is in the second paragraph, which is page 74 of the book, the author mentions ibn ezra.  after that, he mentions 2 other ashkenazi jewish rabbis.

 

i simply dont believe very much by any rabbi after the first temple period when they got taken to babylon.  isnt it in the BoM that says that the Lord is giving the jews complicated doctrine??  also that He would always leave the tribe of benjamin with the jews simply so that they have some sort light amongst them?

 

anything after around 590 bc, i almost never have felt the spirit or revelation in rabbinical literature.  it was during babylon that the rabbis concluded that God doesnt talk to mankind anymore.

 

ill take the BoM's witness of isaiah over a million rabbis of the torah.  this elevates isaiah even higher than before.  it seems he could be close to the 2nd place prophet for me, after joseph smith of course. 

 

 

...oh wait a minute, how could i forget how often the Savior himself quoted isaiah in the new testament!?!?!  end of story.

Edited June 6, 2014 by knowone

[Duncan]

You may find this article by Prof. Nibley pretty good!

 

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/sperry-symposium-classics-old-testament/great-are-words-isaiah

 

or there was this book printed years ago with some stellar articles you may find interesting

 

http://rsc.byu.edu/out-print/isaiah-and-prophets-inspired-voices-old-testament

Edited June 6, 2014 by Duncan

[rongo]

omni:

 

I think it's been very well addressed by apologists, but only if there aren't multiple Isaiahs over centuries (including long after Lehi left Jerusalem). Sidney B. Sperry's work in particular is very good. I don't think David Bokovoy & Co. are very helpful in defending the Book of Mormon as an actual record that really existed as recorded, especially in light of "the Isaiah problem."

 

As knowone brought up, the fact that Jesus quoted Isaiah as if it were a unity is strong evidence, for those who accept Jesus as being the Son of God. Those who grin condescendingly about this tend towards "higher criticism," in my experience.

[rongo]

knowone:

 

The article you linked to is one of the Sperry papers I referenced. It is excellent, and his points have not been addressed by Mormon higher critics (like Bokovoy), or unfriendly anti-Mormon critics, so far as I know.

 

As Sperry points out, it really boils down to whether or not one actually believes in the possibility of prophecy as a tangible reality. Most of the reasons for partitioning into "deuteron/trito" boil down to a rejection of the possibility of prophecy, not textual or stylistic items. 

[knowone]

rongo, i apologize in advance if i dont understand what you mean by 'higher critisicm'.  ive never lived in a mormon community irl, or on the net.  ive ran into a lot of terminology i wasnt familiar with already on these boards.  im interested though.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[cdowis]

An observation from a simple person -->>

 

In formulating their theory, the higher critics have failed to take into account one rendition of Isaiah based on a manuscript dating back to circa 600 BCE.

 

The BOM gives us a basis to test the Deutero Isaiah theory.

 

 I foolishly suggest we should not put the cart before the horse. There are alternative explanations, such as the school of the prophets, which, contemporaneous to Isaiah,  may have had a role in the writing and transcription of the book of Isaiah, under his guidance.  

Edited June 6, 2014 by cdowis

[Kevin Christensen]

See Isaiah in the Book of Mormon:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/book/isaiah-in-the-book-of-mormon/

Also, my own take in Paradigms Regained, influenced most by the then recent Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, and Margaret Barker's The Older Testament, which argues for 3 Isaiahs

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2694&index=7

Writing it now, I would also point out Margaret Barker's case that Isaiah 53 was inspired by Hezekiah's bout with the plague, in light of the Day of Atonement rituals. This means that chapter comes from First Isaiah, rather than an exilic disciple.

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

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Glenn101]

We're reading Isaiah in our family scripture study (we're reading the Old Testament straight through, then on to the New). I've shared some of Sidney B. Sperry's writings on "the Isaiah problem," and I'm firmly in the conservative camp (i.e., I think that one Isaiah is the only tenable position for Mormons, mainly because the Book of Mormon quotes from all three "sections" (proto/deutero/trito) --- thus showing that Isaiah was already a unified whole when the brass plates were recorded --- if the Book of Mormon is true).

 

A couple of questions:

 

1) Have there been any wordprint analyses done between the different "sections" of Isaiah? I'm not a big fan of wordprints, but I'm curious what they show. Supposedly, wordprints survive translation.

 

2) How do Mormon "higher critics" deal with the "Book of Mormon problem" with Isaiah?

 

Thanks!

 

There has been at least one word print study which did just that. In their pioneering work on word prints and Book of Mormon authorship, Wayne Larsen, Alvin Rencher, and Tim Layton also used their methods on the Book of Isaiah and found it to be internally consistent. Word prints by an author have been shown to survive a careful translation, but there are some LDS scholars (John John Tvedtnes being one) that dispute that a Hebrew translation can be be accurately word printed because the original Hebrew lacks many of the non-contextual words that are used in the word print analysis as used by Rencher et al. and as such, a word print analysis of a Hebrew translation would reflect more of the patterns of the translator than it would of the original author.

 

I don't know of anyone having developed a word print algorithm for the Hebrew language, so, it seems that we are left with less exacting sciences to deal with "the Isaiah problem".

 

To me, it seems that proponents of textual criticism are ignoring the possibility of God's influence on Isaiah. I think that there is more that we don't know than there is that we do.

 

Glenn

[Buzzard]

rongo, i apologize in advance if i dont understand what you mean by 'higher critisicm'.  ive never lived in a mormon community irl, or on the net.  ive ran into a lot of terminology i wasnt familiar with already on these boards.  im interested though.

It's kind of fuzzy, and not just found among Mormons, but basically it means taking writings considered to be inspired such as the Bible and Book of Mormon, and analyzing them based on their historical and textual background, rather than considering them to have been inspired. An obvious one is the Book of Revelations, since there are other apocalyptic writings composed around the same time that did not become canonized. Higher criticism would take Revelations and compare it to these other writings. 

[Gray]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2014/04/deutero-isaiah-in-the-book-of-mormon-a-literary-analysis-pt-1/

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2014/04/deutero-isaiah-in-the-book-of-mormon-a-literary-analysis-pt-2/

[omni]

omni:

 

I think it's been very well addressed by apologists, but only if there aren't multiple Isaiahs over centuries (including long after Lehi left Jerusalem). Sidney B. Sperry's work in particular is very good. I don't think David Bokovoy & Co. are very helpful in defending the Book of Mormon as an actual record that really existed as recorded, especially in light of "the Isaiah problem."

 

 

 

Coming from an unbelieving perspective, I find the multiple Isaiah theory just like I do the multiple Hill Cumorah theory, a bit too convenient.

[rongo]

I would have thought, omni, that coming from an unbelieving perspective, you would favor a multiple Isaiah theory over one (since a multiple Isaiah theory is problematic for the Book of Mormon). If not, then welcome aboard on this one! . . .

[CA Steve]

The term "Higher Criticism" is misleading and contributes to part of the problem as we can see from some of the posts above since many people infer from the term that those who use it somehow are applying a higher (read better) level critical approach. That is not what is meant by "higher criticism". What it means by "higher" is "above or behind the text" and critical is used in the sense of applying rigorous standards and careful judgement. Contrary to what one might infer from the term, no higher moral ground is assumed. Higher Criticism seeks to explain contradictions and inconsistencies in scripture by looking at original sources.

Also it is just one of many methods used by scholars to interpret scripture.

 

On Edit.

 

In my opinion to call David Bokovoy a "higher critic" is to misuse the term. Rather he is a biblical scholar (and a gentleman!) who uses "Higher Criticism" as an interpretive tool in his work. I do not consider David a critic at all.

Edited June 6, 2014 by CA Steve

[omni]

I would have thought, omni, that coming from an unbelieving perspective, you would favor a multiple Isaiah theory over one (since a multiple Isaiah theory is problematic for the Book of Mormon). If not, then welcome aboard on this one! . . .

 

My apologies, I originally read your statement as "I think it's been very well addressed by apologists, but only if there are multiple Isaiahs over centuries (including long after Lehi left Jerusalem).".  I interpreted this as you believing there were multiple prophets over hundreds of years named Isaiah who's combined works constituted the Book of Isaiah.  This would of course been contrary to scripture and the teachings of church leaders, but...

[Thinking]

There is another Isaiah problem - the LDS interpretation of chapter 29 verse 4.

 

The LDS Church interprets Isaiah 29:4 as a prophecy about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.  "And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust."

 

LeGrand Richards said, "Then he goes on in this same chapter, after saying that the vision of all—that is the vision of all that he saw about this people and its destruction and the coming forth of their record, speaking out of the dust—would have a familiar spirit. I gave a copy of the Book of Mormon to the treasurer in the Presbyterian Church back in New Bedford, Massachusetts, when I was doing missionary work there. When he had about finished reading it, I said, ‘As you read that book, did it occur to you that anyone could have written the contents of that book to deceive people?’ ‘Oh,’ he said, ‘Mr. Richards, when I read that book, I get the same spiritual uplift that I get when I read the New Testament.’ Isn’t that what Isaiah meant when he said that it should have a familiar spirit?" (LeGrand Richards, Value of the Holy Scriptures, Ensign May 1976)

 

The idea that Isaiah was talking about something "recognizable" when he uses the term "familiar spirit" is very common in the LDS community.  I remember learning about this "recognizable" spirit in early morning seminary and Sunday School classes.  However, prior to Isaiah using "familiar spirit" in that verse, it is used twelve times in the Old Testament.  In every case, the term is associated with magic.  A familiar spirit is a ghost which is summoned by wizards and witches.

 

Leviticus 19:31  Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.

 

Leviticus 20:6  And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.

 

Leviticus 20:27  A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

 

Deuteronomy 18:10-12  There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.  For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

 

1 Samuel 28:3  Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had lamented him, and buried him in Ramah, even in his own city. And Saul had put away those that had familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land.

 

1 Samuel 28:7-9  Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Enñdor.  And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him up, whom I shall name unto thee.  And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die?

 

2 Kings. 21:6  And he made his son pass through the fire, and observed times, and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.

 

2 Kings. 23:24  Moreover the workers with familiar spirits, and the wizards, and the images, and the idols, and all the abominations that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might perform the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the LORD.

 

1 Chronicles 10:13  So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it;

 

2 Chronicles 33:6  And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.

 

Isaiah 8:19  And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?

 

Isaiah 19:3  And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof; and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and to the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the wizards.

 

Actually, in the 4th verse of chapter 29, Isaiah was prophesying about the destruction of Jerusalem.  His comparison to a familiar spirit was not meant to be positive, nor was it meant to be a prophecy about a future book of scripture.

[Kevin Christensen]

Or, we could ask Kevin Barney.

http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/10/18/as-one-that-hath-a-familiar-spirit/

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[cdowis]

There has been at least one word print study which did just that. In their pioneering work on word prints and Book of Mormon authorship, Wayne Larsen, Alvin Rencher, and Tim Layton also used their methods on the Book of Isaiah and found it to be internally consistent. Word prints by an author have been shown to survive a careful translation, but there are some LDS scholars (John John Tvedtnes being one) that dispute that a Hebrew translation can be be accurately word printed because the original Hebrew lacks many of the non-contextual words that are used in the word print analysis as used by Rencher et al. and as such, a word print analysis of a Hebrew translation would reflect more of the patterns of the translator than it would of the original author.

 

I don't know of anyone having developed a word print algorithm for the Hebrew language, so, it seems that we are left with less exacting sciences to deal with "the Isaiah problem".

 

 

 

It is simple enough to test, as has been done with translations (not sure what languages). 

 

You can take translated documents from different authors and see what you get when you compare control texts (from the same author) with works from other authors.  If you really want to check it out, you can do tests for different translators.  If you have a good model, you don't need "special algorithms" for a specific language if you can verify that it works even with a translation.

[cdowis]

The term "Higher Criticism" is misleading and contributes to part of the problem as we can see from some of the posts above since many people infer from the term that those who use it somehow are applying a higher (read better) level critical approach. 

 

This is what I call the "Weatherman phenomena".  Let's compare the tools that a professional has at his disposal to predict the weather for a certain time and place  == how much predictive value does his forecast have?  Now let's look at textual criticism (as "one tool") -- how much predictive value does such a crude, subjective tool provide us to judge the Book of Mormon on whether it is true or not.

 

As I said, it's putting the horse before the cart -- we must use the BOM text to test these tools of analysis, not vise versa.

 

But, of course, there are those who think this is very foolish to question the experts and scholars.  I am merely following the lead of Hugh Nibley in that regard.

[erdoch]

I don't think that using the Book of Mormon to establish the historical development of OT texts is a straightforward process. I think there is reasonable evidence to view the Book of Mormon as a historical record and that this makes the most sense of Joseph Smith being visited by Moroni, the gold plates, etc. anyways. (Pull in "Mormon's Codex" and Brant Gardner's writing and you got a win). I also think there is reasonable evidence to view the Book of Mormon as a record that has been expanded on via revelation. I am not sure *how far* to take that expansion. Brant Gardner presents a compelling theory in his book about the BM being primarily a loose conceptual equivalence translation. There is also Blake Ostler's expansion theory. The extensive use of the KJV, revival language, the repetition of the Sermon on the Mount which was almost certainly NOT related in such word-by-word order as presented to us in Matthew -- these are all reasons that one can argue for an inspired expansion that goes beyond the level of simply loose conceptual equivalence translation. 

 

In other words, I'm ambiguous as to whether the Book of Mormon can (or should) really be used to argue that Deutero-Isaiah was written before 587 BC. But as a starting point I am not ruling out that possibility either. The fact that the Book of Mormon does not explicitly quote at length from Trito-Isaiah, and that Nephi starts off with Isaiah chapter 2 seem to almost confirm scholarly perspectives on Isaiah, at least to the extent that Trito-Isaiah and chapter 1 are thought to have been written long after the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the presence of Deutero-Isaiah does seem problematic. Here one must either (a) argue that a core or part of Deutero-Isaiah WAS present on the brass plates and dated prior to 587-600 BC - or (b) that scholarly dating of Deutero-Isaiah is not wrong and one must therefore argue for the presence of Deutero-Isaiah in Nephi and the rest of the Book of Mormon based on other possibilities, such as:

 

(a) Nephi updating and revising his book posthumously (one of Grant Hardy's suggestions on p. 291, n. 31)

(b) God placing into the brass plates writings still to be created in the future (ibid)

© Later Nephite prophets receiving Deutero-Isaiah by revelation and Mormon putting Deutero-Isaiah back into Nephi's writings

(d) Mormon receiving Isaiah by revelation and putting Deutero-Isaiah back into Nephi's writings, Abinadi's testimony, etc.

(e) Jesus giving the Nephites Deutero-Isaiah and (as above)

(d) If the Mulekites did not leave for the New World until decades after the destruction of Jerusalem they could have had access to Deutero-Isaiah... except this possibility appears slim based on the BM describing them as not having brought over any records, losing their language, culture, religion, etc. 

(e) An entirely unmentioned later group of Israelites brought Deutero-Isaiah along

(f) Joseph Smith wrote Deutero-Isaiah into the Book of Mormon as an inspired expansion of the original plate writings

(g) [insert new theory]

 

These are my preliminary thoughts on the subject. I have had recommended to me Blenkinsopp's three-volume work on Isaiah and Klaus Baltzer's "Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40-55" (too bad these books get pretty pricy though...). UntiI I read those, or go in depth with Isaiah scholarship, I will be arguing basically from ignorance. All I know is that scholars are nearly unanimous about the three-Isaiah theory and I feel therefore most likely to be correct. I look forward to David Bokovoy's second book coming out, which should deal with the subject further. I suspect he will argue for an inspired expansion along the lines of Ostler's theory. I suspect that some will feel uncomfortable about that. I suspect I won't fully make up my mind until I actually read the literature. 

 

I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon as being of God and inspired scripture. But I don't think that testimony means I necessarily understand completely how the Book of Mormon was composed, what parts to consider fully historical and what parts to consider slightly less historical, how the translation process went, whether there is extensive or non-existent inspired modern expansion of the original plate text, etc. etc. And I think that if we are to take Jesus's words seriously, and search the words of Isaiah, we should take modern scholarship seriously as well. Even if that means that Jesus should really have said "for great are the words of Isaiah and Isaiah2 and Isaiah3".  

Edited June 8, 2014 by erdoch

[cdowis]

"All I know is that scholars are nearly unanimous about the three-Isaiah theory and I feel therefore most likely to be correct."

 

I guess I have been influenced by Hugh Nibley and his views of scholars and expert opinion.  Reminds me of the universal consensus of opinion on the geocentric view of the universe, and how they used many devices to explain various anomalies.  Perhaps their "nearly unanimous" consensus is based on certain assumptions they share in common -- such as the ability of prophets to view future events, and couch them in "prophetic past tense" as if they had already been fulfilled.  Even our own scholars have been influence by the scholastic blah blah blah, and have a need to be "cool" and scholarly themselves.

 

May I humbly suggest that you reintroduce yourself to Nibley and his views on experts and scholars.

 

I find it interesting that we find ourselves proposing theories, some of which are rather strange (Nephi posthumerously editing the plates?) in a desperate attempt to salvage the reputation of those scholars who brush aside the Book of Mormon as a "book delivered by an angel" and unworthy of their consideration.

Edited June 8, 2014 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Anyway, you have obviously given it alot of thought on how to reconcile the BOM text with that consensus opinion, although it is not such a problem for the scholars.  You offered many theories, including some rather fanciful and others very acceptable to the unbeliever.  Just how much thought have you given to the other side of the issue.  

 

I have ==>>

1. Have you looked into the school of the prophets which existed at the time of Isaiah.  Given any thought at all how that may have an influence on this issue?

 

2.  How about the record of Joseph vs the record of Judah.  We only have the latter today, because the record of Joseph was taken away by Nephi.  Have you given any thought at all where that may play a part?

 

I have given it a great deal of thought, instead of being sucked up by the consensus opinion.

[omni]

I don't think that using the Book of Mormon to establish the historical development of OT texts is a straightforward process. I think there is reasonable evidence to view the Book of Mormon as a historical record and that this makes the most sense of Joseph Smith being visited by Moroni, the gold plates, etc. anyways. (Pull in "Mormon's Codex" and Brant Gardner's writing and you got a win). I also think there is reasonable evidence to view the Book of Mormon as a record that has been expanded on via revelation. I am not sure *how far* to take that expansion. Brant Gardner presents a compelling theory in his book about the BM being primarily a loose conceptual equivalence translation. There is also Blake Ostler's expansion theory. The extensive use of the KJV, revival language, the repetition of the Sermon on the Mount which was almost certainly NOT related in such word-by-word order as presented to us in Matthew -- these are all reasons that one can argue for an inspired expansion that goes beyond the level of simply loose conceptual equivalence translation. 

 

In other words, I'm ambiguous as to whether the Book of Mormon can (or should) really be used to argue that Deutero-Isaiah was written before 587 BC. But as a starting point I am not ruling out that possibility either. The fact that the Book of Mormon does not explicitly quote at length from Trito-Isaiah, and that Nephi starts off with Isaiah chapter 2 seem to almost confirm scholarly perspectives on Isaiah, at least to the extent that Trito-Isaiah and chapter 1 are thought to have been written long after the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the presence of Deutero-Isaiah does seem problematic. Here one must either (a) argue that a core or part of Deutero-Isaiah WAS present on the brass plates and dated prior to 587-600 BC - or (b) that scholarly dating of Deutero-Isaiah is not wrong and one must therefore argue for the presence of Deutero-Isaiah in Nephi and the rest of the Book of Mormon based on other possibilities, such as:

 

(a) Nephi updating and revising his book posthumously (one of Grant Hardy's suggestions on p. 291, n. 31)

(b) God placing into the brass plates writings still to be created in the future (ibid)

© Later Nephite prophets receiving Deutero-Isaiah by revelation and Mormon putting Deutero-Isaiah back into Nephi's writings

(d) Mormon receiving Isaiah by revelation and putting Deutero-Isaiah back into Nephi's writings, Abinadi's testimony, etc.

(e) Jesus giving the Nephites Deutero-Isaiah and (as above)

(d) If the Mulekites did not leave for the New World until decades after the destruction of Jerusalem they could have had access to Deutero-Isaiah... except this possibility appears slim based on the BM describing them as not having brought over any records, losing their language, culture, religion, etc. 

(e) An entirely unmentioned later group of Israelites brought Deutero-Isaiah along

(f) Joseph Smith wrote Deutero-Isaiah into the Book of Mormon as an inspired expansion of the original plate writings

(g) [insert new theory]

 

Those are some pretty creative theories, but I can think of a simpler and much more likely scenario...

Edited June 8, 2014 by omni