Higher Criticism And Isaiah

[Helen47]

I notice in Evangelical commentaries on  Isaiah they accept the division. My husband who studied hebrew with F I Andersen asked him what he thought of that computer study from BYU by Larsen etc and his response was "very inadequate"

[erdoch]

"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.

 

I agree completely that some of these theories are strange, including the one about Nephi posthumerously editing the plates. Hence my "[g] insert new theory".

 

I have read a little Hugh Nibley but recognize that he is not fully up to date. My acceptance of the "nearly unanimous" scholarly opinion of Isaiah is based on my reading of Biblical textual criticism in relationship to the Pentateuch and the New Testament. At the passage-level of individual Biblical texts there are often wide disagreements and various theories as to the their composition and dating. Which makes it all the more impressive when most (usually never all) scholars can come to agree to a general macro-level picture. And, as Helen47 points out, Evangelical commentaries accept the division. It does NOT all boil down to simple lack of faith in prophecy. Textual criticism is not about faith or non-faith anyways, it's about the text. 

[erdoch]

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.

 

If by the school of the prophets, you mean the possibility of Isaiah having been changed and redacted over time, thus reflecting multiple authors where there could originally have been just one but with later expansions or redactions added to it - then yes. I think that should be looked on as a possibility. And it is a possibility I will look for once I read up on the scholarship about Isaiah.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the record of Joseph, are you referring to the brass plates here? Do you have a thought on theory on this?

[erdoch]

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

 

I agree they are pretty creative! I guess a simpler and more likely scenario would be, for one who does not believe, that they were just put there by Joseph Smith. For the believer, however, I think one has to seriously consider any option to see what bears fruit - including ancient authenticity of a proto-Deutero Isaiah prior to the Babylonion captivity, and also including inspired modern expansion of the original text. I personally find enough evidence to back up the Book of Mormon as an authentic revealed and ancient text that I don't think I'm sacrificing any intellectual honesty by considering all options here. But that's coming from someone who hasn't fully explored the literature yet

[cinepro]

First of all, let me say that I think the "Isaiah Problem" is a huge problem for the Book of Mormon, and I'm extremely grateful that it's not my job to try and solve it.  I also applaud the creative and faith preserving theories that have been suggested in this thread.  Truly with God, all things are possible.   But if the Church is going to make any moves towards the acceptance of "higher criticism" of the scriptures, it will have to learn how to deal with the problem.

 

It should also be noted that this problem was apparently too much for one LDS Old Testament Scholar, David P. Wright.  So it's a dangerous path to tread.  (A dialogue written by Professor Wright is here, and details of his separation from the Church are available to those who search for it).

[cdowis]

If by the school of the prophets, you mean the possibility of Isaiah having been changed and redacted over time, thus reflecting multiple authors where there could originally have been just one but with later expansions or redactions added to it - then yes. I think that should be looked on as a possibility. And it is a possibility I will look for once I read up on the scholarship about Isaiah.

 

Yes, they were tasked to make emendations,  "over time" would mean contemporaneous with Isaiah or shortly after his death.   

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the record of Joseph, are you referring to the brass plates here? Do you have a thought on theory on this?

 

Laban was the custodian of the records for the tribe of Joseph, and one of the early emendations/"versions" (see above) of the Book of Isaiah may have gotten into his hands.  Of course the BOM is quoting from the plates of brass.  

 

This would explain the missing chapter one which came later, after Laban's acquisition, as well as the relative minor differences with the record of Judah (the Bible).

 

As I said, the scholars have summarily dismissed the BOM as a source document, so this is all impossible nonsense to them, and certain LDS scholars have joined hands with them, and proposing absurd theories to attempt to rescue the theory in the context of the BOM text.

 

++++++++++++++

I have read a little Hugh Nibley but recognize that he is not fully up to date.

How are his views and opinions of experts, scholars, and consensus opinion  "not fully up to date"? (Please go back and read my post)

Edited June 9, 2014 by cdowis

[helix]

 

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).

 

The brass plates didn't contain any sections commonly listed as being part of Trito Isaiah.

Edited June 11, 2014 by helix

[volgadon]

i almost never have felt the spirit or revelation in rabbinical literature.

 

 

I hate to be harsh, but somehow I doubt that you've read much rabbinic literature at all.  Laughably inaccurate statements like these are a good indicator. "it wa"s during babylon that the rabbis concluded that God doesnt talk to mankind anymore."

[volgadon]

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.

 

 

Which ones? I've gone on until p. 97, without finding a single Ashkenazi rabbi, let alone two.

[Glenn101]

I notice in Evangelical commentaries on  Isaiah they accept the division. My husband who studied hebrew with F I Andersen asked him what he thought of that computer study from BYU by Larsen etc and his response was "very inadequate"

 

I t would be helpful to know what he meant by "very inadequate". That is hardly a helpful critique. However, I did point out some of the problems with trying to identify authorship with a text translated from the Hebrew. A lot more work needs to be done, in my opinion, such as determining how to apply the techniques to the Hebrew text in an attempt to determine its unity.

 

Glenn

[nealr]

The Isaiah issue is one that has long been in the back of my mind. I haven't made serious study of it yet, but I've got a few short thoughts.

 

1. I do think it is a serious issue for the Book of Mormon. Probably the most serious, in my opinion.

2. I do not think LDS scholarship has adequately addressed this, though there are few promising suggestions (among these are, in my opinion, Kevin Christensen's comments, which he has already linked to himself.)

3. I do not think the Isaiah problem is do or die for the Book of Mormon.

 

To expand on number 3, I find it problematic to determine the dating of one text based on the contextual dating of another. Imagine a scenario where two different texts are discovered in separate places (say, text A and text B), each with unknown origins. One explicitly quotes the other. Given their dependence, and that the direction of dependence can be known, determining the dating of one text can certainly help in determining the dating of the other. Since text A quotes text B, if we can find out the date of text A, we know text B must come sometime after that. Or, alternatively, if we can determine the dating of text B, we know text A must come before that. But how do we decide which text to try and date independently, and then which one to date dependent on the other? And what if the results were different depending on which text you tried to date first?

 

In a scenario like the above, I would suggest that it is best to date each text independently, based on comparison with securely dated external data. Once that is done, then the two texts can be looked at comparatively, and if there is a discrepancy, conclusions on both texts can be adjusted and adapted appropriately. 

 

This, then, is how I would suggest we approach the Book of Mormon and Isaiah. Because the Book of Mormon arguably could have some impact on when we date Isaiah, it must be dated independently of the Isaiah problem. (Isaiah is already being dated independent of the Book of Mormon.) Once that is done, the reconciliation should be attempted by considering potential adjustments and adaptations that could be made to the dating (and understanding of texts composition history, etc.) to each. I think erdoch comes up with a nice list of examples of this kind of process. 

 

Of course these do get creative and "complicated" and it does seem simpler to just say, "Hey, Joseph Smith made it up and didn't know any better." But this is a classic misapplication of Occam's razor. Properly applied, it produces the simplest explanation of all the data, not of a single, peripheral hypothesis of a much larger network of hypotheses (and the question Book of Mormon origins is a large network of hypotheses, not merely a single one). In other words, such a "simple" explanation would require we create some much more complicated explanations of other data points, and hence is not really a very simple solution at all.

[frank_jessop]

What are the basis for claiming there was more than one author?