Nevo Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 Personally, I would consider Kevin Barney's "Isaiah Interwoven" a better response. So far, Kevin Barney has been the only one to directly engage David Wright's arguments on specific variants. Unfortunately, given the scope of his paper, he limits himself to discussing only two of them.
Calm Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 "Actually, Kevin's post was in response to a citation to the articles in American Apocrypha and the Mormon Scripture Studies website, not the Dialogue article cinepro cited."My apologies for my unintentional misrepresentation. I need to be more careful. It was bedtime, an explanation, not an excuse, for not checking what he referred to and just assuming it was the same. Thanks for the correction. 1
Kevin Christensen Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 Tvedtnes's short essay in the Review does respond to Wright. I'm also impressed by Kevin Barney's essays. One of the passages quoted in Tvedtnes is the one that, when I independently read American Apocrypha, generated my characterization of Wright's judgement: "One might argue," according to Wright, "that the [book of Mormon] wording is identical to the KJV because Joseph Smith sought to maintain biblical style. But this could have been done without word-for-word correspondence. For example, Isa. 7:7-9 might be translated independently of the KJV but with a biblical flavor" (p. 158). This statement is followed by a comparison of Wright's own translation of the passage printed side by side with the KJV reading. Certainly, it "could have been done" this way, but I am concerned about the methodology used here. Independent Bible translations can vary widely, even when following KJV style; since Wright is already biased against the Book of Mormon, it hardly seems appropriate to compare his own translation with that of the KJV.Wright tends to lapse into passive voice when he wants to present his perspectives as arising from the sheer power of objective truth, and evade any personal responsibility for any bad news. Regarding the dating of passages assigned to the Second Isaiah, I'm particularly interested in Margaret Barker's case that Isaiah 53 was written in direct response to Hezekiah's bout with the plague. I've never seen her case addressed. That chapter, at least, is very likely to be pre-Exilic http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/FourthServantSong.pdf I had not seen that when I wrote my chapter on Isaiah questions in "Paradigms Regained." I based that chapter mostly on Barker's The Older Testament, and the Isaiah in the Book of Mormon volume. http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2694&index=7 One of the things that most impressed me from Isaiah in the Book of Mormon was John Thompson's essay. In Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, John Thompson has an article called "Isaiah 50–51, the Israelite Autumn Festivals, and the Covenant Speech of Jacob in 2 Nephi 6–10." He writes that "from the structure and themes of 2 Nephi 6–10, one may conclude that Jacob's speech was given in connection with a covenant-renewal celebration that was most likely performed as part of the traditional Israelite autumn festivals required by the law of Moses."16 Recent studies like Thompson's make it plain that it is not just a matter of Isaiah scholarship raising issues for the Book of Mormon, but that the Book of Mormon should be recognized as raising issues for Isaiah scholarship. Remember that Barker cites authorities that believe that these Isaiah passages were based on the liturgy of a preexilic festival, and here we find that the Book of Mormon quotes them in that context. Why should that be so if the passages were entirely exilic? And of course, I noticed that "most of the specific Isaiah passages and chapters that Barker cites to demonstrate the strict monotheism of the Second Isaiah do not appear in the Book of Mormon." FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburgh, PA
cinepro Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 This is incorrect. Modern scholars place Isaiah 48-54 as part of deutero-Isaiah, dated around the time the Exile ended (circa 538 BCE). At the very least, these chapters would not have been available to Lehi. Jesus would have been able to quote from those chapters as depicted, but not Abinadi. Additionally, chapters 13-14 may or may not also date to the end of the Exile, though as far as I know the issue isn't settled. If those chapters do date to the end of the Exile, then Nephi wouldn't have been able to copy them into his record, and note this will have implications for Lehi's speech in 2 Nephi 2. So you're saying other than the fact that the Brass Plates didn't contain parts of Isaiah that Nephi says they did, everything is good?
tagriffy Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 So far, Kevin Barney has been the only one to directly engage David Wright's arguments on specific variants. Unfortunately, given the scope of his paper, he limits himself to discussing only two of them. True, but I would still consider his response the better one of the two Kevins.
tagriffy Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Tvedtnes's short essay in the Review does respond to Wright. I'm also impressed by Kevin Barney's essays. I'm going to be interested in seeing what Bovokoy has to say on the matter. In the first book of Authoring the Old Testament, he seemed to indicate he accepted Deutero-Isaiah and would deal with the problem it presents. Regarding the dating of passages assigned to the Second Isaiah, I'm particularly interested in Margaret Barker's case that Isaiah 53 was written in direct response to Hezekiah's bout with the plague. I've never seen her case addressed. That chapter, at least, is very likely to be pre-Exilichttp://www.margaretb...ServantSong.pdfI had not seen that when I wrote my chapter on Isaiah questions in "Paradigms Regained." I based that chapter mostly on Barker's The Older Testament, and the Isaiah in the Book of Mormon volume. If and when Barker's arguments are generally accepted among scholars, then the problem of the Book of Mormon's use of Isaiah 53 can be considered resolved. That would still leave chapters 48-52 and 54. In Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, John Thompson has an article called "Isaiah 50–51, the Israelite Autumn Festivals, and the Covenant Speech of Jacob in 2 Nephi 6–10." He writes that "from the structure and themes of 2 Nephi 6–10, one may conclude that Jacob's speech was given in connection with a covenant-renewal celebration that was most likely performed as part of the traditional Israelite autumn festivals required by the law of Moses."16Recent studies like Thompson's make it plain that it is not just a matter of Isaiah scholarship raising issues for the Book of Mormon, but that the Book of Mormon should be recognized as raising issues for Isaiah scholarship. Remember that Barker cites authorities that believe that these Isaiah passages were based on the liturgy of a preexilic festival, and here we find that the Book of Mormon quotes them in that context. Why should that be so if the passages were entirely exilic? Saying that the text is based on the liturgy of a preexilic festival is an entirely different thing from saying the text was written before the Exile. The structure of an LDS Sacrament Meeting was established well before some of the hymns used in those meetings were written. That doesn't mean we get to say "I Believe in Christ" was written back in the 1870s. An expansionist will be able to cover Jacob's quotation as "the words of Isaiah" using Thompson's article easily enough, but the dating of the text itself will be a significant problem for those who propose Jacob quoted the text as it is quoted.
tagriffy Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 So you're saying other than the fact that the Brass Plates didn't contain parts of Isaiah that Nephi says they did, everything is good? No. I'm just keeping things within the scope of this particular discussion.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 ...........................................................................................................Wright is basically saying "This is not what someone writing in grammatically acceptable Hebrew would have wrote." ........................................................A major hurdle for both Wright and Bokovoy here is that the Book of Mormon (and the Brass Plates) were explicitly written in ancient Egyptian. The scribes certainly knew Hebrew, and it may have influenced their phrasing in some cases, but the basic assumption they make is deeply flawed.
tagriffy Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 A major hurdle for both Wright and Bokovoy here is that the Book of Mormon (and the Brass Plates) were explicitly written in ancient Egyptian. The scribes certainly knew Hebrew, and it may have influenced their phrasing in some cases, but the basic assumption they make is deeply flawed. Wasn't there a school among historicists who proposed the underlying language was Hebrew written in Egyptian characters? If that is the case, then there isn't really a hurdle for them. With regard to the questions in the OP, if we take the references to be written in Egyptian to mean the Egyptian language, that would would create yet another hurdle to answering those questions as well.
Recommended Posts