Mormonism began as such a radical, non-traditional Christian movement, it’s strange now that evangelical scholars are showing Latter-day Saints how to appropriate critical scholarship; but they are. In recent years, many evangelical scholars (who have in the past, typically approached the Bible far more conservatively than Latter-day Saints) have come to accept the consensus that Isaiah 40-66 is not a prophecy given by the historical Isaiah. For example, in his recent work, Kenton Sparks informs his readers that “a sober and serious reading of Isaiah will easily suggest to readers that large potions of this prophetic collection were not written by an eighth-century prophet whose name was Isaiah” (God’s Word In Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship, p. 108).
Note the word “easily.”
We might wonder how is it possible that Sparks can write to an evangelical audience and express such confidence in the accuracy of the mainstream scholarly perspective concerning Deutero-Isaiah. Perhaps it is because the evidence for the mainstream view is so compelling. And this evidence simply has to be accomodated for by people of faith, including Latter-day Saints. While there are many compelling reasons for the mainstream view, I’ll discuss four.
- Inviolability of Jerusalem
The historical Isaiah prophesied in Jerusalem during the second half of the eighth century BCE. His prophetic call narrative (Isaiah 6) dates the experience to the year king Uzziah died, i.e. sometime during the 740’s. At this time, the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah were both in existence, although the north was destroyed by the Assyrians in the later part of Isaiah’s prophetic career. As a result, the Assyrians are the only enemy mentioned in his oracles (7:17, 20; 8:4, 7; 10:5,12; the prophecy against Babylon in chapter 13 is a later addition). During Isaiah’s ministry, the Babylonians had not yet become a significant world power. For Isaiah, it was Assyria that Yahweh had chosen as “the rod of his anger” to afflict the covenant people for their wickedness (10:5).
Even though Isaiah predicted judgment against his people, he held fast to a view scholars refer to as “the inviolability of Jerusalem.” Isaiah believed that Jerusalem was a sacred place that could not be annihilated by its enemies. This view is expressed in Is. 31:5-9:
(31:5) Like the birds that fly, even so will the Lord of Hosts shield Jerusalem and saving, protecting and rescuing. . . (8) Then Assyria shall fall, Not by the sword of man; A sword not of humans shall devour him. He shall shrivel before the sword, And his young men pine away. (9) His rock shall melt with terror, And his officers shall collapse from weakness — Declares the LORD, who has a fire in Zion, Who has an oven in Jerusalem.
Isaiah’s belief concerning Jerusalem makes sense in light of his view concerning the significance of Yahweh’s temple and its future role in the eschaton (Isaiah 2). It also makes sense in light of promises that we see concerning Jerusalem and the royal Davidic monarchy in other parts of the Hebrew Bible:
(Psalm 2:1) Why do nations assemble, and peoples plot vain things; (2) kings of the earth take their stand, and regents intrigue together against the LORD and against His anointed?. . . (5) Then He speaks to them in anger, terrifying them in His rage, (6) ‘But I have installed My king on Zion, My holy mountain!’ (7) Let me tell of the decree: the LORD said to me, ‘You are My son, I have fathered you this day. (8) Ask it of Me, and I will make the nations your domain; your estate, the limits of the earth. (9) You can smash them with an iron mace, shatter them like potter’s ware.’”
This belief in the sanctity of Zion is in reality quite ancient. Even before the Davidic acquisition of Jerusalem there existed a belief that Mount Zion was the mountain of God (Zion theology), the home of El, the high god of the Jebusites who occupied the region. Later, Judeans came to believe that Yahweh promised David an eternal house and Jerusalem was its location (2 Samuel 7). Isaiah believed in these promises. He believed in the “inviolability of Jerusalem.”
In contrast to this perspective, Isaiah 40 begins as a message of comfort to the Judean people since Jerusalem had been destroyed. But this was not something that the historical Isaiah believed would happen. Surely, if his theology switched so drastically we would expect some sort of statement that explained how he came to know that his earlier oracles were incorrect. In reality, chapters 40-66 never speak of the Babylonian period as a distant future reality, as if someone were prophesying about it. Instead, the Babylonian period is described as the present, historical condition. Isaiah 1-39 concludes with a focus on Hezekiah’s day, while chapter 40 presents an abrupt transition to the exilic community in the sixth century. The evidence is clear: the historical Isaiah of the earlier period would not have believed that this comfort was necessary since Jerusalem from his perspective was God’s holy city that would never be destroyed.
- The Influence of Jeremiah, Lamentations and Other Postexilic Writings
The material in Deutero-Isaiah was highly influenced by the book of Jeremiah, a prophet who lived after the time period of the historical Isaiah. Many examples of Jeremiah’s influence on this material could be cited, but the following is especially helpful. Jeremiah presents the Lord’s judgment against the kingdom of Judah in the following manner:
“I noted: Because Rebel Israel had committed adultery, I cast her off and handed her a bill of divorce; yet her sister, Faithless Judah, was not afraid — she too went and whored” (Jer 2:8).
The author of Isaiah 50:1 knew this text and in his message of comfort to the exilic community he specifically reversed this judgment:
“Thus said the LORD: Where is the bill of divorce of your mother whom I dismissed? And which of My creditors was it To whom I sold you off? You were only sold off for your sins, and your mother dismissed for your crimes.”
Based only upon this example, it could be argued, of course, that it is just as likely that Jeremiah was influenced in his choice of words by the historical Isaiah as that Deutero-Isaiah knew Jeremiah. It is clear, however, that Jeremiah didn’t know the material in Deutero-Isaiah. During the sixth century, the prophet Jeremiah entered into a heated debate with other Judean prophets concerning the fate of Jerusalem because they, like the historical Isaiah, believed in the inviolability of Jerusalem. In opposition to this view, Jeremiah went to the Jerusalem temple and prophesied that the Babylonians would destroy the city if the people did not repent (Jer 26). The account states:
“The priests, the prophets and all the people heard Jeremiah speak these words in the house of the Lord. But as soon as Jeremiah finished telling all the people everything the Lord had commanded him to say, the priests, the prophets and all the people seized him and said, ‘You must die! Why do you prophesy in the Lord’s name that this house will be like Shiloh and this city will be desolate and deserted?’” (vv. 7-9).
These are the same people who would have preserved and had access to the book of Isaiah. Why didn’t they know that Isaiah had provided a detailed prophecy that supported Jeremiah’s claims—the material in Isaiah 40-66? Perhaps even more telling, if the book of Isaiah existed in any form with its prophecies concerning the exile and restoration of the doomed city then Jeremiah would have had prophetic material that he could have used to support his own prophecy.
Jeremiah was from a priestly family. He was active in Jerusalem (Judah’s primary scribal and archival center) during the seventh and early sixth centuries BCE. Surely he would have known of the amazing prophecies of Isaiah, which would have been preserved and transmitted by Judean scribes for well over a century if these prophecies existed. Jeremiah was well-educated. We know that he knew a form of Deuteronomy. If any of the second half of Isaiah had existed during Jeremiah’s day, why didn’t he cite this material as evidence that Judah would be defeated by Babylon, go into captivity, and eventually be delivered by the Persian king Cyrus? Jeremiah knew the book of Isaiah or at least some of the oracles attributed to Isaiah (compare Isaiah 5:1-4/Jeremiah 2:21), but he shows no sign of having known Isaiah 40-66, which would have significantly helped his cause. If he had known it, then surely he would have used it the way Abinadi did in the Book of Mormon.
Therefore, if the authors of Isaiah 40-66 knew Jeremiah but Jeremiah shows no signs of knowing this material, it is clear that the material in Deutero-Isaiah was written after Jeremiah.
But the writings of Jeremiah are not the only biblical material known to Deutero-Isaiah. Deutero-Isaiah was also familiar with the book of Lamentations, which contains exilic poems that mourn the destruction of Jerusalem. And Deutero-Isaiah did the same thing with Lamentations it did with Jeremiah. It intentionally reversed the theme that opens the work. Concerning the kingdom of Judah, Lamentation 1:2-3 reads:
“Bitterly she weeps in the night, Her cheek wet with tears. There is none to comfort her. . . Judah has gone into exile Because of misery and harsh oppression.”
This same lament appears as a central theme in the first two chapters: “With none to comfort her” (1:9,17) “Far from me is any comforter” (1:16) “There was none to comfort me” (1:21) “What can I match with you to comfort you” (2:13).
The authors of the material in Deutero-Isaiah used this motif from Lamentations as a central theme throughout their work. In fact, chapter 40 opens up as a direct response to this lament: “Comfort, comfort, My people!” (40:1). And this is only one of many connections between the two literary works. Consider the fact that Isaiah 62:6-7 replaces the sad song sung by the walls of Jerusalem in Lamentation 2:18-19 with a joyous hymn:
“Their heart cried out to the Lord. O wall of Fair Zion, Shed tears like a torrent Day and night! Give yourself no respite, Your eyes no rest. Arise, cry out in the night At the beginning of the watches, Pour out your heart like water In the presence of the Lord! Lift up your hands to Him For the life of your infants, Who faint for hunger At every street corner” (Lam 2:18-19).
“Upon your walls, O Jerusalem, I have set watchmen, Who shall never be silent By day or by night. O you, the LORD’s remembrancers, Take no rest and give no rest to Him, Until He establish Jerusalem And make her renowned on earth” (Isaiah 62:6-7).
Yet Lamentations isn’t the only poetic material known to the authors of Isaiah 40-66. These authors also show awareness of postexilic psalms, including Psalm 107 (a text that shows signs of late biblical Hebrew). Verses 1-2 probably influenced Isaiah 62:12, but what’s even more telling, Deutero-Isaiah actually cites Psalm 107:35:
“He turns the wilderness into pools, Parched land into springs” (Ps 107:35)
“I will turn the wilderness into pools, Parched lands into springs” (Is 41:18)
- Aramaic Influence
Unlike what we find in the first half of the book of Isaiah, Aramaic has heavily influenced the language in Isaiah 40-66. Not only does this fact provide compelling proof that the material in 40-66 was written by other authors, it shows that these authors were living in a time when Jews were speaking Aramaic. Aramaic became the international language used by the Assyrians to govern their empire in the eighth century. But Jews living in Jerusalem during the time of the historical Isaiah spoke Hebrew. This explains why Hezekiah’s envoy pleaded with the Assyrians to make terms in Aramaic so that the people listening would not understand what was said (2 Kings 18). It also explains why we do not see any Aramaic influence in the material connected with the historical Isaiah.
All of this changed, however, in the exile after 586 BCE. Aramaic became the language spoken by the Jews. This is why the current Hebrew Bible uses the Aramaic square script instead of the original Paleo-Hebrew alphabet. This explains why the postexilic book of Daniel contains Aramaic chapters. It also explains why there is a strong Aramaic influence on the material in Isaiah 40-66. I’ll simply present two examples (though many, many more could be provided).
In Aramaic, the term ’orach carries the meaning “shackle.” In Hebrew, the word means “path.” Notice how the word appears in Isaiah 41:3:
“He pursues them, he goes on unscathed; No shackle (’orach) is placed on his feet.”
Now, witness how the word is used in the first half of the book via the famous oracle in Isaiah 2:3:
“And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths (’orach): for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.”
Only in Deutero-Isaiah do we find this word used according to its Aramaic meaning of “shackle.”
Here’s another illustration: Isaiah 45:14 contains the line, “And Sabeans bearing tribute.” Though in the past, this statement was often interpreted as “giant in stature,” this now dated-reading does not fit the context. The term midah “tribute/tax” is in reality a loanword from Akkadian mandattu “tribute” via Aramaic. Significantly, we find the same exact nuance in other postexilic texts such as Ezra 4:20: “And tribute (midah), poll tax, and land tax,” and Nehemiah 5:4: “We have borrowed money. . . to pay the king’s tax (midah).”
Dozens of examples of the strong Aramaic influence on the material in Isaiah 40-66 could be provided. This presents compelling evidence that these oracles were composed during the postexilic era when Jews were speaking Aramaic.
- Postexilic Hebrew
This is a complicated issue that is difficult to explain in a simple blog post. Suffice it to say that all languages evolve over time. The texts of the Hebrew Bible were composed over a thousand year period. Scholars can therefore date material based upon the type of Hebrew that appears in the text. Unlike what we encounter in the historical oracles of Isaiah, the material in Isaiah 40-66 contains many, many examples of Hebrew words and phrases that appear solely in the exilic and postexilic periods (or at minimum, are only sporadically attested in Classical Hebrew). It’s difficult to explain these grammatical issues in a simple blog post. Just to provide one illustration of many, many examples that help date this material, Deutero-Isaiah features the root byn in the hip’il verbal structure as a transitive verb “to teach.” These types of observations help scholars date 40-66 to the exilic and postexilic eras. For a list of examples, I would recommend Shalom M. Paul’s outstanding study, Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary (The Eerdmans Critical Commentary) published in 2012 (see especially pp. 43-44).
Conclusion
There are several compelling reasons for why Isaiah 40-66 is not a prophecy given by the historical Isaiah: 1. Deutero-Isaiah provides a polemical response to the Cyrus Cylinder (see post no 1). 2. Isaiah believed in the inviolability of Jerusalem and the authors of 40-66 present a message of comfort to the Judean exiles that directly counters Isaiah’s theological conviction. 3. The authors of 40-55 know Jeremiah, but Jeremiah does not know these prophecies. 4. The authors of 40-66 knew exilic and postexilic material including Lamentations. 5. Deutero-Isaiah shows signs of Aramaic influence (but we don’t see this in the oracles of the historical Isaiah). 6. Deutero-Isaiah shows signs of Post-Exilic Hebrew (but again, we don’t see this in the oracles of the historical Isaiah).
Any one of these issues would be enough to convince biblical scholars that Isaiah 40-66 is postexilic material added to Isaiah proper. All of them together provide undeniable evidence for the scholarly consensus. Unfortunately, Jackson’s essay fails to mention, let alone address any of these points. Of course he does discuss and ultimately reject other reasons. (1) That First Isaiah mentions Isaiah son of Amoz and provides biographical material regarding him and others of his time whereas the material in Second and Third Isaiah makes no mention of his name, (2) That the historical setting of Second and Third Isaiah is different than First Isaiah, (3) That the theological focus in 1-39 is judgment, whereas the focus in 40-66 is forgiveness and reconciliation, and (4) that the literary style of chapters 40-66 differs significantly from that of the earlier chapters. But when Jackson’s points are added to the evidence I cited in this post, it is easy to understand why Duke University professor Marc Zvi Brettler can write: “Exactly how and why someone attached these oracles [40-66] to those of an earlier prophet is unknown, scholars are certain, however that 40-66 does not reflect the work of the eighth century Isaiah son of Amoz” (in How to Read the Bible, p. 201; emphasis added).
So what is a believing Latter-day Saint to do? Is there an effective apologetic approach given the weight of this evidence? I believe that there is (maybe are). I believe that an effective apologetic argument would state, “I do not know why there is postexilic material in the Book of Mormon, but I do know that I feel connected with God through the book. I therefore believe, even though I do not have an answer. “
Another way of approaching this topic would be for Latter-day Saints to recognize that the Book of Mormon is a revelatory work that comes to us through Joseph Smith. The prophet didn’t sit down and work his way through ancient script line upon line. Shouldn’t Latter-day Saints therefore expect that the work would contain inspired prophetic, midrashic use of material known to Joseph Smith, including the material in Isaiah 40-66?
I think Jackson’s approach is the consistent approach for one who believes the Book of Mormon – it would take precedence over the consensus of scholars on the Isaiah question to one who believed it.
Therefore, we would expect one who believes the Book of Mormon to adopt the “I just don’t know” “apologetic” with respect to the Isaiah authorship question itself rather than towards the alleged presence of post-exilic writings falsely attributed to Isaiah in Book of Mormon.
I appreciate that Jackson’s position would be a difficult one to adopt for an academic in the field, whose position in the world is ofttimes – if not always – determined by how closely his views accord with his peers. It takes significant anti-fragility to take a stand against the consensus views of one’s field, and it is much to expect.
I’ve had questions about Deutero-Isaiah stewing in the back of my mind ever since I read Grant Hardy’s Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide. As I recall, Hardy only acknowledge that Deutero-Isaiah is difficult for Latter-day Sainta; he makes no attempt to resolve it. So I loved these two blog posts. They’ve really been great.
I have to ask Kent what he thinks of Avraham Gileadi. His work still gets trotted out very often in mormon circles as a way to completely dismiss articles like this.
This is excellent stuff. Thanks so much!
Dr. Bokovoy’s apologetic response at the end of this article is the most realistic and reasonable I have ever seen on this issue. The only scholars who dispute the disunity of Isaiah are those who need it to be so in order for their faith to work. For those who are inclined to faith, it is better to accept the overwhelming evidence from critical scholarship and come up with a post-critical apologetic in order to maintain belief.
David, thank you very much for these blog posts. They have been extremely informative. The words of Henry Eyring come to mind: “The fundamental principle that has guided my religious life is that I need believe only what is true. The gospel is the truth as learned or discovered by whatever means and tools I can lay my hand or mind on.”
As many of you know David and I have sat on a Genesis panel which went verse by verse through much of the Bible’s first book. Believe me when I say, he’s more than able to defend whatever position he asserts and my brother is intellectually honest. In all church traditions scholarship serves mainly as an independent professional body of researchers who serve in church schools and universities. Some pastorates are lucky enough to have a well trained theologian in their pulpit. This is becoming more rare as time goes by. The Treto-Isaiah hypothesis has been advanced since 1829. This is an attempt to explain the gap in Isaiah’s writings between the verses which can add up to over 200 years from the time of 1st Isaiah to the invasion of Sennacherib in the very next verse. When one studies Isaiah’s verb structure, the prophet cannot be making predictive prophecy as the conservatives allege. LDS scholar Avraham Gilleadi, my friend and colleague, assets the prophet used a three part Egyptian novella with some of the book being restructured to fit its present order. Latter Day Saint scholars and fundamentalists have in many cases sought to avoid these issues because we, in our communities of faith, would have to come up with a different explanation on how the Isaiah material is used in later canonical writings. It is certainly true we have over Christianized the original meaning of this great prophet. For example, “the Mighty Counselor” in ancient times was like an ayatollah to the nation. The term “the Everlasting Father” means “father of our eternities” which was to be fulfilled in the House of David. The “Prince of Peace” means “mighty men of valor”. “Emmanuel” for “God is with us” refers to Isaiah’s son Mahershalalhashbaz, one of the previous verses (Is 8:3) stating, “I went into the Prophetess and she conceived”. The local application is expanded in Luke 1:30-33 in regards to the virgin birth of Our Lord by the agency of the Holy Spirit. Direct references to the Messiah as opposed to simply the nation would begin to be enlarged in Isaiah 53’s Servant Songs. In Christianity we say we love the biblical text but we do such violence to it by reading New Testament theology falsely into the Old Testament. There’s a time in every scholar’s life when his/her findings conflict with the sacred cows perpetuated by our denominations. Let’s all pray that God will lead our communities of faith to grow in their understanding and love for what the text really says and for scholars to continue to challenge our denominations to move forward in a more accurate interpretation of God’s story in us. In His Service, Father Tom Roberts, PhD, DD, OSA
Who decides when we have “over Christianized” the “original” meaning of the Old Testament? And who decides who decides? Frankly, it seems hard to do. “Text” and “Meaning” are different things. The Virgin Mary wasn’t a virgin because Isaiah said so, it’s because she was actually a virgin. We have this from Matthew and Luke (indeed, from Mary herself in that Gospel). If that isn’t enough, we have it from Nephi via heaven in 1 Nephi 11. This being so, the passage in Isaiah takes on added meaning. Much of the Old Testament took on added meaning with the mortal ministry of the Messiah and hence, the book of Matthew. Much of the Old Testament takes on added meaning with the truths of the Restored Gospel. That’s the point of the Restoration. It restored something. I can’t accept the Restored Gospel and then turn around and pretend that the Old Testament is antagonistic to the Restoration, somehow counts against it, or that it presents an alternative theology.
That the Old Testament should be infused with the same sort of theology found in the New Testament is therefore to be expected, since Christ is the Only Begotten from the foundation of the world and, in fact, created the world, and since his Gospel is the only true, operative one from the foundation of the world. There has been no one other than Christ to look to for salvation from Adam on. There is no other theology to read into the Old Testament. It was Christ’s testimony that the scriptures testified of him. The idea that Christ can’t be regarded as the Prince of Peace, the Mighty Counselor or Emmanuel is short-sighted. If the name Emmanuel refers to Isaiah’s son in the text, that doesn’t exclude it as a name of Christ also – that was the point of the name.
I suppose scholars can, when the time comes, pitch a case to Christ himself that much of the Old Testament didn’t apply to him, has been “over Christianized”, that some other theology was intended there. Good luck with that.
It’s obvious our brother here doesn’t understand re-contextualization. The Bible text does this even within various books. The name Emmanuel for which I shown the Isaiah’s interpretation of the same tell us without a doubt that Emmanuel was to be born before the Sennacherib invasion. What the Scriptures mean when they say these things testified of Christ do not mean in any fashion all persons were Christ. When Paul says in 1 Cor 10, “the rock that led them was Christ” does he means Christ was a rock or is he showing a parallel to God’s action which was for our admonition? These things were written so we would see the foundation stone. Luke does not even use the term “Emmanuel” in the same sense that Isaiah did at all. Isaiah meant the “God who is with us” in battle. Luke alters the term to mean “God is with us” in Christ. When will God’s people begin to do good exegetical work and follow carefully the text that they claim to believe? The doctrine of inerrancy leads to false harmonization which a violation of biblical hermeneutics. The first rule of interpretation is context or one has a pretext which what this gentleman seems to provide based on nothing but assumption. The prophets do provide a local application then through salvation historical development a new and wider context is provided in latter revelation. Just as the Old Testament gives us the Fall, the Flood, the Exodus and Passover narratives to show how we are east of Eden and the new Zion is in Heaven, Isaiah reverses the order to Passover, Exodus, Flood, Fall back to Eden to illustrate Paradise may now be in Heaven but through curse reversal, Paradise will not be lost. This is the springboard that leads us to the New Adam who writes a new history to begin Paradise gained with a redeemed humanity. So, once again, all things testify of Christ but not all things are the person of Christ as an individual but they pertain to the outcome of Salvation History.
Since the 1950’s, cylinders have been decoded and translated to help us understand the Persian period in the Old Testament study. The Cylinder of Sargon II helps place some of the campaigns that he undertook and the peoples he conquered in answering questions left open in the biblical text. The same scenario is true for the Cylinder of Cyrus which assists in placing the activities described in Isaiah 40 unto the rise of Assyria. Today we have a better grasp of Persian loan words which are sued in Isaiah and Daniel and other post exilec literature. At the very least, we must concede later redacted material through recension of the original was added for instructional purposes possibly by the School of the Prophets or other redactors. Respectfully submitted, Father Tom Roberts, PhD, DD, OSA
With equal propriety and accuracy I might say “the only people who accept the disuinty of Isaiah are those who trust in men.” Alternatively, “the only people who accept the disunity of Isaiah are those who believe the Book of Mormon is fraudulent.”
In other words, “I believe the scholars have won; you need to accept that the Book of Mormon is fraudulent.”
But that says nothing about the truth of Deutero-Isaiah; it’s just an admission you’ve been sold.
It’s very simple: Deutero-Isaiah is not a deductive argument, but a narrative requiring evidence to be interpreted according to very specific assumptions, the truth of which assumptions cannot be known, and which assumptions are not value-neutral.
On the other hand, has God ever lied to you?
Log said: “the only people who accept the disunity of Isaiah are those who believe the Book of Mormon is fraudulent.” I respectfully disagree. My testimony of the BofM — which includes a testimony that there is a historical core to the BofM — does not depend on scholars being incorrect about the authorship of Isaiah. If it turns out that Isaiah 48-54 wasn’t actually on the gold plates and Joseph felt inspired to add that material to the text of the BofM, I’m fine with that.
Log also asked: “has God ever lied to you?” No, but God hasn’t told me anything about the unity or disunity of Isaiah. And there have been plenty of occasions in my life where I’ve made incorrect assumptions about the production of scripture.
If you believe the Book of Mormon can through Joseph Smith you are assuming he told the truth based on the assumption that you have interpreted your testimony about Christ correctly. This is nothing to do about believing God. What is deals with is how we understand our experiences. We need to understand the difference. Brother Bokovoy does not disbelieve the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as of now which he has made clear. What he objects to is the narratives falling withing a first Isaiah time period. So, maybe, it’s our apologetic that needs changing.
Thank you for your comments Tom
I don’t think the “insertion” theory, whereby either Joseph Smith or God inserted (in this case) extraneous Isaiah material into the text of the translation, will fly. There is no evidence that this is the way in which Joseph worked, that the Book of Mormon is a translation augmented by other material inserted here and there to buck it up. It’s too much of a stretch for me to believe that Joseph Smith, who was translating the plates to the tune of 500+ printed pages, stopped translating at this or that point to insert bonus material that came from someplace other than the plates – and then did so in a way to make it appear that Nephi and Mormon had themselves inscribed it.
The general reader of the Book of Mormon can make no differentiation, based on how the text reads, between what came from the plates and what “off-plates” material may have been shipped in. We would assume, for example, that the instruction by Jesus concerning Isaiah recorded in 3 Nephi 16:17-20 accurately reports what Jesus said at that time and that he was quoting Isaiah, and not that Joseph Smith has, at this point, put other words into Jesus’s mouth than what he said and then moved back to the translation of what Jesus “really” said.
I agree with you, though, that none of the Isaiah authorship scholarship should impact our faith in Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, or anything else. What we need is a three-column comparison between (a) whatever was recorded in 700 BC, (b) what this material looks like on the Brass plates in 600 BC, and (c) the Great Isaiah scroll of 175 BC. It doesn’t look like we will be getting (a) or (b) any time soon. (C) is checking in 500 years after the fact. What happened over that half millennium? One day we will be able to reconcile all of this (and much more besides.) My faith can survive the 500 year gap.
The two main texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls are not in total agreement of their textual readings. The second text contains marginal interpolations and rabbinic comments from scroll editors. The Isaiah Scroll itself (text #1) reads closely but not identical to the Masarotic text we translate into our modern bibles. Many times Isaiah looks back and laments Sennacherib has wrecked damage upon our people and the destruction is over. This was 200 years after Isaiah’s calling in Isaiah 6. No matter how you explain it this is a textual anomaly. Cross pollinating Book of Mormon passages without an ancient text is simply ludicrous. We don’t have the ancient Book of Mormon text to even make a guess about the material that came out of the 1830’s through Joseph Smith. We can take the Hebrew Bible and reconstruct a Middle Eastern set of structures back into the ancient material but this does great violence to the original author. The three Isaiah hypothesis came to scholarship due to the internal evidence and anomalies contained in the document which are hard to explain. Predictive prophecy about these events are not the patternisms Isaiah uses. He speaks of unlocking a curse by reversing its effects which will lead us back to Zion. Other texts are simply other witnesses of the faithfulness of Christ and His Gospel. It is improper for the student or church member to make comparisons that have little or nothing to do with the same historical situation. Christians often will try to use their faith statement as the final court of arbitration which has nothing to do with the struggles for truth in the ancient text.
Tim, thanks for your comments. You may very well be correct. However, I’m a little wary about putting too many constraints on what an inspired “translation” could involve.
For example, the Book of Abraham is identified as “A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.” For a long time I assumed that meant the Book of Abraham *must* be a literal rendering of the papyri that were in Joseph Smith’s possession. However, now the church has indicated that the translation of the Book of Abraham might be something different. In its recent essay about the Book of Abraham, the church said:
“Joseph’s study of the papyri may have led to a revelation about key events and teachings in the life of Abraham, much as he had earlier received a revelation about the life of Moses while studying the Bible. This view assumes a broader definition of the words translator and translation. According to this view, Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri.”
I recognize that this statement is about the Book of Abraham, not the Book of Mormon. But my point is simply that learning about the Book of Abraham has made me reluctant to put too many limitations on what the word “translation” can mean as it relates to Joseph’s work.
I’m certainly open to the possibility that scholars might be wrong about the post-exilic authorship of Isaiah 40–66. But I’m also open to the possibility that my preconceived assumptions about what constitutes an inspired “translation” might be incorrect.
It is perhaps worth noting that Joseph quoted Isaiah 52:8-10 three times in the BofM: Mosiah 12:22-24, Mosiah 15:29-31, and 3 Nephi 16:18-20. Jesus gives the only in-text acknowledgement of Isaiah as the author.
Perhaps they were not on the brass plates at that time. Perhaps the prophet Mormon added it from all the records that he had. Perhaps Christ revealed a lot of stuff of the Nephites as he was with them. Gave them scripture that was given in the Old World but the Nephites did not have. Mormon saw some of these writings and just put them there. Its a good spot as any.
I’m afraid it’s not as easy as that, Russell (though it’d be nice if it were). The problem isn’t just that the Book of Mormon contains texts that weren’t available to it, but that those texts are used extensively by the authors. Nephi doesn’t just drop Deutero-Isaiah into the middle of a sermon where its presence doesn’t matter–for example, it’s not a citation, the removal of which does nothing to the flow of his sermon.
He uses Deutero-Isaiah in extensive ways: He riffs on it, expands on it, and comments on it, in ways that suggest that if another author was responsible for its inclusion, then it’s hard to say at what point it makes sense to talk about Nephi as the author of that sermon, especially when the Book of Mormon indicates that Nephi’s work was not edited by Mormon, but included in whole. So now (it seems) we’re stuck with a dilemma: somehow Nephi had access to material he should have had (and used it in extensive, non-citation-based ways) or Nephi’s arguments aren’t his and the Book of Mormon’s narrative about how it was constructed is false.
I’m with David: I think it’s possible to continue to be faithful in the face of these challenges and I think they’re challenges that need to be taken seriously.
Maybe Mormon thought that what he had was actually the original record of Nephi, but maybe it wasn’t. I could have been redacted, expanded on, edited, re-written, etc., by later Nephite scribes, just as Isaiah was. The fact that there is so much Christian theology in Nephi makes it plausible that these books may have been based on Nephi’s writings (or an oral tradition) but significantly edited/expanded/rewritten by a later post-Christian scribe.
I wouldn’t say that’s the only possibility, but I wouldn’t rule it out.
Because God that does not lie, shouldn’t He leave evidence and footprints of truth in His wake?
Evidence doesn’t interpret itself.
When Bokovoy deploys the language of “compulsion,” he is crafting a narrative of justification for his disbelief – he couldn’t help himself; he had no choice in the matter; therefore he has not acted; he was acted upon. Yet in reality he chose his operational principles; he chose his assumptions; those assumptions are how he arrived at his conclusions; without those assumptions, one doesn’t arrive at Deutero-Isaiah.
You all get to choose – whether to believe God, or disbelieve him. And choosing is what you are doing. I wish you well of whatever choice you make.
It’s amazing how religious people try to build an argument from silence. We can do no textual analysis on the gold plates because we only have witnesses who attested to their existence. The Dead Sea Scrolls give us two sets of Isaiah manuscripts so we can do textual analysis. As far as Joseph is concerned, we are left to interpret his testimony of the Book of Mormon based as he understood his experiences. Lord, help us to know the difference.
Thank you Professor Bokovoy for a well researched and presented second part. I learned a lot and I agree with those above about being able to accept critical research and implement them to a believing paradigm. I thank Dr. Bokovoy for his contributions.
I take heart in his comment – about having a testimony even though not knowing why this post exilic Isaiah is in the BOM.
However, it seems like I have seen some comments elsewhere where those not even disagreeing with Dr. Bokovoy overall thesis about second Isaiah being exilic are being mocked as “pseudo-scholars” b/c they take different positions on some of the evidence and the relationship of this post exilic material to the BOM.
As someone mostly comfortable with Dr. Bokovoy concluding remarks, I find it disheartening that people name call those who might look at the evidence differently in their paradigm.
I wish we all have a little bit more humbleness with our limited secular knowledge and the working of Gods.
Again thanks to Dr. Bokovoy for these two excellent posts
What translation of the bible are you quoting? Certainly not King James.
Thanks.
I am quoting the NRSV, New King James and the New Jerusalem translation and others. Thanks for the question.
Deutero-Isaiah has long been a source of concern for me in issues of Book of Mormon historicity.
So much so that I have spent a good part of my LDS life avoiding the issue altogether.
How refreshing it is to have an LDS scholar actually engage the issue instead of running away from it like I used to do.
Thank you so much, David!
You are a treasure!!!
Corbin, I just read and enjoyed and benefited from your article in BYU Studies on Hebrew numerology and the Book of Mormon. Yet another reminder of how much I miss in my reading. Was the title inspired by Sherlock Holmes?
Now, now brothers! I have NO DOUBT, when the first manned expedition to the planet Kolob returns to Earth all of our questions will be answered! Until then, take it all with a grain of salt… the size of Mt. Everest!
This interesting discussion has led me in a direction I had not anticipated. Much has been made of “non-Isaiah” additions to the Book of Isaiah, which in turn have been carried over into the Book of Mormon. Here is what I see:
Chapter 1 of Isaiah, an introduction added later, appears nowhere in the Book of Mormon.
Chapters 24-27, the distinctive “Little Apocalypse”, is represented in the BM by one verse, 25:12, paraphrased without attribution in 2 Nephi 26:15 (forts falling into dust).
Chapter 31:5-9, wherein Jerusalem is held to be inviolate, is not found in the BM.
Chapters 34-35, later historical material, do not appear in the BM.
Chapters 36-39, the insert from 2 Kings, do not appear in the BM.
Chapter 40, a message of comfort to Jerusalem, is represented only by v.3 in 1 Nephi 10:8 (prepare the way of the Lord)
Chapter 44:9-20, the “radical monotheism” passage, appears nowhere in the BM.
Chapter 45:1, identifying Cyrus by name, appears nowhere in the BM. (Two later verses from Ch. 45 are paraphrased without attribution in the BM: v.18 about the earth being created to be inhabited, in 1 N 17:36, and v.23 about every knee bowing, in Mosiah 27:31.)
If this view of contested writings is what Kent Jackson “seems to present to his readers”, I think he’s on to something.
So here’s a thought: Perhaps the Book of Mormon (via the Brass Plates) is a more accurate reflection of Isaiah’s original writings than is the Book of Isaiah found in our Old Testament. What an irony that would be!
This leaves, of course, the material in Chapters 48 through 54, part of Deutero-Isaiah. This portion was clearly of importance to Nephi, to Abinadi 500 years later, to Jesus Christ after that, and to Moroni at the close of the Book of Mormon.
Isaiah, last prophet before the division and scattering of the House of Israel, was concerned with the past, present and future of the House of Israel, a future that would include its latter-day restoration. And, as a prophet, Isaiah’s chief testimony would be that of the Savior. Both concerns are found in Chapters 48 through 54.
One solution: What is now found in those chapters was originally written by Isaiah but was later reworked, Aramaic-ized, “updated” to make it more relevant to a post-exilic audience. In other words, those editors (well-meaning or not) had original Isaiah material to work with. We do not know what the original Isaiah writings looked like, or their extent. Whatever the literary history, I see nothing doctrinally challenging in these chapters, rather, the opposite. Chapter 53 is a powerful testimony of the Savior.
Why does the Isaiah material then follow the KJV in the Book of Mormon? Because that’s what was available in Joseph Smith’s time. The Brass plates and Gold plates we would not have with us; the KJV we do. A recovery of the urtext of Isaiah was not the point of the Book of Mormon. A clear (or clearer) understanding of Jesus Christ, the fate of the House of Israel, and an evidence of God’s latter day work are the foci, as stated on the title page. The Book of Mormon was translated to be understood by the average reader.
I expect that both sets of plates will one day clear all this up. (Isaiah will be able to tell us, for that matter.) Until then, the test of the Book of Mormon is not whether you can hit Zarahemla with a shovel (which would please archaeologists) or whether you can recover all long-gone source documents (which would please Biblical scholars), it’s whether, per 1 Nephi 33:10-11, a person can recognize the words of Jesus and follow them.
If nothing from Isaiah had found its way into the Book of Mormon, Biblical and Mesoamerican scholars would still reject it as a valid history or of ancient provenance. Scholarship/science may enhance understanding, but the proof lies elsewhere and unanswered questions will likely remain until after this life. This gap is where faith resides. The final revelation of history may, ironically, enhance the Book of Mormon as a transmitter of the original message of Isaiah.
I agree that Kent Jackson’s essay should have been stronger, but I also think that it could have been, and that David’s responses also overlook some significant information in both defining the problem and defining possible resolutions and fruitful approaches. For instance, Barker in On Earth as It Is in Heaven, p 46 writes:
“It is widely agreed that the three autumn festivals of the postexilic period, (New Year, Day of Atonement and Tabernacles) were derived from an earlier royal festival held every autumn to celebrate the renewal of the year and the enthronement of the king. Nothing can be proved, but Isaiah 40—55 is thought to be based on the liturgies of this festival.”
In Isaiah and the Book of Mormon, John Thompson provided 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 Israelte autumn festivals required by the law of Moses.” (Thompson, 143). That, I think is, both suggestive and significant. And Joseph Spencer’s fascinating readings of the Book of Mormon provide wonderful insights on the interactions of Book of Mormon authors with Isaiah, they don’t provide that one. If Second Isaiah of Jerusalem is not completely original, but involves revision of pre-exilic liturgy, the tension in the Book of Mormon is lessened and possibilities open up. It doesn’t have to be “Joseph Smith blundered but in an inspiring way.”
While Barker’s The Older Testament and her Eerdman’s Isaiah Commentary both take the Three Isaiah Hypothesis as fundamental, I noted in Paradigms Regained that the Book of Mormon leaves out the Second Isaiah chapters that make for a change in theology. I should have noted that her Hezekiah’s Boil essay (available here as The Original Background of the Fourth Servant Song http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/FourthServantSong.pdf ), she makes a very strong case based on interlocking sets of textual and archeological evidence, that Isaiah 53 was based on Hezekiah’s bout with the plague, and therefore, that chapter at least, must have been originally composed by Isaiah of Jerusalem. It is possible to ignore her arguments, but that also leaves her evidence unexamined and unexplained.
Welch pointed out that only the chapters included in the Book of Mormon need have been on the Brass plates, with the exception of Isaiah 54, which Jesus quotes in 3 Nephi.
Of the 5 points here only one has any potential for weight, the last one. Intriguing. Proposal for resolving the problem supplied here is rotten, IMHO. The validity of Nephi, Jacob and Abinadi as historical people cannot be upheld if Joseph Smith just happened to recall a familiar text as he was translating. If you believe the exilic origin of later chapters, then you need to do some very serious and hefty analysis. Unfortunately, I feel I’ll need to dive into this topic. Unfortunate because I think it’s a distraction from the actual message of divine revelation.