Gileadi sees the book as having a giant bifid divided in half structure, with themes in one half having corresponding elements in the other half see his book The Literary Message of Isaiah. I have seen it argued that the Cyrus reference does not refer to Cyrus the Persian ruler, but rather a member of the Babylonian delegation in ch.
Jesus in the New Testament quoted from Isaiah 51, 53, 54, 56 and It is not reasonable that Jesus would endorse any passage of scripture that was falsely attributed to Isaiah. Every chapter, including those in Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah, contains genuine words of Isaiah and every chapter, including all those in the early part of the book, contains words that are not his.
I could accept the idea of Isaiah having the assistance of a scribe in writing his book and the scribe sometimes referring to Isaiah in the third person. However, Isaiah would still be the author. Many authors today have assistant writers. What I have trouble accepting is someone else adding to his words centuries later, attributing their words to Isaiah, and Jesus endorsing the fraud.
This was an unacceptable practice in ancient times as it is today. It would be like you forging a copy of the Gettysburg Address, adding a couple of paragraphs, and claiming it was the original transcript written by Lincoln. Both Moses Deuteronomy and John Revelation commented on their writings and forbid anyone to add to or to take away from the words of their books. I cannot imagine Jesus putting so much emphasis on writings in which that had happened.
Theodore, far from being an unacceptable practice, it was extremely common for other people to adopt a more famous name for their work. We see it in the attribution of all of the Torah to Moses including the description of his death and in the New Testament epistles attributed to Paul, but stylistically incompatible with Paul. We have what was reported. What do we do when Jesus cites, not scripture, but the oral law—as he does in the Sermon on the Mount.
I doubt he was suggesting that the oral law was inerrant. His engagement with scripture seemed to be very focused on its function. Perhaps Jesus was aware of a Mosaic tradition and was simply comfortable working within that concept. You are correct that the practice was common, but it was certainly unacceptable to the Prophets and therefore to the Lord. So unacceptable in fact, that the Apostle John pronounced the plagues of his book on anyone who tampered with it. Revelation Paraphrases would probably not be acceptable when quoting the Lord.
They also quoted the words they heard. This claim is fraught with difficulty. Joseph Smith edited all of his early revelations before republishing them in the edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. Joseph Smith, therefore, had both the right and obligation, as the prophet who received the revelations, to improve the accuracy of the words and the clarity of the message. So after reading this I find no suggested solution under the authors proposed framework to the critical problem of Deutero Isaiah writings in the Book of Mormon.
Maybe I missed it some how?
Commentaries on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon - Deseret Book
Please address. The solution is that there is no problem. The reason critical scholars have to believe in multiple authorship is, they operate with a completely different set of assumptions that necessitate the invention of multiple authors. I have no reason to believe that the Isaiah material in the BoM is post-exilic.
I understand that different assumptions are being made, and your summary list of assumptions for LDS at the bottom clearly makes your point, but in the end you propose that neither an all or nothing take is necessary without going into the nuances you suggest for the BOM itself. I enjoyed your article and would have more so had you taken the time to explain the DI content in the BOM directly.
Is there no post-exilic content in Isaiah? And if there is, how did it get into the BOM? Pretty straight-forward. If those Isaiah passages were written in late Biblical Hebrew or had some other compelling reason for late dating, I might chalk their BoM presence up to some brilliant midrash on the part of Joseph Smith, or some similar explanation.
To get more specific- I firmly believe that Isaiah 53 is a response to a vision of the life and mission of Jesus Christ. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary, eds. Thanks Jeff. TSQ was valuabe in that it provided a fairly in-depth review of literature to discuss how critical scholars approach the issue of borrowing between authors.
Thank you for summarizing that so succinctly; I wish it had been stated that clearly in the text of the article. Great article. I agree that we have unique premises in the Restored gospel that put us in a unique scholarly position. Like other Christians, we accept that predictive prophecy is possible. A perfect example is Cyrus. A naturalistic view i. A Protestant extreme inerrantist view i. A Latter-day Saint view has no problem with Isaiah predicting Cyrus, but is also open to the idea of that particular passage being a later insertion, without necessitating that the rest of the book also be post-exilic.
Jeff Lindsay, is it possible for me to view that chapter anywhere online? I live in the Middle East and an unreliable non-existent? The prophet was not a mere machine, a mere speaking trumpet, in the process of giving and receiving the word of God. He still had his agency, and was an intelligent, self-acting being, though the inspired instrument and mouthpiece of Deity. The word of God that came to him was independent of him, and yet his mind was the mold in which it was formed; his vocabulary the earthly vehicle of expression.
Abinadi’s Commentary on Isaiah
That which is divinely begotten may have human conception and delivery. Unless we subject ourselves to the bold heresy of scriptural inerrancy, then we are left to unpack the language with the best inspiration and methodology we can find. I find the idea of such a challenge very invigorating indeed. I think it is one of the aspects of the foundation of continuing revelation upon which the Resoration of the Gospel rests.
- Why Study Isaiah?.
- Resources for Isaiah?
- Sarahs Daughters: Fertility and Fruitfulness from a Biblical Perspective.
- Primary Sidebar.
- Fishing for Skate and Rays from the Shore - Pocket Guide (Sea Fishing Venues).
In most instances, God places the thought into the mind or heart of the revelator, who then assumes the responsibility to clothe the oracle in language. In short, when God chooses to speak through a person, that person does not become a mindless ventriloquist, an earthly sound system through which God can voice himself.
Rather, the person becomes enlightened and filled with intelligence or truth. For us, the scriptures are not the ultimate source of knowledge, but what precedes the ultimate source. The ultimate knowledge comes by revelation. Nothing could be clearer in the Old Testament, for example, than that many factors impacted the prophetic message—personality, experience, vocabulary, literary talent. The word of the Lord as spoken through Isaiah is quite different from the word of the Lord as spoken through Luke, and both are different from that spoken by Jeremiah or Mark.
- Navigation menu.
- Annals of Improbable Research, Vol. 17, No. 4.
- Abinadi's Commentary on Isaiah!
- Arpeggios: Guitar Reference Guide (Guitar Reference Guides)?
- Abinadi's Commentary on Isaiah | Religious Studies Center;
- Prophet Isaiah?
Your email address will not be published. All comments are moderated to ensure respectful discourse. It is assumed that it is possible to disagree agreeably and intelligently and comments that intend to increase overall understanding are particularly encouraged. Your Website.
Notify me of followup comments via e-mail.