A new podcast I’ve been listening to from time to time is the Naked Bible Podcast hosted by Bible Scholar Mike Heiser. I don’t quite yet understand Heiser’s views exactly, but I guess he is conservative relative to Bible scholars and liberal relative to Evangelicals, which he self identifies as.
http://www.nakedbiblepodcast.com/naked-bible-217-authorship-and-date-of-the-book-of-isaiah/
This episode was on the multiple authorship theory of Isaiah. If you study Book of Mormon issues, you know the Deutero-Isaiah issue is one of the biggest problems for BOM historicity. The theory goes that Isaiah was likely not all written by Isaiah. Isaiah lived in the 8th century BC and died about 700 BC. But some of the writing seems obviously more recent, so the theory is that Isaiah wrote a portion of it (chapters 1-39). Then another person wrote another chunk (Deutero-Isaiah: chapters 40-55) and maybe another person wrote a third portion (Trito-Isaiah: chapters 56-66).
For Evangelicals, the argument is critical. They believe the Bible is perfect and the supernatural aspects of Isaiah prophesying some very specific details related to Israel’s Babylonian exile and return is one proof the Bible is “true” and consistent with the view that God managed the Bible creation in a very tight process. For Mormons, though we don’t get that hung up on Bible inerrancy, it’s also critical because of the problem that Nephi had access to and is quoting Deutero-Isaiah before it was possibly written.
Dr. Heiser lays out the evidence. He thinks there is reasonable evidence for the single authorship theory. But also very overwhelming evidence for the multiple authorship theory. So, he goes with a middle ground theory of a unified text, which was heavily edited later. Unfortunately for Evangelicals, much of what Dr. Heiser acknowledges was edited later is related to the supernatural prophesying aspects.
He than lectures literal minded, fundamentalist type religionists that the only reason they should have a problem with this is because of their false paradigm of inspiration (LDS would use the term revelation).
We’re taught that inspiration means a mind dump of information. We’re taught this paranormal view of inspiration. Where God just downloads information. And the prophet or the writer really isn’t a significant part of what is going on. They are more or less a flesh puppet. Just start waving the hand and out comes a biblical book. Without any choice on the part of the writer. I got news for you. If that’s your view of inspiration and chances are somewhere along the line you’ve been taught that view, ABANDON THAT VIEW. Because the phenomenon of scripture itself, the nuts and bolts stuff that you find in the text itself will not conform to that view…You’re articulating things that way because you’ve been taught a view of inspiration that doesn’t allow for any kind of editorial activity… How we think about how we got scripture needs to align with what we actually see in scripture.
Love it.
Is it a bummer for Evangelicals that the evidence of later edits or authorship of Deutero and Trito Isaiah might remove some impressive aspects of the text? Yes. Could the later authorship/edits mean it’s a pious fraud, and could people get angry that they were “lied to”? Yes, maybe. But does it mean there was no original inspiration? No. Does it remove God from the creation of the text? No. Can we still engage the scripture as a body of worshipers to talk about how ancient people and modern people alike relate to God and work to come closer to Him and to make our lives more according to his will? Absolutely.
I believe this concept applies not just to Bible scripture, but essentially nearly everything we in the Mormon Church view as revelation. Nearly everything has been “edited”. The First Vision. LDS Scholars Richard Bushman and Greg Prince both have expressed the idea that the First Vision was likely something much more modest and grew into the official 1838 account through “edits”. Revelations of the Doctrine and Covenants, including the priesthood restoration. Likely something much more modest that grew into a more formal, dramatic account through the “editing” process. Book of Mormon. Same kind of thing.
Is it a bummer that the official version might be a heavily edited version of the actual event or process? Yes. Does it remove some of the certainty we have in some of our doctrine and teachings? Yes. Does it mean there was no original inspiration/revelation involved in these? No. Does it remove the value of the Mormon religion and the good things it provides members today? Absolutely not.
Wheat & Tares 
Isn’t an easy solution to the Book of Mormon’s deutero-Isaiah problem the idea that parts of deutero-Isaiah existed in a prototype form around the time of Nephi and then get merged and edited during the exile in with Isaiah in a more expanded form?
Just to add, while it doesn’t solve everything, it’s worth looking carefully at what parts of deutero-Isaiah are in the Book of Mormon versus those that aren’t quoted. I’d written something on it a few years back at T&S.
I guess there are two major problems with Isaiah. 1) the inclusion of Deutero-Isaiah generally. 2) Joseph’s decisions in redacting the 1769 KJV Isaiah. Both are pretty big problems for the traditional view of the BOM. I have heard the FairMormon type arguments and none are that compelling for me, personally. I prefer a non-historical view or at least the Expansion theory to account for it.
Clark: I read your article, for a lack of a better name, some time ago and found it very enlightening and well written. I use it as a reference guide from time to time. For those struggling with this as a faith issue it can help I think.
In any event it is good scholarly yeoman work. And well worth the read.
The D&C especially went through edits. Joseph Smith was very open about the process.
Though the entire proto-Isaiah scholarship is really interesting material.
Stephen, if you’re interested in the Isaiah scholarship, the podcast is worth a listen. He gets pretty detailed in some of the logic. Some of it was stuff I’ve never heard before, for example the way David was spelled.
Proto-Deut-Trito Isaiah theory is actually a pretty difficult position to defend. The fact of the matter is that using the same scholastic criteria, you can find numerous places where there’s been insertions into the text, thus showing even more authors than just three.
Proto Isaiah alone shows insertions in Chapters 30-35 (See the Anchor Bible Isaiah 40-55).
Chapter 14 which switches between Babylon and Assyria which shows more altering, and then 13 which says Babylon but looks more like Nahum’s description of Assyria. To me, this is proof that the exiles were “likening scriptures’ by altering the conquering nations.
For the tripartite Isaiah theory, the smoking gun on Deut Isaiah has always been the Cyrus decree but 49-54 are a completely different topic and don’t mesh with 40-48.
While all that is going on, the text still does an amazing job of being cohesive and relying on itself e.g. Isaiah 49 pairs well with the end of Isaiah 5.
Some have argued that Isaiah believed that the Davidic line would never fall and use that as reason for believing that Deut Isaiah was after the exile but Isaiah 11 is about a Davidic king returning and Isaiah 3 says that the people will be left without leadership to the point that people are looking for anyone to rule over them.
I’m studied this enough to see holes in every argument (including the traditional one Isaiah theory) so I’m in a “wait and see” mode with regards to archeology and hopefully finding some Isaiah scroll that’s that closer in date to traditional Isaiah.
Here’s Clark’s article. It’s really good and thought provoking.
https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2017/03/deutero-isaiah-in-the-book-of-mormon/
As a side note, to CIT’s point about the KJV, I don’t believe for one minute that the Isaiah in the BoM was meant to be a restoration of the Isaiah that Nephi would have had. I think that however Joseph was translating, he was meant to use the KJV’s version so the BoM would be intertexual with the KJV so that the two would mesh together. There’s very few significant changes and one of them, the Ships of the sea and all the ships of Tarshish, is head scratcher as to why that was needed and added.
“I believe this concept applies not just to Bible scripture, but essentially nearly everything we in the Mormon Church view as revelation.”
I agree, since that appears closer to what’s happened.
The problem when “we’re taught that inspiration means a mind dump of information” is it stifles our ability to recognize revelation and conversely to recognize ‘revelation’ that just ain’t so. I’m struck by accounts stating the priesthood ban was kept in place because the Brethren were waiting for a revelation. Did the hold-outs wait so long because they were expecting the revelation to come in the form of a mind dump of information?
Looking at the revelations received after Joseph Smith, one sees a distinct lack of the phrase “thus saith the Lord”. We don’t hear our modern day prophets say it at our conferences. I’ve arrived at the conclusion that Joseph Smith received revelation pretty much how the Brethren receive it today. JS, however, had no problem inserting “Thus saith the Lord” since why not if the inspiration comes from the Lord? But maybe he shouldn’t have imbued the scriptures with such certainty. It left the subsequent generations looking beyond the mark when seeking new revelation and assuming too much for revelation already received.
A case in point, is D&C Section 20. It’s a fairly important section for the Church since it governs many of the basic duties of the priesthood. I’ve been taught that Joseph Smith gave Oliver Cowdery the assignment to write portions of this revelation. Even the introduction, added later, states: “Portions of this revelation may have been given as early as summer 1829”. How was that done? What portions did Oliver write? Doesn’t sound like a mind dump process. And yet the body of the church has come to regard the first verse as a definitive revelation that Jesus Christ was born on April 6th. What if it’s just the flourish people in the 19th century used when writing dates?
If received revelation wasn’t nearly as certain as we’ve come to think it is, it opens great possibilities for the church to recognize and use the same process Joseph Smith did in going forward. This would include making adjustments to past “revelations’ that were half-baked but included in the canon anyway.
Andy: Proto-Deut-Trito Isaiah theory is actually a pretty difficult position to defend. The fact of the matter is that using the same scholastic criteria, you can find numerous places where there’s been insertions into the text, thus showing even more authors than just three.
Yeah I think few think they’re three independent books with no other complexity. So there are lots of passages in proto-Isaiah dated later which you note. Say chapter 12 which goes well beyond redactions or insertions.. The argument I make is that that there are numerous authors. I rather like Goldingay’s idea that even within proto-Isaiah there were the poems and then commentary that got merged into the text. However to make a connection to the text, the translation of the Book of Mormon tends to follow the KJV when possible. To may eyes one of the bigger problems is actually Isaiah 12 which is quoted as if it were all one text but is usually dated later. With the rest – particularly the short passages – I think this solves a lot.
To your other examples, I think the modifications you outline actually show how the text was being modified during the exile possibly changing texts about Assyria to be about Babylon. However that would indicate the texts were actually available for Nephi. The point about likening scripture likewise lines up with the pesher like use of Isaiah that Nephi and Jacob use and suggest was typical of how people in Jerusalem read Isaiah.
Clark, I completely agree.
I bring these up because these points are important in that they disprove the narrative that we’ve definitively figured out the Book of Isaiah and can conclusively show that Proto Isaiah is true Isaiah, Deut Isaiah was written around the time of the exile and Trito Isaiah was written after the return.
People attacking the BoM for having Deut. Isaiah act as though this is the case and use that for dismissing the entire BoM.
It’s simply not that black and white.
We don’t know for certain what the original Book of Isaiah actually looked like and how much was actually written at or before the time of Nephi.
I was listening to a lecture of Kugel’s last night about the Dead Sea Scrolls and he said that they were making changes to the text at least up until 300 BCE.
To me that says that while those changes may have been minor in order to help the text flow, a few changes in the right place would make the text appear anachronistic and cause modern scholars to date the text to a later period.