In the past, we had comments on a post that mentioned Second Isaiah criticism of the Book of Mormon.
That criticism known as the Second Isaiah criticism is that since the parts of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon come from the parts of Isaiah identified as “Second Isaiah,” the Book of Mormon is false. This is because Second Isaiah must have been written too late to be part of a legitimate Book of Mormon.
The criticism all depends on the dating theory or thesis for those portions. That is usually not explained. So I am explaining it here.
In short, the dating theory for “Second Isaiah” has the following parts:
- There is no God.
- Therefore there is no prophecy.
- The areas of Isaiah linked stylistically together (because they address the future) must therefore have originated after the events prophesied came to pass.
Most people discussing it kind of leave off the premises and cut to the end.
But that is the core of the argument.
Now there is an identifiable part of Isaiah written in what is referred to as a more mature style. (And yes, I know word map studies do not support the claim). Historically in works such as the Dead Sea Scrolls that did not include other parts of Isaiah, what is referred to as second Isaiah was included.
The discussion on how to identify Second Isaiah as distinct from Isaiah is a distraction from this analysis other than it is applied to parts otherwise requiring the ability to have foreseen the future.
The Cliff Notes summary of Second Isaiah—this link discusses the theory at length.
It is significant that the style analysis is interesting but does not create the dating. The dating theory currently used has the very simple antecedents set out above. That is, it is based on prophecy being impossible because there is no God.
Is the argument that the Book of Mormon is false because there is no God persuasive? I think the fact that those who use the Second Isaiah argument leave the premise out speaks for itself.
I will also note that since Christ quotes from Second Isaiah several times and attributes the citations to Isaiah the argument is also used to deny Christ.
That has been similarly not persuasive.
Wheat & Tares 
You are confusing two questions. What did happen? What could have happened?
What could have happened is the realm of the prophecy, foretelling, visions, and even faith.
What did happen is the realm of word studies and dating exercises and cross matching ancient records. And of probabilistic answers.
The could have happened argument is that by way of prophecy and foretelling Second Isaiah could have existed In some recorded form before the time Lehi and his family is described as leaving with records in hand.
The what did happen argument is that it probably did not happen that way. That is, based on the evidence it is likely that Second Isaiah was not written before 600 BCE and unlikely a family separated from the Levant with no subsequent communication would have had access to Second Isaiah in order to quote it.
We can debate likelihood, probability, and evidence, but we shouldn’t make one discussion become the other. For myself, I agree that Second Isaiah could have existed (prophecy, revelation) but I’m also persuaded that it didn’t (evidence).
[Note that this is easy for me because I consider the Book of Mormon to be nineteenth century scripture, and Second Isaiah definitely did exist in the nineteenth century. If that means I’m not allowed in this conversation, so be it.]
I’m confused. There are many devout, believing scholars who regard the book of Isaiah as a compilation of multiple authors writing in different centuries–for example, the authors and editors of OUP’s Jewish Study Bible. These scholars know the Hebrew text and the scholarship much better than you or I, and they are not starting from a position of atheism. They are simply following the evidence as carefully and responsibly as possible. So I’m not sure why I should take your assessment of the Second Isaiah hypothesis over theirs.
Grant, appreciate your comments. Most of the critics start from atheism, not all and I should have been clearer. Others just start from ruling out accurate prophecy a priori.
What is your response to Christ quoting from Second Isaiah as Isaiah?
Christian: You have seen the word studies. What did you think of them?
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
I can only offer up the explanation provided by my former Sunday school teacher, that both Nephi and the author(s) of 2 Isaiah were working from an older text and weaving it into their (then current) writings.. both essentially applying that text to what they wanted to say, if I am recalling correctly.. from last year’s lessons.
How well that holds up under close scrutiny I don’t know..
It’s not really a debate over Second Isaiah. The Book of Mormon also quotes Malachi. It contains large chunks of text taken from the New Testament. So the Book of Mormon question is more like how Book of Mormon authors borrow from biblical books they had no access to and in some cases hadn’t even been written yet. It’s almost like Book of Mormon authors had access to a copy of the KJV.
There are plenty of examples in the Bible of biblical writers quoting other biblical texts. But they do so naturally (quoting or adapting actual texts they had access to) not supernaturally (quoting or adapting texts they did not have access to or had not been written yet). Book of Mormon authors should operate in the same way.
That’s quite the strawman Stephen.
Scholars come in all shapes and belief systems. In order to be taken seriously as scholars, they need to use a paradigm of analysis that is not dependent on a single belief system.
One thing I like about Charlie(?) Harrel’s book This is My Doctrine is that he describes such a paradigm. Paraphrasing from years old memory, he says that in interpreting a passage and comparing to real events, scholars should assume that the passage is talking about a set of events that is closer in time, or contemporary instead of prophetic.
It’s true that this scholarly interpretation may prefer atheism. But what is an alternative scholarly approach? If you have a passage that could equally describe a series of contemporary events vs events hundreds or thousands of years in the future, on what basis does one presume that it is foretelling far into the future? I think you can only do that on the basis of a devotional approach that depends on the necessary belief system.
Take the ostensible foretelling of the civil war in Doctrine and Covenants. Some people think that it foretold the civil war. I have heard people argue that it was either describing a different set of events after they happened, or that the predictions made were largely foreseeable. In any case, 500 years from now someone may make a case that it is foretelling some future conflict that hasn’t even happened yet. Who is right? And how does that apply to interpretation of Isaiah? It begins to sound like a dual prophecy interpretation.
Saying that critics are assuming atheism, well I don’t think it works as a general rule, because critics come from all religions. Saying most critics are atheists assumes facts not in evidence. In fact, with reference to 2 Isaiah, I suspect it is flat out wrong, most critics of the Book of Mormon are Christian Churches, because other folk don’t care.
In the process of trying to make a case that appeals to multiple belief systems scholars can’t rely on paradigms that assume a particular belief system. Devotional interpretations, on the other hand, tend to assume a theology and go from there, making a bit of a circular argument.
But I think it is true that a scholarly interpretation will generally dismiss devotional interpretations in favor of interpretations that can be explained by the fewest possible assumptions. It’s Occams Razor. It doesn’t prove the devotional interpretation incorrect, but rather less likely.
A definition of prophecy that makes prophecy identical with foretelling future events is common, but it’s really problematic. It takes us down the rabbit hole of evaluating whether a prophet is authentic by comparing the details of prophetic foretelling to events that actually happened. That is a silly standard for evaluating a prophet.
True prophecy is inspired leadership that shows people how to commune with God and each other. True prophets do their work by understanding how to communicate a vision of the good in the conditions that people face in the present day. That is really hard work that requires divine help.
Foretelling future events, on the other hand, is essentially a magic act.
There’s nothing wrong with asking questions about Second Isaiah and other KJV material showing up in the Book of Mormon. I just think those questions have little to do with actual prophecy and little to do with the Book of Mormon’s actual value.
Loursat. You make an excellent point.
Thanks for weighing in, Grant Hardy. Second Isaiah theory has long been around, since the late 1700s. It is quite clear that the OT was composed and constructed by multiple people spanning centuries. But this is widely taught in Divinity Schools.
On the appearance of Deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon undermining its historicity claims: that is rather minor in what undermines the historicity claims of the Book of Mormon. There is verbatim text from the New Testament strewn throughout the Book of Mormon, including the early books. It isn’t just how could have Lehi’s party known about Deutero-Isaiah, how could have they known about what the KJV would say?
Stephen Marsh, I am also confused and concerned by the three claims you make, I believe there are many knowledgeable and faithful people who would disagree. The Jewish Study Bible (2nd edition) addresses the concept of multiple authors thusly:
“The Book of Isaiah is one of the most complex prophetic books. It contains at least two distinct sections, dating from two entirely different eras. Chs 1-39 are, in large part, the product of a prophet who lived in Jerusalem during the 8th c. BCE. As early as the Middle Ages, however, the great rabbinic commentator Abraham Ibn Ezra recognized that chs 40 and following reflect another setting altogether, which he identified as the Babylonian exile of the 6th c. BCE . . . All modern scholars share a perspective similar to Ibn Ezra’s and believe that chs 40-66 (as well as 34-35) were composed during and after the Babylonian exile in the 6th century.” (pgs 763-764)
John W,
“There is verbatim text from the New Testament strewn throughout the Book of Mormon, including the early books.”
IMO, that’s a result of Joseph Smith being soaked in the KJV dialect. And so regardless of the chronology involved Joseph employed that dialect in those instances where it was fitting.
Jack, for once I actually agree with you. Joseph Smith was immersed in the language of the KJV.
Another comment on Isaiah. Deutero-Isaiah is not something that most believers talk that much about. Believes, instead, seem to be in love with the idea that Isaiah as well as other OT books but especially Isaiah have all this symbolic meaning that is relevant to today. They love the idea that Isaiah has endless depth and endless complexity and that if we read it repeatedly and reflect on it in prayer that we can capture some sort of glimpse of the depth of the book. Puzzlingly, believers to typically do not like to reflect on the history surrounding the actual text and how it may have informed the text. With that taken into consideration, it makes perfect sense that there were multiple authors and editors involved in the construction of Isaiah. I also don’t think Isaiah is terribly complex when viewed in historical context.
I think for most Latter-day Saints the Book of Isaiah’s provenance ranks rather low in priority compared to its actual content. And I agree that many members have difficulty getting to the bottom of Isaiah’s message–though I’d say the primary reason for that failure is because life has a way of keeping us busy, running from fire to fire.
My own experience with Isaiah–and I’m no scholar–is that knowing something about its time and place can certainly help the reader understand what the author is really saying. But I also believe that some of his imagery transcends time, place, and culture–and that many gems of wisdom can be culled from the text by an observant–though untrained–reader.
That said, as it relates to multiple authors: I think it’s interesting that the majority of Isaiah that is actually quoted–rather than the inferred stuff–comes from first Isaiah. And I think the fact that the long sequence of chapters that Nephi quotes in 2Ne begins at chapter two is rather telling–as most scholars believe that chapter 1 is a late writing that was added as a preface of sorts.
And Re: third (trito) Isaiah: I agree with Blake Ostler–that there is none to be found in the Book of Mormon. And that those little bits that may look like third Isaiah are really just artifacts of Joseph Smith’s manner of injecting the KJV dialect into the translation.
And so what we have is a relatively small amount of second Isaiah to wrestle with–4+ chapters. And, again, I agree with Blake Ostler’s explanation. With a lot of first Isaiah and no third Isaiah in the BoM text there’s a good argument to be made (IMO) for the relatively small amount of second Isaiah coming from texts that were more primitive than the finalized Book of Isaiah.
Nicole,
I’m curious how you interpret Christ’s quoting parts of Second Isaiah as Isaiah?
Yes. There are proponents of the Second Isaiah analysis who are exceptions and not atheists.
Again. I was overbroad with that.
However, the dating analysis does rely on assuming a priori that accurate foretelling prophecy doesn’t exist.
As to the Book of Mormon other commenters have addressed the snippets of Second Isaiah found in the Book of Mormon.
As for the snippets that Christ referenced from Second Isaiah with lead ins such as “well did Isaiah say” I’m curious how Grant Hardy or Noelle address those.
)and yes, I’m aware that there are multiple responses. I was curious as to theirs.
Otherwise, my thanks to all the commentators
Also. The Jewish Study Bible is an excellent text and one I liked enough to buy for myself.
The argument is a little more nuanced than you allege. Many faithful Christians and Jews believe in god but also that Isaiah was written over a long period of time. Many faithful scholars also believe that Daniel was written significantly later as well and not by Daniel. There are similar historical criticism arguments that you may not like about the book of Job and Esther or many parts of the New Testament.
The Book of Mormon has so many anachronisms and odd textural pieces from the Bible that Isaiah is not a slam dunk for refuting it’s historicity – but that it is there at all and that the interpretation of it is distinctly Protestant Christian is evidence that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient text. Textual criticism would place it squarely in the 1830s.
I think it is unfair to blame historical and textual criticism and analysis on atheists that don’t believe in prophecy. But in full disclosure I am someone that has mostly lost his faith in God and doesn’t believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon any more.
Brian G,
I highly recommend this interview with Robert Millet wherein he talks about the ways in which the Book of Mormon both reflects and does not reflect Protestant theology:
The KJV is not written in dialect. Nor are plagiarism and dialect the same thing.
I think you’re getting it backwards Stephen. I don’t think it’s 1: God doesn’t exist, therefore 2: Isaiah couldn’t prophesy, therefore 3: the Book of Mormon is false, but all of that in reverse. In my mind it’s 1: The Book of Mormon is clearly not what it claims to be. It’s obviously not the writings of an ancient people on the American continent written in reformed Egyptian. The evidence against that narrative is overwhelming and easily found if you are willing to look outside faithful sources. Therefore, the only way Isaiah gets in the Book of Mormon is if Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey put it there. Others have noted above the problems with prophesy in Isaiah. I’m not aware of any prophet who has repeatedly prophesied correctly by the common understanding of that term. There are none in Mormonism at least. In my mind that shows they’re just making things up and it’s not coming from God or they’re post dating their prophesies to make it appear that they foretold the past which happened over and over again with Joseph Smith, and appears to be the problem with deutero Isaiah. So 2: Prophets don’t actually prophesy therefore there are no real prophets. Admittedly the last part is a much bigger jump because God doesn’t have to be dependent on religious rules to exist but I feel comfortable saying that because prophets don’t prophesy then 3: the god they preach doesn’t exist.