Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: wcsa@cbnewsc.att.com Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Multiple Isaiahs Message-ID: Date: 30 Aug 90 04:27:28 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Indian Hill West - Naperville, IL Lines: 55 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes: >You probably would. Unfortunately, the Book of Mormon quotes >substantial chunks of parts of Isaiah that did not exist in >600 BC (the parts now attributed to Deutero-Isaiah). Joseph >Smith didn't know this, and so didn't realise that by these >quotations he was providing us with clear proof that the BoM >is a forgery. I recall you arguing this point once before, about two years ago on t.r.m. Since that time, I've reviewed the controversy of the multiple Isaiah problem, reconsidered my remarks, and I would like to present following response: Suppose I accept the concept of multiple Isaiahs based on the stylistic differences of 1-39 and 40-66, or even further 40-55 and 56-66 (three Isaiahs), by what *evidence* do you claim that *all* of chapters 40-66 were written after 600 BC? Apart from *obvious* interpolations (ie., Cyrus: 41:1-42:9; 43:9-44:23; 45:14-25), which are NOT included in the BoM, I don't see that you have much of a case. The admission of multiple Isaiah is not conclusive evidence that the passages in question were written after 600 BC. Even more interesting, nothing from 3rd Isaiah, (chapters 56-66) is contained in the BoM. So, I can accept the possibility that portions of Isaiah were written after 600 BC, but I am waiting to see the evidence that the portions of Isaiah contained in the BoM (even if they were written by a second Isaiah) *had* to be written after 600 BC. If you try to argue that the "Israel in Captivity" tradition was only devised after 600 BC, I will be glad to point out portions of 1st and 2nd Kings and other writings that predate 600 BC that allude strongly to the Israel in Captivity tradition (such as 1 Kings 8:46-51). So, even if you accept the multiple Isaiahs, you have no really strong evidence that any of the Isaiah passages contained in the BoM were written after 600 BC. Far from being an obvious forgery, what the BoM includes and excludes from Isaiah invites a much closer examination. -- Willard C. Smith att!iwsgw!wcsa wcsa@iwsgw.att.com "It's life, Captain, but not as we know it." [Right. Citing second Isaiah is an argument that I suspect would not be convincing to a majority of Christians. A criterion that would be more widely acknowledged would be to look at the textual history of passages quoted in the BoM. E.g. does it quote any passages later modified on the basis of Dead Sea material? If so, does it contain the KJV version or the Dead Sea version? This is not a perfect test, because there's no guarantee that we now have perfect texts, and texts brought to the New World may not have been perfect either. But you'd expect to see BoM quotations of the OT showing at least some improvements over the text used in the KJV. I've heard some allusions to tests like this having been done, but don't know any details. --clh]