Newly discovered Isaiah patterns in the Book of Mormon

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
oneClimbs
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3187
Location: Earth
Contact:

Newly discovered Isaiah patterns in the Book of Mormon

Post by oneClimbs »

http://oneclimbs.com/2017/11/18/insight ... of-mormon/

After an interesting dive into Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, I made some very interesting discoveries that I'd like to share with you guys. Personally, I found some things that are extremely faith-promoting in terms of the value of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon and an inspiration to study his words deeper.

Let me know what you think and if you have any insights to add.

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10354
Contact:

Re: Newly discovered Isaiah patterns in the Book of Mormon

Post by marc »

I look forward to reading this! Thank you for sharing!

drtanner
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1850

Re: Newly discovered Isaiah patterns in the Book of Mormon

Post by drtanner »

Great work! Really interesting the chiasmus of names.

gardener4life
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1690

Re: Newly discovered Isaiah patterns in the Book of Mormon

Post by gardener4life »

Isaiah is all about symbolisms and patterns of identifying good and evil, and the cycles of pride, judgment, righteousness, being blessed, and the last days. There are a few keys to help you interpret it. Nephi's point of views in 1 Nephi and 2 Nephi show his point of view is right in approaching Isaiah (Liken the scriptures, and see things symbolically), the course of God is one eternal round (God uses patterns and Isaiah's prophecies use these same patterns to reflect both types of judgments in the last days and also judgments on earlier periods), and one way we know that Isaiah's prophecies apply to today is because the Lord tells Isaiah to prophecy until the end of the world and until the cities are wasted without inhabitants (which would be until the 2nd coming and destruction preceding it) (which in turn shows they apply until and especially for this time). Also the symbolisms and parables reflect a day where the righteous and wicked are intermixed and the Lord is trying to send secret messages to the righteous which can only be interpretted through the Spirit, and he is doing so in order that the wicked can't tell what they are and interfere to destroy the righteous.

User avatar
True
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: Newly discovered Isaiah patterns in the Book of Mormon

Post by True »

Loved it! Thank you for making that available:)

User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Re: Newly discovered Isaiah patterns in the Book of Mormon

Post by Joel »

One of the most insightful perspectives held by mainstream biblical scholars involves the historical development of the book of Isaiah. Since the 20th century, all mainstream scholars have held the position that chapters 40-66 were written after the Jewish exile into Babylon (c.a. 586 BCE). Scholars typically identify the exilic material in 40-55 by the title Deutero-Isaiah, and the post-exilic material in 56-66 by the title Trito-Isaiah (though these works may have been written by multiple authors). This means, of course, that the second half of the book of Isaiah was not written by the historical Isaiah, a prophet who lived in Jerusalem during the eighth century BCE. For Latter-day Saints, this presents a direct challenge for traditionally held paradigms concerning the Book of Mormon, since some of this material is not only attributed to Isaiah, it has had a significant impact upon the Book of Mormon. If mainstream scholars are correct then this material would not have been available to Lehi’s family as something they could have taken with them to America.
~David Bokovoy

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?
~David Bokovoy
David Bokovoy's work is always fun reading, sources for the quotes here and here.

User avatar
oneClimbs
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3187
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Newly discovered Isaiah patterns in the Book of Mormon

Post by oneClimbs »

Joel wrote: November 23rd, 2017, 6:10 am
One of the most insightful perspectives held by mainstream biblical scholars involves the historical development of the book of Isaiah. Since the 20th century, all mainstream scholars have held the position that chapters 40-66 were written after the Jewish exile into Babylon (c.a. 586 BCE). Scholars typically identify the exilic material in 40-55 by the title Deutero-Isaiah, and the post-exilic material in 56-66 by the title Trito-Isaiah (though these works may have been written by multiple authors). This means, of course, that the second half of the book of Isaiah was not written by the historical Isaiah, a prophet who lived in Jerusalem during the eighth century BCE. For Latter-day Saints, this presents a direct challenge for traditionally held paradigms concerning the Book of Mormon, since some of this material is not only attributed to Isaiah, it has had a significant impact upon the Book of Mormon. If mainstream scholars are correct then this material would not have been available to Lehi’s family as something they could have taken with them to America.
~David Bokovoy

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?
~David Bokovoy
David Bokovoy's work is always fun reading, sources for the quotes here and here.
Isaiah is unique among the non-Book of Mormon sources referenced. Jesus commands us to read it and it is quoted quite a bit. Personally, I find Gileadi's research to be the most interesting as his thesis is that the entire book is one complete work and not the product of several authors. As for the "postexilic material" and such, it could be possible that scribes "tweaked" some of Isaiah's words along the way as that seems to be the case with about 2500 differences between the great Isaiah scroll from the dead sea and the medieval versions.

What Gileadi shows is how the structure of Isaiah looks confusing in the absence of the literary patterns that he suggests is present in the text. The chapters differ intentionally because of their focus. There could be other considerations as well including the time that passed between the writing of the various books and the growth and understanding of Isaiah himself.

Personally, I trust the Book of Mormon on this rather than modern scholars. I'm not saying that they don't have any value to add, but the intricacy of the book of Isaiah itself and the manner in which it is interwoven in the Book of Mormon is something that cannot be ignored. While the Book of Mormon has a lot of King James Isaiah references with minor tweaks here and there that were probably directly copied from a King James Bible, I think the subject matter is intact even if the language isn't perfect. The themes are bold and present no matter what form they are delivered and even if there is an imperfection here and there. The general message is that of salvation and redemption and the cost of disloyalty and sin.

User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Re: Newly discovered Isaiah patterns in the Book of Mormon

Post by Joel »

5tev3 wrote:Personally, I trust the Book of Mormon on this rather than modern scholars. I'm not saying that they don't have any value to add, but the intricacy of the book of Isaiah itself and the manner in which it is interwoven in the Book of Mormon is something that cannot be ignored.
Thanks for sharing :)

That's the nice thing about beliefs, we get to choose which ones make the most sense to us.

Book of Mormon Feast
Hi, I'm new.
Posts: 1

Re: Newly discovered Isaiah patterns in the Book of Mormon

Post by Book of Mormon Feast »

The name patterns, or who-said-what patterns, are astounding! It's great how you used Gileadi's work as a springboard to more discoveries of unexpected patterns in the Book of Mormon.

User avatar
oneClimbs
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3187
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Newly discovered Isaiah patterns in the Book of Mormon

Post by oneClimbs »

Joel wrote: November 24th, 2017, 5:51 pm
5tev3 wrote:Personally, I trust the Book of Mormon on this rather than modern scholars. I'm not saying that they don't have any value to add, but the intricacy of the book of Isaiah itself and the manner in which it is interwoven in the Book of Mormon is something that cannot be ignored.
Thanks for sharing :)

That's the nice thing about beliefs, we get to choose which ones make the most sense to us.
Huzzah for agency!

Post Reply