“In terms of literary style, theme, and vocabulary, the book of Isaiah falls into three neat sections: First (or Proto) Isaiah, chapters 1-39. These chapters are generally seen as being written in the period of 750-700 BC. These chapters deal with such things as the development of the Assyrian Empire. Second (or Deutero) Isaiah, chapters 40-55. These chapters are usually seen as written sometime around 550-530 BC. … scholars all agree that these chapters are thought to have been composed decades after the capture of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and the consequence exile. Third (or Trito) Isaiah, chapters 56-66. These chapters were probably written later than Deutero-Isaiah, sometime around 520-500 BC, after the Jews had returned from exile. …So how could Lehi have in his possession a copy of the text of Deutero-Isaiah when they left Jerusalem?”

diglot on ‘Mormon Dialogue’

In the 18th century, German scholars revolutionized Christian scholarship with their theory that Isaiah had been written by multiple authors. They noticed chapters 40-66 sound very different than the rest of the book. Since then, scholars have come up with a much more complicated picture of Isaiah, and have concluded that much of the Old Testament was written after the 7th century B.C. Scholars are beginning to understand the foundational importance of Isaiah as a basis for monotheism and other details that greatly influenced Judaism and Christianity. But the portions of Isaiah that the Book of Mormon quote do not indicate a later date of authorship.

Book of Mormon Quotes In Correct ‘Messiah’ Context – It is interesting that the first thing Nephi at the beginning of the Book of Mormon quoted to his brothers was from the book of Isaiah, “that I might more fully persuade them to believe in the Lord their Redeemer.” Indeed, Isaiah would have been one of the only writings of the time to speak of a Messiah, which explains why Nephi quoted from it so extensively. The Qumran people who lived not long after Nephi also placed special importance on Isaiah above all Dead Sea scrolls for this same reason.

New Kind Of Prophecy – If Joseph Smith had intentionally plagiarized Isaiah for some cool-sounding prophecies about Jesus, we would expect him to start at the beginning of the book and go in order from chapter to chapter. Or at least pick out some of the cool verses that get sung about in Handel’s ‘Messiah.’ But the Book of Mormon does not do this. Instead, Nephi started with chapter 48 of Isaiah, a rather dull-sounding chapter. It speaks of returning from Babylon: “Go ye forth of Babylon, flee ye from the Chaldeans, with a voice of singing.”

Laman and Lemuel seemed confused by it because Israel hadn’t been invaded yet, and Nephi explained that “by the Spirit are all things made known unto the prophets, which shall come upon the children of men… Israel, sooner or later, will be scattered upon all the face of the earth.” So, it may not have happened yet but Isaiah was talking about a diaspora that would happen in the distant future. This would have been confusing for Laman and Lemuel because this kind of prophecy was unusual. Before Isaiah, scripture tended to be allegories, histories, laws, and ordinances. Both Lehi and Nephi seemed inspired by Isaiah specifically to make far-off predictions of their own, which was only something important patriarchs like Enoch or Joseph had done before Isaiah.

But the content of Isaiah 48 wouldn’t have been exactly hard to believe for Laman and Lemuel. In 605 B.C., King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon defeated Egypt in battle and invaded Judah. This occurred just before Lehi left Jerusalem (most say Lehi left between 601-587 B.C.) The nations were already at war, Israel already defeated, so it wasn’t exactly a stretch to predict that Babylon would devastate Israel and then one day Israel would be freed from Babylon. It was only a few years until Nebuchadnezzar altogether conquered Israel and overthrew Zedekiah (586 B.C.). So being invaded by Babylon and then being dispersed throughout the world was not what confused Laman and Lemuel. The new and difficult concept was the role of a Messiah in redeeming and gathering the remnants of Israel.

But this immediately places the Book of Mormon right in the middle of the Deuter-Isaiah problem, because scholars think this part of Isaiah must have been written after the Babylonian occupation, after Nephi supposedly existed. Were the Book of Mormon’s quotes from Isaiah written after Nephi could have had access to them?

Not Specifically About Babylon – This is the only time the Book of Mormon quotes content from Isaiah that speaks about Babylon, and yet that should have been the biggest issue for Nephi. Wouldn’t that be the main thing on Nephi’s mind, considering Babylon’s invasion was imminent? If I were making up a story like this, I would have picked out chapters of Isaiah that talk the most about Babylon. Yet, this is the only mention–and it is one of the more vague, hard to understand passages. Why this passage? Perhaps it is the only such passage in existence in Nephi’s time. Maybe everything else in Deutero-Isaiah with descriptions of the destruction were added on to Isaiah in later years. The rest of the quotes about freedom of captivity are presented in the Book of Mormon in a different context, talking about a general diaspora rather than having to do with Babylon specifically. And nowhere does Nephi quote verses about an imminent invasion. How can we explain this? Maybe future authors tied the prophecies together under an immediate Babylonian context with their own additions that made it specifically about Babylon. Indeed, even within Isaiah 48 we can see many alterations between what’s in the Bible and what the Book of Mormon quotes. Biblical scholars agree “this chapter has been editorially reworked.”

If Nephi had had all of these other more specific Babylon predictions to choose from, it would be strange for him to go with chapter 48. This is why Book of Mormon scholars think Nephi’s initial Isaiah quotation was the primitive, early prophecy written by the first Isaiah author, and that later authors added little bits here and there: “Nephi’s version of Isaiah 48-52 that he quoted on his plates was the primitive, early version written by 1st Isaiah which did not include specific references to Babylon.” This paints a more complicated picture than just saying these chapters were all from one author and these chapters from another author.

Redemption From A ‘Messiah’ – But Nephi may have had another reason to pick this chapter. It could be because of “the unique function of chapter 48.” Biblical scholars have found that previous Deutero-Isaiah chapters pointed to Cyrus as Israel’s deliverer from Babylon, but in chapter 48 it suddenly becomes the Messiah who does the delivering. Suddenly the Messiah performed all deliverance “even from the beginning.” Nephi said he wanted to “more fully persuade” his brothers “to believe in the Lord their Redeemer.” What better way to persuade his brothers than to show that the Lord their Redeemer would deliver Israel from the impending doom of Babylon’s invasion?

But scholars puzzle over this chapter’s accusation of unrighteousness, because the theory is that this was written before the Jews returned to Jerusalem. If this is from the Deutero time period and the Jews had not yet returned to Jerusalem, why does verse two seem like they already are in the “holy city” Jerusalem? Scholars have tried to demonstrate that this is a later revision to the text, but then the entire chapter doesn’t make sense. The entire chapter sounds as if Babylon has already fallen and the people already returned.

Isaiah (2000): A Commentary, Brevard S. Childs) “The theme of Israel’s failure is not an alien postexilic introduction; instead, chapter 48 draws the implications growing out of a refusal by the nation to assume its divinely appointed task as God’s true witness to the redemptive events occurring in public view (43:12). Babylon has fallen, Israel freed, but God’s people still do not grasp true deliverance.”

That is a theme that fits in Trito-Isaiah, chapters 55-56, not Deutero-Isaiah. (Perhaps this is why skeptics of the Book of Mormon usually don’t bring up Trito-Isaiah.) The following verses of chapter 48 go even deeper into the future with talk of “new things.” Previous chapters attributed the “new things” to Cyrus, but now suddenly they are caused by the Messiah and his displeasure. Deutero-Isaiah is all about forgiveness and salvation, but here in verse 9 it is “for my name’s sake will I defer mine anger.” It is very interesting that Nephi’s quotation adds “and he will fulfil his word which he hath declared by them,” because that solidifies the message that Cyrus and everyone else was just the messenger and the Messiah was in charge the whole time. The Bible version switches to third person here, and scholars have puzzled over why, but the Book of Mormon version clarifies why. This is the moment the chapter switches from the Lord speaking first person to Isaiah speaking first person. The next verse in the Book of Mormon alters the Bible version to make it consistently first person Isaiah rather than a mix of Isaiah and the Lord. Why the switch to first person Isaiah? Scholars point to verse 40:6, but that verse was only first person in the Greek, not Hebrew text. So, scholars are now puzzled that “a first person prophetic voice in 48:6 is, up to this point in the book of Second Isaiah, unique.” They find that this shows an entire shift in structure in chapter 48, from talking about Cryus to the servants of God. It upends the traditional oracles of foreigners and points to Hebrew prophets as the source of divine inspiration.

This is incredibly important, and all the church fathers in the volumes of exegesis through the millennia–Calvin, Vitringa, and even modern scholars–have missed it. They all did not recognize these two important structural transitions in chapter 48. If Joseph Smith made up the Book of Mormon, an uneducated farm boy with his “head in a hat,” how did he recognize it? This theme shift is exactly the reason Nephi quoted it to his brothers. He emphasized the Messiah as the source of deliverance and the role of prophets as conduits of God.

The final verses reference the exodus of Moses from Egypt with the happy exclamation: “Go forth from Babylon, flee from Chaldea!” Again, it speaks as if it already happened, which does not fit Deuter-Isaiah. Nephi likewise cited Moses and the exodus when speaking to his brothers. And there is also the persistent reminder that “The Lord hath redeemed” them, and that even after they are redeemed, “there is no peace” for the wicked. They must endure to the end.

This chapter was vitally important for the Hebrews during their captivity and deliverance to understand the role of the Messiah. It could be that later authors focused on Cryus’s role and added to preceding chapters, and that authors in the Trito era focused on the role of prophets and added them after this chapter. When we compare the Bible account next to Nephi’s quote from Isaiah, we can see clues for how the text may have been edited by these post-exilic authors. For example, in verse one there is would be no reason for them to “hearken” once these events took place. Verse three likewise is changed to be more future tense. In verse 14, the Lord’s arm shall “come” upon the Chaldeans rather than “be” upon the Chaldeans. The Nephi version also clarifies which is speaking first person, the Lord or the prophet:

Isaiah 48 KJV 1 Nephi 20 BOM 1. Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth , nor in righteousness. Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, or out of the waters of baptism, who swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, yet they swear not in truth nor in righteousness. 2. For they call themselves of the holy city, and stay themselves upon the God of Israel ; The Lord of hosts is his name. Nevertheless, they call themselves of the holy city, but they do not stay themselves upon the God of Israel, who is the Lord of Hosts; yea, the Lord of Hosts is his name. 3. I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly , and they came to pass . Behold, I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I showed them . I did show them suddenly. 4. Because I knew that thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass; And I did it because I knew that thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass; 5. I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I shewed it thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image , hath commanded them. And I have even from the beginning declared to thee; before it came to pass I showed them thee ; and I showed them for fear lest thou shouldst say — Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image hath commanded them. 6. Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it? I have shewed thee new things from this time, even hidden things, and thou didst not know them. Thou hast seen and heard all this; and will ye not declare them ? And that I have showed thee new things from this time, even hidden things, and thou didst not know them. 7. They are created now, and not from the beginning; even before the day when thou heardest them not; lest thou shouldest say, Behold , I knew them. They are created now, and not from the beginning , even before the day when thou heardest them not they were declared unto thee, lest thou shouldst say — Behold I knew them. 8. Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb. Yea, and thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time thine ear was not opened ; for I knew that thou wouldst deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb. 9. For my name’s sake will I defer mine anger, and for my praise will I refrain for thee, that I cut thee not off. Nevertheless, for my name’s sake will I defer mine anger, and for my praise will I refrain from thee, that I cut thee not off. 10. Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction. For, behold, I have refined thee, I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction. 11. For mine own sake, even for mine own sake , will I do it: for how should my name be polluted ? and I will not give my glory unto another. For mine own sake, yea, for mine own sake will I do this, for I will not suffer my name to be polluted, and I will not give my glory unto another. 12. Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel , my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last. Hearken unto me, O Jacob , and Israel my called , for I am he; I am the first, and I am also the last. 13. Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens : when I call unto them, they stand up together. Mine hand hath also laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens. I call unto them and they stand up together. 14. All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? The Lord hath loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans. All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; who among them hath declared these things unto them ? The Lord hath loved him ; yea, and he will fulfil his word which he hath declared by them; and he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall come upon the Chaldeans. 15. I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous. Also, saith the Lord; I the Lord, yea, I have spoken; yea, I have called him to declare, I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous. 16. Come ye near unto me , hear ye this ; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was , there am I: and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me. Come ye near unto me; I have not spoken in secret ; from the beginning , from the time that it was declared have I spoken; and the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me. 17. Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the Lord thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go. And thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I have sent him, the Lord thy God who teacheth thee to profit, who leadeth thee by the way thou shouldst go , hath done it . 18. O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments! then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea: O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments — then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea . 19. Thy seed also had been as the sand , and the offspring of thy bowels like the gravel thereof; his name should not have been cut off nor destroyed from before me. Thy seed also had been as the sand; the offspring of thy bowels like the gravel thereof; his name should not have been cut off nor destroyed from before me. 20. Go ye forth of Babylon, flee ye from the Chaldeans, with a voice of singing declare ye, tell this, utter it even to the end of the earth; say ye, The Lord hath redeemed his servant Jacob. Go ye forth of Babylon, flee ye from the Chaldeans, with a voice of singing declare ye, tell this, utter to the end of the earth; say ye : The Lord hath redeemed his servant Jacob. 21. And they thirsted not when he led them through the deserts: he caused the waters to flow out of the rock for them: he clave the rock also , and the waters gushed out. And they thirsted not; he led them through the deserts ; he caused the waters to flow out of the rock for them ; he clave the rock also and the waters gushed out. 22. There is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the wicked. And notwithstanding he hath done all this, and greater also, there is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the wicked.

Each of the changes between the bible and Book of Mormon address the specific issues that are confusing scholars today–almost as if the Book of Mormon version is how it originally looked! The Deutero theory rests primarily on text that emphasises Babylon’s role, but it turns out that the only Book of Mormon quote having to do with Babylon is actually shifting the narrative to the Messiah as Redeemer rather than Cyrus, and looking forward to the future beyond the Deutero time period. It asserts the reality of and purpose of predictive prophecy. The key evidence for the Deutero issue thus does not even apply to the Book of Mormon!

Evidence For The Multiple Author Model

Let’s look at each reason scholars give for accepting the multiple-author model and see how the Book of Mormon measures up:

Inviolability Of Jerusalem – Early chapters of Isaiah make it sound like Jerusalem is safe from invasion. Isaiah 31:5-9 says the Lord “will deliver” and “preserve it.” But then suddenly in Isaiah 40 the Lord is giving comfort for Jerusalem being destroyed. Sure, circumstances change and prophets can have changes of perspective, but why didn’t Isaiah at least explain such a sudden shift of his ideas?

I find it interesting that we find the same kind of shift with in Doctrine & Covenants. Antimormons rake Joseph Smith over the coals because of an 1832 prophecy that a “temple shall be reared” in Independence, Missouri. But then suddenly there is no more mention of this, and D&C starts talking about building a temple in Missouri. Somebody 4,000 years from now may read this and be puzzled by this unexplained shift of ideas. Of course, we today know the reason is that the Saints were violently expelled from Independence by Antimormons, but that is never actually explained in the text.

Well, there are two obvious possibilities for this unexplained shift in Isaiah: the reason was obvious to everyone at the time, or an explanation was given and removed from later authors because they didn’t like it. There must have been some significant shift in circumstances between chapters 31 and 40 to lead to such a significant shift. Perhaps this was written in the time period when King Nebuchadnezzar II defeated Egypt and Judah the first time. There is little reason to assume this means a large timespan between the authoring of these two chapters.

But this issue is moot when it comes to the Book of Mormon because Nephi didn’t quote Isaiah 40. The only part having to do with comforting Jerusalem quoted in the Book of Mormon from Isaiah is chapter 52 starting at verse 7. This says “the Lord hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem.” This does not conflict with the earlier chapters that say the Lord would defend Jerusalem, so it isn’t really evidence for the Deutero-Isaiah theory. When you read the context in which this quote is given (Mosiah 12), the confusion addressed by Nephi is the very issue being addressed here. The priests of Noah are asking what this chapter of Isaiah means, because they are apparently confused like Laman and Lemuel were. Who brings salvation to Israel? Abinadi declared that salvation came through a Messiah, not the law, and that the role of prophets is to tell of the Messiah’s coming. Interestingly, Abinadi quotes the verse verbatim but adds in a bunch of verses of his own here and there, just like later editors of the book of Isaiah did.

Verses 1-7 are quoted in 3 Nephi, and these verses are more specifically about the Israelites returning to Jerusalem. But in 3 Nephi, that is Jesus who spake to the people, giving scripture that they may not have had previously. Jesus also gave content from Malachi, verbatim reading, which Joseph Smith certainly knew was written long after Nephi’s time. So, it just so happens that the part that deals specifically with Israel’s exile was omitted from Nephi’s quotation of Isaiah.

Interestingly, verses 4-5 are omitted from this Isaiah chapter which specify that Israel was “aforetime” oppressed by Assyria and that someone was currently ruling “over them,” as if the Babylonian occupation was currently happening. Again, the Book of Mormon quotations seem to fix the issues that lead to the Deutero question.

Shift From Assyria To Babylon As Threat – The early chapters talk about Assyria, which makes sense because Babylon was (supposedly) not a big threat in the 8th century BC. Why do later chapters speak of Babylon instead of Assyria? Well, this issue is not straightforward, as chapter 39 talks about Babylon yet is clearly speaking from king Hezekiah’s day, which was supposedly the Proto-Isaiah era. There’s overlap. Also, Assyria certainly did not stop being a threat later on considering Jews were speaking Aramaic in the 6th century BC and Deuter-Isaiah shows clear Aramaic influences. Chapter 40 makes an abrupt shift of perspective by speaking of the exile community, which would be 6th century–but again, Chapter 40 is not quoted in the Book of Mormon, so this is not a Book of Mormon issue. By all means, it could have been added to Isaiah after Nephi’s time. The key evidence for the multiple-authors theory, the shift from Assyria to Babylon, is not present in the Book of Mormon quotations.

Isaiah’s “oracles against nations” weren’t just directed at Assyria and Babylon. They were directed at Moab (ch. 15), Damascus (ch. 17), Egypt (ch. 19), Arabia (ch. 21:11-17), Tyre and Sidon (ch. 23), and Edom (ch. 34). Isaiah directed his threats at many nations that were not a world power or imminent threat. Jeremiah and Ezekiel likewise prophesied against nations that weren’t dangerous.

Babylon’s Invasion Disbelieved In Jeremiah’s Time – The people of Israel in Jeremiah’s time apparently either hadn’t heard Isaiah’s prophecies of Babylon conquering Jerusalem, or they didn’t believe them. Jeremiah 26 shows their disbelief that it could be conquered. Well, they didn’t believe Lehi either. Lehi preached exactly the same thing, and the Book of Mormon tells of how they tried to kill him for it, so this isn’t really evidence against the Book of Mormon’s narrative, is it? But wouldn’t Jeremiah at least have cited Isaiah as an authority to back up his predictions? There is no evidence that Lehi did either. Why didn’t Lehi quote Isaiah? Apparently for the same reason Jeremiah didn’t. The Isaiah chapters quoted in the Book of Mormon don’t really deal with this subject either–which, like I said, ought to have been the number one subject Nephi would be concerned about. So, maybe the chapters prophesying doom from Babylon which skeptics think Jeremiah should have cited weren’t actually there yet.

Many of Isaiah’s parallels with include specific details: war coming from the north, fleeing Babylon, Fanning/threshing, mocking Babylon, desolation of Babylon, singing over Babylon, etc. So does that mean Jeremiah borrowed from Isaiah’s oracles except for the Deuter-Isaiah ones which the later Jeremiah authors spliced in later into both books? An example is Isaiah 53:7 vs Jeremiah 11:19–Jeremiah uses Deuter-Isaiah language to describe the conspiracy of Anathoth to silence him, and this was written early in Jeremiah’s career.

Jeremiah does quote later chapters of Isaiah, but scholars point out that some of Jeremiah’s references flip the narrative around (Lamentation 1:2-3, 21 vs. Isaiah 40:1 comfortless vs. comfort ye my people, Lamentation 2:18-19 vs. Isaiah 62:6-7, etc.) Scholars seem to assume that Jeremiah’s negative message must have come first, but why assume that? Does misery always precede joy? It could be just as likely that Jeremiah referenced Isaiah’s positive message and flipped it into a negative. Furthermore, Jeremiah actually does quote parts of Deuter-Isaiah, and scholars justify that by saying the Book of Jeremiah must have had later authors that added these parts after the later authors added them to Isaiah. But this seems like convoluted justification. The simplest answer is that Jeremiah had at least some parts of today’s Deuter-Isaiah to quote from.

Deuter-Isaiah Shows Aramaic Influences – Rational Faiths gives some examples of Deutero-Isaiah words that were Aramaic rather than ancient Hebrew. Aramaic isn’t thought to be a language spoken in Israel until the 6th century, so this would seem to indicate a later authorship. But these examples fall apart upon inspection. Orach supposedly means “shackle” in Aramaic and “path” in Hebrew, and Isaiah 41:3 gives it in the context of shackles on feet–but this is not true. English translations give the Hebrew meaning. Isaiah 45:14 supposedly gives the Aramaic meaning of middah which is “tribute,” but this is not true–English translations give the Hebrew meaning “stature.” So… I’m not quite sure what they’re talking about. But even if this is true and later chapters include a few Aramaic words, so what? Isaiah couldn’t have learned some Aramaic? Lehi and Nephi wrote the Book of Mormon in reformed Egyptian, so apparently the Hebrews didn’t just stick to Hebrew.

Scholars claim Deutero-Isaiah contains Hebrew verb structure unique to post-exilic periods, such as byn (to teach), but how do they know that? What do they have to compare it by? Just what else is in the bible. There are a lot of unique words and verb structures that show up only once or twice throughout the bible. There is no way of knowing when these structures were spoken. But it any case, I haven’t seen any unique verb structures in the parts quoted in the Book of Mormon.

Deutero-Isaiah Responds To the Cyrus Cylinder & Akitu Festival – The Cyrus Cylinder and Akitue festival date to the 6th century BC, so I agree these parts probably were written around that time. But the Book of Mormon does not quote these parts. Skeptics who point to evidences like this are committing a false dilemma logical fallacy–it’s possible some of the content in chapters 40-66 were written by Isaiah and some content by later authors.

Isaiah 2 Shows The Same Anti-Idolatry Rhetoric As Chapters 20 & 45 – So what? Are they saying Israel didn’t combat idolatry until exilic times? Some scholars theorize this, but I haven’t seen any actual foundation for it. Abraham and other prophets long before Isaiah held an anti-idolatry polemic. This seems like circular reasoning for the multiple author theory. They are assuming the intent of the book’s author (which Antimormons are certainly good at doing, right?) But actually there is all kinds of verbal agreements and parallel thoughts throughout Isaiah. One study shows “unique authorship style throughout the various sections of Isaiah.”

Latter-Day Saint Approach Solves The Multiple-Author Issue

Archaeologists have recovered an ancient seal of Isaiah that proves he really did live and was considered a prophet. This discovery has evaporated the narrative skeptical scholars once held that Isaiah was totally made up in Babylonian times. But many scholars continue to approach the issue in an unscientific way. When passages in Isaiah 1-40 don’t fit their narrative, multiple-author proponents simply say it was changed later on. So what kind of reliable metric actually is there for whether a verse was written in Isaiah’s time or later?

Scripture and doctrine in the Church of Jesus Christ provide some helpful points in mind that help us solve the issue:

The bible is not always translated correctly, and parts have been removed.

Inconsistencies and anachronisms are often the result of later editing.

Prophets often quoted earlier prophets without giving attribution, weaving the quote into their own sermons. Nephi did not clarify which parts of his sermons were original and which he borrowed from Isaiah and others. Jeremiah 23 and Ezekiel quote Isaiah the same way.

Prophets often adapt ancient language for their modern sermons. Joseph Smith adapted modern biblical language in his translation of ancient Book of Mormon scripture which weren’t actually quotations. (2 Nephi 4:17 vs. Romans 7:24 “O wretched man that I am!” Joseph Smith obviously knew Romans was written long after 2 Nephi. But Nephi evidently said something similar so Joseph Smith just matched it with Romans.)

A prophet’s perspective and circumstances change over time.

A prophet’s language changes according to circustmance.

Prophets predict future events and often speak as if they have already happened.

We see several themes being passed down from Isaiah to Lehi and Nephi, and from Nephi to Jacob–such as the theme of “awakening.” If the same themes got passed down in the Book of Mormon, couldn’t Deuter-Isaiah have gotten its themes from an earlier source as well? Indeed, the slight alterations in Nephi’s quotations from what we read in the bible today show how there were original themes that got slightly altered and added upon, layer upon layer. One important thing the Book of Mormon reveals is that lengthy prophetic passages are often passed down verbatim across distances and far spans of time.

Another important observation about the Book of Mormon is that it avoids Deuteronomy themes in a way consistent with pre-exile thinking. Nationalistic Israelites were obsessed with David and the unification of Israel, but the Book of Mormon always talks about a fractured Israel and rarely references David. From the very start, Nephi conveys a feeling of separateness from the kingdom of Judah.

In conclusion, the Book of Mormon’s treatment of Isaiah is consistent with what scholars have recently discovered–but which Joseph Smith couldn’t have known about. It’s quotations are consistent with the manner of layering that multiple authors added to Isaiah in later years. It was used by Nephi appropriately, added upon appropriately, and ends up becoming further evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.