Maxwell Institute scholar Donald Perry studies the oldest known copy of the Book of Isaiah

Dr. David Bokovoy is the author of Authoring the Old Testament (also at Amazon and Deseret Book), where he draws on his PhD in Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East to introduce an LDS audience to textual and historical studies of the Pentateuch and the Book of Abraham. Authoring the Old Testament made quite a splash when it appeared two years ago, with glowing reviews in The Deseret News (“insightful and spiritually edifying”) as well as virtually every blog in Mormonism. (The two most incisive reviews are Kevin Barney’s and Colby Townsend’s, with an honorable mention for Michael Barker’s as most detailed.)

This is to explain that Bokovoy knows what he’s talking about. And also to say that if you haven’t read Authoring the Old Testament then you really need to remedy that if you’re at all interested in the subject. I can’t recommend it too highly.

This week, Bokovoy explains (part 1, part 2) how we know that Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah chapters 40–55) are a later (mid 6th century BC) addition to material written by the historical prophet Isaiah in the 8th century BC (chapters 1–39, for the most part).

Deutero-Isaiah has been a sore point for some Mormons for nearly a century. At least as far back as Joseph Fielding Smith, conservative Mormons have dismissed scholarly work on the subject as stemming from a secular unwillingness to accept that Isaiah could write about 6th century events because he saw the future with the gift of prophecy. They argue that Deutero-Isaiah must have been written by Isaiah himself, because otherwise it couldn’t have been on the brass plates that Nephi took before Jersualem was destroyed.

Conservative evangelicals make a similar argument: “John quotes from both ‘halves’ of Isaiah, and attributes them to Isaiah. So who wrote Isaiah (all of it)? Isaiah.” Authorship of the Gospels is outside our scope here, but Mormons have long rejected a rigid view of Biblical infallibility, and have no trouble accepting that John could have simply been quoting a source as it was familiar to him, without necessarily making a prophetic endorsement of its provenance.

But the evidence that drives scholars to conclude that Deutero-Isaiah is written by a different, later author is much more than a secular reluctance to accept prophecy. To summarize Bokovoy’s article,

“Deutero-Isaiah provides a polemical response to the Cyrus Cylinder.” (The Cyrus Cylinder is a Babylonian document created sometime between 539–538 BCE, to which Isaiah chapters 44 and 45 offer a rebuttal.) “Even though Isaiah predicted judgment against his people, he held fast to a view scholars refer to as ‘the inviolability of Jerusalem.’ Isaiah believed that Jerusalem was a sacred place that could not be annihilated by its enemies… In contrast to this perspective, Isaiah 40 begins as a message of comfort to the Judean people since Jerusalem had been destroyed. This was not something that the historical Isaiah believed would happen.” “The material in Deutero-Isaiah was highly influenced by the book of Jeremiah, a prophet who lived after the time period of the historical Isaiah.” “The authors of 40–66 knew exilic and postexilic material including Lamentations.” “Unlike what we find in the first half of the book of Isaiah, Aramaic has heavily influenced the language in Isaiah 40–66. Not only does this fact provide compelling proof that the material in 40–66 was written by other authors, it shows that these authors were living in a time when Jews were speaking Aramaic.” “Unlike what we encounter in the historical oracles of Isaiah, the material in Isaiah 40–66 contains many, many examples of Hebrew words and phrases that appear solely in the exilic and postexilic periods.”

Tom Hardman offers a balanced take on the implications for the Book of Mormon:

I have faith that the Book of Mormon is the “word of God.” As for what that means with respect to authorship of the book of Isaiah, I’m far less certain. While it is certainly possible that the scholarly consensus is incorrect, there does appear to be considerable evidence supporting post-exilic authorship of Isaiah 40–66. In any event, I believe that biblical scholars like Dr. Bokovoy are simply doing their best to honestly seek after the truth. Their efforts should be applauded, even when their conclusions make us uncomfortable. The words of Henry Eyring come to mind: “The fundamental principle that has guided my religious life is that I need believe only what is true. The gospel is the truth as learned or discovered by whatever means and tools I can lay my hand or mind on.”

Thoughts on Things and Stuff explains what South Park got wrong about the early Church:

In Episode 12 of Season 7 of the irreverent Comedy Central cartoon “South Park” viewers were treated to a story “All About Mormons” (See the full episode on hulu.com). The episode included modern adventures of the South Park gang dealing with a new LDS family in town — but also depicted scenes from early Church history and in particular Joseph Smith and the events of early church history. This included the First Vision, the encounter with the angel Moroni, the translation of the Book of Mormon and the loss of the first 116 pages… Just how accurate was the South Park episode? Did they get anything wrong? Why has no one taken the time to debunk the parody of Mormonism and caricature of Joseph Smith that Matt Stone and Trey Parker unleashed into modern culture?

Jonathan Streeter and historian Christopher Smith came up with sixteen things South Park got wrong or oversimplified, starting with the implication, expressed as a refrain in the song introducing Joseph Smith, that Mormons are “dumb” for believing him.

Reviews and Books

Sexual Assault at BYU

Other Links