This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.
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? Abinidai 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 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. 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.