Inquiring Minds Want to Know Why

[Thoughtful]

When I search Deutero-Isaiah, why do contemporary Christian pages insist its an unproven theory with nothing to talk about, but BYU and FAIR take the position that the majority of scholars agree to multiple authorship?

Wouldn't it be easier for apologetics to conclude that it's a poorly substantiated theory to begin with likethe test of christianity assures us?

The FAIR article goes around in circles so long trying to make their assumptions about Cyrus name being sneaked in there after the fact appear to be anything more than their own conjecture while they argue against "most" scholars when I dont see many scholars taking that position. They top it off with, "besides, prophets, okay?" And point out a Malachi anacronism in the BOM as proof of prophets because they say so, so why not Nephi channeling later iterants of Isaiah too, because he's a prophet?

If Deutero-Isaiah is a thing, that has implications for the idea that prophets exist at all. Implications possibly about the divinity of Christ. Christian scholars reject it because it's a rabbit hole.

Byu/FAIR are apparently missing the point-- trying to prove JS a prophet via his miserable "translation" track record and in so doing throwing Jesus out with the bathwater?

Occams razor, or more supernatural stuff to prove your weird church? Pick which one is most likely.

[Corsair]

Your confusion over the response to Deutero-Isaiah stands in amusing contrast to the topics in faithful LDS Gospel Doctrine classes each Sunday. They are up to the Isaiah sections of the Old Testament right now. Those faithful teachers are not talking about these controversies at all because this kind of controversy does not help Joseph Smith at all. It also does not help the Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon because they were suppose to come from the Brass Plates. The general apologetic is that "true prophet equals solution to all problems". I wonder if a veiled spirit of desperation is invisibly undergirding every discussion that FairMormon supports.

To an Old Testament scholar, the Deutero-Isaiah chapters are clear sign that the Book of Mormon is 19th century fiction. Malachi chapters simply compound the problem. But I cannot imagine that apologists can do or say anything that does not logically conclude with "BoM is totes true. Joseph was totally a real prophet. So was Mormon and Moroni when they got revelation on what Malachi and Isaiah wrote." If you still insist that there is a problem, you are welcome to take this up with God when he sternly condemns you at the Bar of Judgement. Stop bothering modern prophets, seers, and revelators with your insipid issues. They already provided Sunday School manuals, Gospel Topic Essays, the "Saints" book, and those amazing talks in general conference. What else could you possibly want, you ungrateful apostate?!

There probably still are other apologetic pages penned by literalists out there that prolaim that the Deutero-Isaiah model cannot possibly be true because surely Isaiah was just one, single prophet who wrote all that stuff in the Plates of Brass. Nephi transcribed this vital material for your edification. Those modern scholars are leading you astray making you miss those sweet blessings of paying tithing and not drinking coffee.

[Thoughtful]

Your confusion over the response to Deutero-Isaiah stands in amusing contrast to the topics in faithful LDS Gospel Doctrine classes each Sunday. They are up to the Isaiah sections of the Old Testament right now. Those faithful teachers are not talking about these controversies at all because this kind of controversy does not help Joseph Smith at all. It also does not help the Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon because they were suppose to come from the Brass Plates. The general apologetic is that "true prophet equals solution to all problems". I wonder if a veiled spirit of desperation is invisibly undergirding every discussion that FairMormon supports.

To an Old Testament scholar, the Deutero-Isaiah chapters are clear sign that the Book of Mormon is 19th century fiction. Malachi chapters simply compound the problem. But I cannot imagine that apologists can do or say anything that does not logically conclude with "BoM is totes true. Joseph was totally a real prophet. So was Mormon and Moroni when they got revelation on what Malachi and Isaiah wrote." If you still insist that there is a problem, you are welcome to take this up with God when he sternly condemns you at the Bar of Judgement. Stop bothering modern prophets, seers, and revelators with your insipid issues. They already provided Sunday School manuals, Gospel Topic Essays, the "Saints" book, and those amazing talks in general conference. What else could you possibly want, you ungrateful apostate?!

There probably still are other apologetic pages penned by literalists out there that prolaim that the Deutero-Isaiah model cannot possibly be true because surely Isaiah was just one, single prophet who wrote all that stuff in the Plates of Brass. Nephi transcribed this vital material for your edification. Those modern scholars are leading you astray making you miss those sweet blessings of paying tithing and not drinking coffee.

So this is my entire point--wouldn't it just be easier for Mormon historians and apologists to join contemporary Christian scholars and say, "NOPE. Duetero-Isaiah is not a thing, Isaiah was totes inspired that Cypress would be king, that totally was not added later, shut up, Jesus is real, obv." Instead of acknowledging as FAIR and BYU do, that DI is an issue, but somehow it actually proves JS was a prophet in a roundabout way, citing other anachronisms as proof, and then ignoring the issue it presents for the necessity of Isaiah being a legit prophet in regards to the birth and ministry of even Jesus the Christ?

Or am I missing something here? Why are apologetics taking the position of validating Deutero-Isaiah at all?

Is it that Christian historians are avoiding the Jesus rabbit hole?
Why would Mormon historians acknowledge that, or do they assume the average LDS is too stupid to ever consider that there would be a rabbit hole around Jesus even while they are muddling through the JS rabbit hole?

Real question--what is the evidence of DI to begin with? Are the Christians patently ignoring the facts, while Mormons acknowledge the facts of DI while refusing to acknowledge the facts of the BOM? Or is DI really just a random theory with no backing that for some odd reason LDS apologists and BYU scholars feel is founded for no good reason? Who is being more obtuse, LDS apologists or Christian apologists?

I'm so confused.

[jfro18]

I read about Deutero-Isaiah months ago when I first came across all of this stuff, and it seemed like a lot of scholars from non-Mormon sources believed there were multiple authors, but they had a variety of "outs" they gave to make it all work out...

Some said it was actually a single author but that other authors edited it to keep up with the times, which is one that I believe FAIR also alludes to.

But you're right - if multiple Isaiahs can just be in the Bible, then what does it say for everything else?

And the thing about the deutero-Isaiah stuff is that I mentioned it to my wife and she just looked at me cross-eyed... I think this is a MASSIVE problem for the Book of Mormon, but it's really hard to explain why until someone is already opened up to the possibility that Joseph Smith made it all up.

[Corsair]

Real question--what is the evidence of DI to begin with? Are the Christians patently ignoring the facts, while Mormons acknowledge the facts of DI while refusing to acknowledge the facts of the BOM? Or is DI really just a random theory with no backing that for some odd reason LDS apologists and BYU scholars feel is founded for no good reason? Who is being more obtuse, LDS apologists or Christian apologists?

Let me be very clear in acknowledging that I am an engineer, not a biblical or Old Testament scholar. I have spent more time diagnosing mechanical problems in my car instead of analyzing Old Testament issues, and I'm not an auto mechanic, either. I simply have to trust the preponderance of biblical scholarship.

FairMormon knows that the Book of Mormon is dead under a basic DI theory. So they work up an acceptance of the theory and fix the obvious issues while getting to toss in "prophets are awesome" at the same time. Christian literalists don't have nearly the rhetorical weight to carry because they already condemn the Book of Mormon. But they like have a dynamic prophet like Isaiah and don't want to split him into two or three humdrum Old Testament authors who only wrote about Cyrus afterwards instead of forward with prophetic seership.

Perhaps more importantly, the full Deutero- and Triteo- Isaiah models do not at all disprove the Bible. They make it a little more "human", but still can easily retain divinity. Meanwhile, the Book of Mormon looks like 19th century biblical plagiarism.

[Just This Guy]

Something else to keep in mind is that Christians also affirm the the Bible is infallible. Really, they are used to ignoring historical evidence. Like the fact that the creation is bunk. No evidence of a global flood, No evidence of Hebrew bondage in Egypt or the exodus. Major contradictions within the gospels. No evidence of King Harrod killing the first borns. No real evidence that Jesus even existed. This list goes on, but they ignore the issues because, it's the Bible.

So for a lot of them, I think they discount the idea of Deudero-Isiah the same way they discount evolution. It doesn't fit the narrative, so they automatically discount it.

I can't comment on weather DI is a thing or not, but even if it is valid, a lot of Christians won't want to consider changing their understanding of the bible.

[orangganjil]

Something else to keep in mind is that Christians also affirm the the Bible is infallible. Really, they are used to ignoring historical evidence.

I think you mean American Evangelical Christians think the Bible is infallible. The majority of Christianity does not share this view (e.g., Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans/Episcopalians, most Roman Catholic thinkers).

So much of what gets tossed around as Christianity these days is really describing American Evangelicalism. That movement espouses fairly modern ideas that were born in response to the Enlightenment, such as fundamentalism, Biblical inerrancy, etc. It is what Christianity can become when it comes unmoored from its oldest traditions and when it loses sight of Jesus Christ, instead being driven by fame, high numbers, and wealth. It is the very thing Jesus condemned.

Also, I'm not aware of any well-regarded, non-Evangelical Christian scholars (scholars, not apologists) who look askance at Deutero Isaiah. Which scholars are you referring to? I do know that not all regular, well-regarded scholars are completely convinced by the theory, but as far as I know, it still is viewed as the most probable hypothesis.