08-07-2007, 09:15 PM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
|
Quote:
1. Charlesworth said Mormon may have done some major editing and "Christianizing" to the text, as was often done to the OT pseudepigrapha. 2. [answer with a question] Do we have a scholarly consensus that there is a 2nd Isaiah? My OT professor, David Rolph Seely, said that scholars believed there was a 2nd Isaiah because the prophecies came true.
__________________
太初有道 |
|
08-07-2007, 09:21 PM | #12 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between Iraq and a hard place
Posts: 7,569
|
As for 2nd Isaiah, we have the people of Mulek:
Quote:
Verse 16 states Quote:
Am I hitching my wagon to this theory? No, but it serves at a minimum to show that other peoples besides Lehi & Co. could and did make the journey from the Middle East to the New World and does not preclude the possibility that something like 2nd Isaiah could have made the journey after Lehi hitched his wagons. Last edited by Indy Coug; 08-07-2007 at 09:24 PM. |
||
08-07-2007, 09:24 PM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Happy Valley, PA
Posts: 1,866
|
Quote:
IMO, the best tack for an LDS apologist would be to place second Isaiah before 600 BCE, not to deny his existence altogether.
__________________
I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free. - Epitaph of Nikos Kazantzakis (1883-1957) |
|
08-07-2007, 09:27 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
|
Quote:
__________________
太初有道 |
|
08-07-2007, 09:31 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Happy Valley, PA
Posts: 1,866
|
Quote:
Maybe Mulek's folk did take off from Babylon 40 years late (2nd Isaiah seems to have been written ca. 540 BCE). I don't begrudge you the theory. However, it seems more likely (to me) that whoever wrote the 2nd Isaiah sections of the BoM put them in much later than the mid sixth century BCE.
__________________
I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free. - Epitaph of Nikos Kazantzakis (1883-1957) |
|
08-07-2007, 09:39 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Happy Valley, PA
Posts: 1,866
|
Quote:
This, however, doesn't explain why the author of Mosiah 14 quotes "Isaiah" 53 nearly verbatim. There are multiple theories that could explain this away - Joseph Smith just used the language he was comfortable with - another group of Hebrews came over the pond - Jesus brought 2nd Isaiah with him on his Blackberrry - whatever. In the end, they're all theories, unsubstantiated by facts. That's okay - that's what religion's for - to believe in something that contravenes natural occurrences. But those experiences - along with these types of theories - might be better suited for the other religion category.
__________________
I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free. - Epitaph of Nikos Kazantzakis (1883-1957) |
|
08-07-2007, 09:46 PM | #17 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
The Documentary Hypothesis which Friedman is summarizing has its supporters, but also legitimate detractors.
Take for example an old one but legitimate one, Umberto Cassuto, who endeavors to explain away the Jawist versus Eloihist usage into distinctive types of usage. Take for example Kitchen, a noted biblical scholar who defends the authenticity of the OT based on real good work. I'm not stating I accept these positions, only that if we read a summary we will receive a distorted view of what the scholarship really is. For example, in NT scholarship, Q is generally acceptd but Mark Goodacre makes a convincing argument without Q.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
08-07-2007, 09:48 PM | #18 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
08-07-2007, 09:55 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Happy Valley, PA
Posts: 1,866
|
Quote:
__________________
I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free. - Epitaph of Nikos Kazantzakis (1883-1957) |
|
08-07-2007, 10:03 PM | #20 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
First, a letter exists wherein the first presidency still claims much of the material was at one time compiled by Moses but that it has passed through many hands. This acknowledgement leaves enough room for multiple authors if Moses generated an oral tradition of several aspects with details filled in my subsequent authors. Second, finding the starting date for Deutero Isaiah, once thought easy, is becoming increasingly difficult to nail down as more transcripts are discovered which tend to show an earlier compilation of Deutero Isaiah. I will note that I at one time held out some belief in the Seeley theory, that scholars discounted prophecies because they came true. I didn't exactly discount it for that reason but for the reason that some believed you couldn't predict the future. In reality, scholars' opinion is more sophisticated and appealing. Why would a prophet spend a lot of time talking to a people about an event so distant it had no bearing or apparent bearing upon his people? That makes a lot of sense. If I'm a prophet I'll mostly foretell the future of near future events, not distant future. They also critisize Isaiah by the reference to Cyrus, but it seems the name could have been a later addition, once the prophecy was fulfilled. Once you dig into these arguments, no side has a clear victory, unless one takes a simplistic fundamentalist approach. And I have only read one third of what you have probably read, so the "I don't know enough" is probably a diversionary poker player technique. I'm not buying it. If uninitiated me knows this stuff, I'm certain a real scholar such as yourself has a good handle on it.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα Last edited by Archaea; 08-07-2007 at 10:50 PM. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|