Quote:
Originally Posted by rameumptom
There are two ways to view this passage in Isaiah. First, it is considered a part of Deutero-Isaiah, which was probably written during the exile. The post-First Temple Deuteronomists rewrote portions of the bible and introduced their religious views to excise the ancient First Temple beliefs.
|
I don't even know that we need to discuss a Deutero-Isaiah theory. I don't have much of a problem with it and do find the subject interesting. Barkers theory is somewhat like a Deutero Isaiah theory, but a little different.
In any case, if you want to accept biblical criticism, and remain consistent and rational in your thinking, you must reject 1 Nephi 20-21, 2 Nephi 6-8, 3 Nephi 20 & 22, Mosiah 12, and Mosiah 14. Those chapters all quote from what would then be considered the corrupted deutero-Isaiah and would also be terribly anachronistic. You would probably also have to reject 2 Nephi 12-24, 27, 30 since those chapters represent an inappropriate division in the text of 1st Isaiah.
Not that I reject the deutero-Isaiah (or even tritero-Isaiah, since there is no consensus among scholars on the composition of the book) theory, but I just want to point out the logical conclusion of its acceptance by LDS. The logical conclusion would be that Joseph Smith was not a true prophet.
Now I personally lean toward a unity in Isaiah rather than multiple authors to the book. So those entire chapters in the Book of Mormon contain very little for me to object about.