It is quite possible that the Deutero Isaiah portions found in the Book of Mormon were not put in there by Nephi, nor Mormon. Perhaps what Nephi and Mormon had in the Book of Mormon is something a bit different than the Deutero Isaiah portions that are also found in the KJV. But, since the KJV in Joseph Smith' time was by and large the Bible in English, God let it be that the KJV, Deutero-Isaiah, stuff was used in the translation.
Stem, have you ever seen a quote stating that a KJV was used as a resource in the translation? I cannot think of any. In fact, off hand, I seem to remember Emma or Oliver explicitly saying a Bible was never used or referenced during the translation. Am I mistaken?
Edited to add: That also would not explain Deutro Isaiah showing up in 3 Nephi and Mosiah.
It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent. Bruce R. McConkie
In my opinion the only workable solution for the Book of Mormon to maintain its integrity is to deny Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah in favor of a unitary Isaiah approach. There is a minority of conservative scholars who defend this approach. It's not fashionable among most scholars, it makes the text of Isaiah much less understandable, and it causes all kinds of problems, but it is a defensible position. I don't think it makes sense to go with a unitary Isaiah approach, but there are a few scholars who do.
Ironically, one of the biggest defenders of a unitary Isaiah from an LDS perspective was/is Avraham Gileadi, one of the September Six.
The reader of Second Isaiah becomes convinced that the work has a style and vocabulary of its own. In an unpublished dissertation at the University of Chicago, Mrs. Judith Reinken has made a vocabulary study according to modern statistical methods which simply does not support the thesis of different authorship; nor does it support the thesis of unity of authorship. This is to say that the vocabulary alone is not decisive. Nor is the style alone any more decisive.
I love that the article acknowledges explicitly the overall agreement amongst scholars on the idea of a Deutero-Isaiah, but then inserts the inconclusive findings of an unpublished dissertation to try to take away credibility from the idea.
Awesome.
-"I was gonna say something but I forgot what it was." -"Well, it must not have been very important or you wouldn't've forgotten it!" -"Oh, I remember. I'm radioactive."
Edited to add: That also would not explain Deutro Isaiah showing up in 3 Nephi and Mosiah.
Sorry. come again? not sure what you're saying.
What I am trying to say, quite poorly obviously, is that even if Joseph riffed on what was on the plates to include what was in his KJV, that would not explain why the Deutro Isaiah is again quoted and referenced, in a completely different context, in Mosiah and 3 Nephi. Your argument is supporting what Aristotle Smith is saying that the gold plates are becoming superfluous.
It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent. Bruce R. McConkie
Willy Law wrote:What I am trying to say, quite poorly obviously, is that even if Joseph riffed on what was on the plates to include what was in his KJV, that would not explain why the Deutro Isaiah is again quoted and referenced, in a completely different context, in Mosiah and 3 Nephi.
I do not see why.
Your argument is supporting what Aristotle Smith is saying that the gold plates are becoming superfluous.
As far as we understand the plates weren't used in the translation. I suppose they could have in some way, but there is no witness testimony that suggests as much as Joseph, of course, never says anything about it.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote:As far as we understand the plates weren't used in the translation. I suppose they could have in some way, but there is no witness testimony that suggests as much as Joseph, of course, never says anything about it.
You should let the church in on this little gem, they seemed to have not received the memo.
It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent. Bruce R. McConkie
stemelbow wrote: As far as we understand the plates weren't used in the translation. I suppose they could have in some way, but there is no witness testimony that suggests as much as Joseph, of course, never says anything about it.
In due course the plates were delivered to Joseph Smith, who translated them by the gift and power of God.
The introduction page within the Book of Mormon certainly creates the impression that they were directly used. That, along with the pictures used within teaching manuals showing Joseph studying gold pates to produce the translation, would seem to go against what you agree we now know about the translation process.
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Drifting wrote: In due course the plates were delivered to Joseph Smith, who translated them by the gift and power of God.
The introduction page within the Book of Mormon certainly creates the impression that they were directly used. That, along with the pictures used within teaching manuals showing Joseph studying gold pates to produce the translation, would seem to go against what you agree we now know about the translation process.
I don't know what you want me to say here. Translation was the term used to describe the process.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
