amen. Just made a similar comment separately ... didn't see this.

Thanks for watching, Dan's done deep research into the scholarship

Good points.

Haha I think it's a really important episode discussing biblical scholarship and adding the deutero Isaiah issue. These things need to be taken into account, I really resonated with your concluding thoughts also. Thanks for coming on Dan :)

It’s not chapter 3 of the division of 1QIsaa. It’s somewhere around chapter 33. 33-35 is thought to be separate from what comes before, 36-39 is from Kings. W. H. Brownlee first used the division at ch. 33 in his 1964 book The Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls for the Bible. Other scholars have noted this as well for related arguments. Craig Evans, a conservative scholar (politically, socially, and academically), brought up Brownlee’s essay to support his argument in his 1988 essay, “On the Unity and Parallel Structure of Isaiah.” Bokovoy probably had page 132 of Evans’s essay in mind when talking about scribal habits. Like Karel van der Toorn’s book, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible.

The conversation about biblical scholarship in this interview shows that Ellsworth has engaged biblical studies, but to a limited effect. If I were to borrow from his earlier slide, Ellsworth is, in many ways, still at the “I know everything” position. When you ask for just one example of “who believes” that Isaiah separates in the 30s it’s pretty ridiculous to ask for a footnote of that. It’s all scholars that accept that First Isaiah ends somewhere around ch. 32, 33-35 is from a later hand (around the same time as Second Isaiah; read Williamson for his arguments and for a lot of citations), 36-39 is from Kings, and Second Isaiah starts at ch. 40. Although 33-35 were likely authored by someone close in time to Deutero-Isaiah, Blenkinsopp’s argument is that though later, those chapters should be read as intentionally being a part of the chapters in the 20s and 30s, not 40-55. You’re misunderstanding Blenkinsopp. And, similar to your apparent misunderstanding of Pentateuchal scholarship, the “current unease” (in the late 1990s, 20+ years ago!) is not how you portray it here, either. The unease is the problem with the heuristic, overly simplified tripartite division 1-39, 40-55, and 56-66. The fact that he went with that division is what, in the year 2000, Blenkinsopp was responding to. He knew that some scholars would say no, that doesn’t make sense to chop it up because it continues the confusion over assuming that all of 1-39 is First Isaiah, all of 40-55 is Second Isaiah, and all of 56-66 is Third Isaiah. The only standing that you have, if you’d read a bit more of the scholarship, is that there are more scholars that don’t accept that there was “a” Third Isaiah. Even with those scholars that reject that, there’s still a Second Isaiah.

@@colbytownsend9420 I’m happy to acknowledge I definitely don’t know everything. But I do know enough to know that it’s complicated. “First Isaiah” and “Second Isaiah” are constructs that arise from the imagination of later critics. They are not things that actually exist in reality. Look at how convoluted the arguments are, to justify the existence of something that scholars have imagined. We don’t know if it’s a person or group or school or “tradition” (Blenkinsopp). We don’t know their time. We don’t know their setting. And all of this ephemeral concept is necessitated by theological claims about prophecy and subjective assumptions about how ancient prophets operated. And the claims are supported by a nebulous idea of “more” or “less” scholars that agree on some items to some unknown degree at any given point in time. All we can say with certainty about deutero-Isaiah is that it’s a useful working assumption, and scholars generate a lot of conflicting arguments and activity around it. It definitely does not rise to the level of truth in any objective sense.

@@latterdaypresentations ​ Whether or not you know enough to "know that it's complicated," your approach to the scholarship is still at the "I know everything level." This latest comment highlights that. Ask any serious Isaiah scholar and they will tell you: the whole 1-39, 40-55, and 56-66 (tripartite) division is a heuristic-a helpful model scholars use to describe a far more complicated phenomenon. Every serious scholar agrees about the following two things: (1) there was an early stage in the composition of Isaiah where either Isaiah or his followers wrote down some of his words and those exist only in, but do not encompass, the first part of the book; (2) the bulk of the composition of the book was written by later authors both near the end of Babylonian exile and after the exile. Those positions exist in reality, and for very good reasons (reasons you seem to think you have engaged thoroughly enough but have not yet) whatever you want to call or label those two positions. Everything that you described as "convoluted" is pretty basic if you study almost anything in the past. It's really not that difficult to follow if you actually care enough to put the work in. Just like a few years ago, you feel you've done enough reading (instead of 2-3 books now it's been a few more?) to take on a conversation that includes literally thousands of brilliant minds around the world since the late eighteenth century and tell everyone involved that you know better than they do. But you can't even get their arguments or what they do or do not agree on right. I'll quote H.G.M. Williamson, one scholar you need to read more of, in response to your use of the tired argument that "this ephemeral concept is necessitated by theological claims about prophecy and subjective assumptions about how ancient prophets operated": "First, in view of repeated accusations, it should be emphasized that this opinion is not necessarily motivated by a wish to circumvent the possibility of predictive prophecy. Indeed, there remains plenty of 'prediction', both general and specific, within Deutero-Isaiah itself, for example, if the bulk of Isaiah 40-55 is to be dated before the end of the period of Babylonian exile, and indeed it has frequently been maintained that part of the purpose of the concluding chapters of Isaiah was precisely to answer the problems raised by the apparent failure of these predictions to be borne out by the experience of the return and post-exilic restoration. "Secondly, the strongest argument has always seemed to me to be that, in chapter 41 in particular, Deutero-Isaiah uses the argument from prophecy in order to encourage faith in the new message which is now being proclaimed. If a prophet maintains that certain things which have been prophesied in the past have been accurately fulfilled, so that now one may have confidence in the reliability of the new predictions being made, the argument both presupposes an acceptance of the validity of predictive prophecy, and also demands that the speaker should himself be located after the fulfillment of those predictions. The text itself thus requires us to accept that part of it comes either from a period substantially later than the work of whoever wrote the earlier part, or, if the 'former things' refer to the initial rise of Cyrus, chronicled in 41:2-4, then from a point in time later than that initial rise; either way, we are brought down to a time far too late to be within the lifetime of Isaiah of Jerusalem." H. G. M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah's role in Composition and Redaction (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 2-3.

@@colbytownsend9420 And that claim by Williamson is simply wrong. It's a cluster of non-sequitur. This is why there has long been tension between critical scholarship and philosophy; critical scholarship fails at basic rules of logic. Naked claims of "The text itself requires..." followed by something that is *not required by the text* might seem impressive to people who are personally invested in the validity of the historical critical method. But outside of that personal investment, the rest of us are able to think more critically about the leaps in logic that these scholars make.

I think he shared his final views at the end that Isaiah didn't author the entire book of Isaiah, but he doesn't find the reasons scholars give more separate authorship reliable or persuasive in many reasons and we need to critically examine.

Thanks!

This is true. I quote almost exclusively critical scholars against each other. They all have their reasons for adopting the consensus; more than anything, it’s extremely useful. But I think there will come a point where scholars come to the same realizations about Isaiah scholarship that they have about Pentateuch scholarship: it’s an incoherent mess. And their continued adherence to the consensus is what we call “irrational escalation.” If I were a biblical scholar, I would be deeply embarrassed to pretend there is some coherent rational basis for imagining the existence of deutero-Isaiah.

@@danellsworth9922 The consensus about about the Pentateuch includes that there are multiple sources, it wasn't written by a literal historical Moses, it wasn't finished until after the Exile, and that there is pre and post Priestly content. I'm not sure that it is accurate to call that an incoherent mess unless a person has different expectations on the topic. Again, it seems strange that you'd refer to people like Dr. Barton and multiple others as credible scholars, who support the existence of deutero-Isaiah, while simultaneously suggesting that it is deeply embarrassing to pretend that it exists.

@@anthonymiller3869 That’s not what I said. I said I would be embarrassed to assert that there is some coherent rational basis for the assumption. I have yet to read an Isaiah scholar who 1) understands the various arguments over evidence; and 2) sees the deutero-Isaiah hypothesis as supported by some coherent body of work. The scholars who adhere firmly to this hypothesis are few; many scholars accept it without knowing the particulars, because they have no investment in questioning it. Years ago, a few scholars came forward and frankly acknowledged that the DH is an academic joke. That hasn’t happened yet with D-Isa, but it will eventually. And I don’t expect that any of the old men who have built their careers on the D-Isa hypothesis will change their minds. Thomas Kuhn addresses that very well in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

@@danellsworth9922 I'm skeptical that those scholars who conclude that Wellhausen's classical documentary hypothesis, with 4 full independent sources, didn't make sense reverted to Mosaic authorship. That would be a joke. I'm also skeptical of the assertion that none of the Biblical scholars who support deutero-Isaiah are not aware of the various apologetic arguments against it. I think you are overstating your case, but perhaps Colby, Dan, Trevan, or David will watch your episode and respond to it. I look forward to watching your episode with Stephen.

​@@anthonymiller3869 I think this episode and Dan's view may not be a debunking of Deutero-Isaiah but examining the scholarly reasons for it and I let Dan shares his thoughts on multiple authorship and I really appreciated and resonated with his final thoughts.

Good point!

@@gordianknot9595 It's not even really possible to debunk the various points of evidence to everyone's satisfaction. Isaiah scholars almost never change their minds once they have committed to a position, even when presented with contrary evidence. They just double down. That's why I mentioned irrational escalation as a powerful bias.

Blenkinsopp must not have been familiar with that resource. 😉

Its a really good and enlightening on biblical scholarship and the deutero isaiah problem!

That was a surprise to me when the bible scholar was wrong about that

This is definitely a point where we can say a scholar was objectively wrong. Most of the "evidences" for deutero-Isaiah are just subjective judgment calls based in motivated reasoning and groupthink.

I'll see if I can get him on when I do the book of abraham!

I used to be a big fan of peer review too. Now I see it as a way for the intellectual aristocracy to gatekeep and to maintain power.

@@loudogg73 When I was at University, we ALWAYS had to submit for peer review, before we presented to our professors, and even considered publishing to the public, to make sure that it was legit, and academically sound. The whole point was so that you didn't come across like a two bit apologist making people do mental gymnastics to prove your point. If this was ever run through the same academic scrutiny of any paper i had to write, they would have run Ellsworth out of town as the failed circus clown that he is. They would have called BUllshit immediatley. The last thing any apologist wants to do is have their stuff reviewed by other academics.

You again. Doesn't appear as though you're liking the reality of Paul Gregersen debunking the arrogant Egyptologist assessments against Joseph Smith.

@@richardholmes5676 THat's because he didn't successfully debunk the egyptologists. Kind of like Rudy Guilianni saying he proved the election was stolen. HE DIDN"T. I read Gregersons ramblings, and I can happily say, it is nothing more than an apologists mountain of mental gymnastics. It failed in what he was trying to do, if you chose to use that for your arguments, then you are just as clueless, and have been duped. Really, if you are going to put any stock in that, then you are getting laughed at just as much as Gregerson. In short, THAT GUY IS AN IDIOT AND DID NOT PROVE THE EGYPTOLOGISTS WRONG.

@@richardholmes5676 Dude, I went through Gregerson's shell game of whackadoodle mental gymnastics. It was awufl, confusing, and extremely misleading. He had NO Academic basis or even a shred of actual logic, fact, and historical findings to build his argument. In fact all he did was pull a bunch of weird garbage out of thin air. You are all over the internet saying that he debunked the egyptologists, because, well, apparently he made a video saying that they were wrong, and laid out a bunch of garbage saying he proved it. BUT HE DID NOT. His presentation was in so many ways identical to Rudy Guilianni and Sydney Powell saying "WE have all this evidence that the election was stolen, with the ghost of Hugo Chavez, and North Korea, and ........." with a huge cloud of buzz words, but when it came down to it, they had NOTHING and they knew it, but they were proud of themselves for having duped a few people. Gregersen can happily say that he got at least one follower, cause you were dumb enough to believe his presentation, because it was something you never could have come up with yourself. Just because he said he proved the academics wrong, does not mean he actually did. Just because he says the moon is made of bleu cheese, does not mean that it is. I looked him up, and Gregersen is not an egyptologist, nor is he even schooled in any of the subjects. He has NO PROFESSIONAL STANDING OUTSIDE OF MORMON SPIN CIRCLES. He has no more credibility on the matter than the guy who works in the factory making golf clubs. NO ONE of a scholarly background will give him a rats scrotum of credibility or respect, because he has not earned it, and he just shows up insulting everyone who DOES have credibility, by saying "I got the secret decoder ring that proves you all wrong"... When in fact, he just like Joseph Smith did, make a bunch of bullsmegg up. YOu however, are clearly dumb enough to believe him, and think he is a saviour on the matter. I will point this out, the church leadership will NEVER back this guy, they will NEVER allow his work to be published under their name, or BYU or FAIRMORMON, or whatever, because if he were to put this kind of crap out there, the church leadership knows that his work would fail to stand up to any academic scrutiny. It's like this, even Gregersen knows that if he had to put this in front of real scholars, church or not, he would get laughed at. He is just thrilled he got such a supporter out of you, but that isn't going to take him, or his BS very far. Truth will continue to be spread, the church will continue to fail because people learn of the truth, and gullible nimrods like yourself, will be the proud stooges till the very end.