There are also chapters in Isaiah 2-14 that are Deutero-Isaiah. I go over this in my recent paper in Dialogue.

I’m on board with Blake olster’s explanation. Those parts of Isaiah probably were written after the original Isaiah but was a recounting of words either written previously or orally passed on. The writer added those historical aspects because his intention was not historicity it was effect on the audience. I may be wrong but I don’t believe that the evidence that the experts use to show the three different authors is not part of the BoM Isaiah verses which would make sense if the Nephite’s had the writings but was an earlier version.

There is a new Y religion podcast about the subject coming out of BYU on this topic. They don’t give super in depth explanation but go over theories and talk about some issues around the subject that I thought were really helpful

I notice that some of the strong literary criticisms like this one and the Tower of Babel are just as threatening to the authenticity of the Christian narrative as they are to the BOM. If you give full credence to bible-scholars' consensus on criticisms like these, including Documentary Hypothesis, the Bible and BOM become robbed of any inspired or prophetic origin and instead become relics of history only. I know this doesn't refute this issue, it's only a point that these types of criticism are not exclusive to LDS faith. This explains why many faithful mainstream-Christianity responses to this claim and DH attempt to refute the extent of the criticism.

Great episode!

I love your channel but sometimes feel I need to go get checked out for whiplash 😂. But seriously I do like how well you steel man both sides of the debate .

The critics sure seem to make a much better case than the apologists offer.

I wouldn’t be bothered if Joseph’s expectations of Isaiah played a role in here.

Did Lehi have access to the deutero-Isaiah teachings?

Wjat does the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal about Isiah?

I think Isaiah wrote it himself and the scholars are wrong on this one on both sides.

When the Book of Mormon first came out, there were so many things that were seen as 'impossible.' As time goes by, the list keeps getting smaller. Because even the best 'mainstream' scholars are mulling around in many things that are still suppositions. Time and eternity are on Joseph Smith's side. The intensive study and translation of the book of Isaiah by Avraham Gileadi clearly shows literary patterns in Isaiah that could not have been written by other authors and it indicates that it was a work synthesized as a whole and not a patchwork. I am and will be a believer that Joseph Smith was a real and truly great prophet, seer and revelator.

I know this is an off the wall tangent but you managed to trigger one of my pet peeves. Occam's Razor is a hermeneutic rubric, not evidentiary support. That is to say it cannot be used to determine which of two or more theories is correct, only establish the most efficient order in which to test them. And then only has long as they all equally explain the evidence. It is an efficiency short cut, not proof. A complex theory that better explains the evidence is still superior to a parsimonious theory that does not. Parsimony is a relative function, not an absolute one. So it is incorrect to say that Occam's supports the common consensus over minority opinions, since that is not a matter of complexity or parsimony. On the other hand, invoking Occam's in this situation would be about choosing the order in which to attempt to falsify various explanations. The simplest, single author first, and then double author, triple author etc. The historical observation is that simple theories always end up getting replaced by more complex theories over time. Because the world is weird. It is not nature that craves simplicity, but the human mind.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it sounds like the argument in favor of deutero Isaiah is "prophecy isn't real, so clearly there were multiple authors". If that's the argument, I just don't feel like it holds any water. If you don't believe in prophecy, I certainly understand why you would come to that conclusion, but I do believe in prophecy, so...

Boy, you sure have a lot of faith in the Scholarly Consensus™️

Deutero Isaiah is a baseless scholarly scam. They just don’t want to believe in prophecy so they pretend later writers wrote the prophecies after 😂😂

Blake Ostler gave the best explanation I’ve heard on this issue.

18:30 "If God is going to reveal the future name of an important person, it would seem that Jesus' name would have priority over Cyrus' name." I find this to be a particularly weak argument to make, to be perfectly honest. In context, you're talking about a group of people who are looking forward to a messiah. By naming that messiah, you're ensuring that it's an extremely popular name(because what believing woman wouldn't want to name their child after the messiah and, perhaps, help along the Hand of God in choosing their child as the coming messiah). By that regard, you're weakening the case for the coming messiah(and providing many false prophets along the way) by injecting the name into the minds of the people. "Of course he's named Jesus, everyone is!" Conversely, Cyrus would not have been a name that could have been picked by the Jews. That is to say, the control over who is and is not named Cyrus is not something that can be picked by people who believe in the prophecy. It must, therefor, be God who did it, not mere happenstance or the Jews forcing the situation to conform. It's no wonder to me that God didn't reveal the name of Christ in the Book of Mormon to the Nephites until after they had already left Jerusalem. None of the Nephites or Lamanites were expecting to give birth to the savior, so it was a moot point. It only matters in retrospect and wouldn't have been something that the people could have controlled. That's not to say that Deutero Isaiah is therefor debunked, merely that this particular argument is nonsense to me.

I don't bother with all this diving into deep scholar stuff. The Holy Ghost speaks and I listen.

Deutero-Isaiah is not a real thing/person. It’s a scholarly contruct that has stood the test of time because it’s extremely useful. You referenced my Interpreter article, but not my recent series. kzfaq.info/sun/PLr4A1Qovh6rDU5fNjvylUDYVD4CTP6J2v