Question. Why is Isaiah so difficult to understand?

Answer. There are three chief reasons for this: (1) Isaiah wrote in an ancient form of poetry, called poetic parallelisms (there are about 1,100 parallelisms in Isaiah); (2) he used hundreds of symbols, which are scattered throughout his writings; and (3) Isaiah’s book contains many different “speakers,” or individuals who express words. These speakers include the Lord, Isaiah, God’s covenant people, King Hezekiah, the wicked, and many others. Some of the speakers are nonhuman objects, such as clay, trees, and cities. I deal with all three of these items in this volume.

Question. Is it really possible to comprehend Isaiah’s words?

Answer. Yes! Each of us can understand Isaiah’s poetry and symbols, although it requires serious study, prayer, devotion of time, and the Holy Ghost, who reveals truths to us.

Question. What is presentism and why does it hinder us from understanding Isaiah?

Answer. Presentism is “the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts” (Apple Dictionary Version 2.2.1 [143.1]). Our culture is remarkably different from Isaiah’s. Many of the components that make up our culture—fashion, dress, social habits, music, arts, languages, dialects, mass media, cuisine, sports, commercialism, governments, politics, literature, architecture, and technology—can easily misdirect us or even disconnect us from comprehending Isaiah’s writings and the words of other Old Testament prophets.

Question. Based on the concept of presentism, what are some biblical examples of difficult-to-comprehend passages in Isaiah?

Answer. One example is located in Isaiah 20: “At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot” (v. 2). Because of presentism, this passage may seem very strange to us. But other Old Testament prophets also performed actions that may seem to be peculiar. For example, Jeremiah made a yoke and placed it around his neck (see Jeremiah 27:2; 28:10); Ezekiel shaved the hair of his head and his beard, divided it into three parts, and then struck one-third, burned one-third, and scattered one-third (see Ezekiel 5); and the prophet Ahijah ripped a new outer garment into twelve pieces and gave ten pieces to Jeroboam (see 1 Kings 11:29–31). If we depart from presentism and carefully study each of these passages in terms of their historical and symbolic context, we can find greater meaning and understanding within them.

Question. Why should I bother to read and understand Isaiah, especially when I have so many other important things to do?

Answer. Jesus Christ commanded us to search Isaiah’s words. That should be reason enough. But there are other motives for us to study Isaiah—we will find joy, know concerning the Lord’s promises concerning Israel in the last days, and learn great things about our Savior and his divine mission. On the blessings of studying Isaiah, see chapter 1 in this volume.

Question. Isaiah wrote his words about 2,700 years ago. How can his writings possibly be relevant to me and my generation?

Answer. Isaiah’s words are timeless. His teachings and testimony about Jehovah, his prophecies of the Messiah’s First and Second Coming, the Millennium, and much more—all sixty-six chapters of Isaiah—have great value to Isaiah’s own generation and to all later generations, including our own. We can learn so much regarding various historical items that are mentioned or identified in Isaiah’s book, which deal with various nations—Egypt, Moab, Assyria, Babylon, Edom, Israel, and others. And Isaiah’s poetry (including his parallelistic and chiastic structures) is unequaled in scripture, as are the hundreds of figures of speech and literary techniques that permeate his writings. Every generation can find meaning in Isaiah’s words. We can learn from his prophecies, and we can liken his words to us. Most importantly, Isaiah spoke truth and testified of Christ.

Question. What about the Isaiah multiple-authorship theories?

Answer. Many diverse opinions and hypotheses exist regarding the authorship of the book of Isaiah,[1] leading prominent biblical scholars throughout the world to disagree regarding its authorship. Because of the diverse opinions and many publications that deal with the multiple-authorship theories, I cannot fully review them in this brief Question and Answer section of the book. For those who wish to conduct in-depth studies, I propose that they review the literature.

The current major convictions and theories regarding the authorship of Isaiah include the following: (1) One author—Isaiah, the son of Amoz. (2) Two authors; this theory holds that the book of Isaiah was authored by two individuals. Scholars refer to them as “First Isaiah,” who allegedly wrote chapters 1–39, and “Second Isaiah” (also called “Deutero-Isaiah”), who purportedly composed Isaiah 40–66. (3) Three authors; according to this theory, Isaiah was written by three different authors. These are referred to as “First Isaiah” (chapters 1–39), “Second Isaiah” (chapters 40–55), and “Third Isaiah” (also called “Trito-Isaiah,” chapters 56–66). (4) Many authors (perhaps dozens). Yehuda T. Radday states, “And so, chaps. 40–66 have now become split into numerous, some say seventy, rather disconnected pieces.”[2] John McKenzie writes, “Most of the book of Isaiah does not come from the Prophet Isaiah . . . The book is a compendium of many types of prophecy from diverse periods.”[3] (5) Constant scribal intervention—that is, continuous editing from many scribes. Gary E. Schnittjer explains that many scholars “approach the book as though it was under constant scribal intervention from Isaiah’s own day until well into the Persian Empire.”[4]

To date, there are no arguments or theories that have convinced the entire community of scholars. John N. Oswalt states, “it is very difficult to obtain agreement among scholars as to the date and authorship of any but a few chapters of the total book.”[5]

Biblical scholars have reacted to the various theories that have disassembled Isaiah’s text into so many pieces. As J. Alec Motyer explains, “Sadly . . . the prevailing spirit of scholarship was disposed to fragmentation rather than to holism, and in the case of Isaiah this meant that a literature bursting with internal evidence of its unity was rather made to burst into disparate pieces.”[6] Charles C. Torrey writes, “The paring process, begun with a penknife, is continued with a hatchet, until the book [of Isaiah] has been chopped into hopeless chunks.”[7] Edward J. Young adds that the book of Isaiah had been cut into “confetti,”[8] while Oswalt writes concerning critics’ “atomization” of Isaiah 40–66.[9]

Question. Some biblical scholars claim that virtually all scholars now agree that Isaiah was written by various authors and that the matter is closed. Is that claim correct?

Answer. There are in fact dozens of Biblical scholars who have argued for the unity of the book of Isaiah. These include Martin Anstey, Letitia D. Jeffreys, John Kennedy, J. J. Lias, Rachel Margalioth, J. Alec Motyer, John N. Oswalt, A. J. Rosenberg, Edward J. Young, and others (see also the list of Latter-day Saint scholars below). Additionally, Margalioth states that “several scholars have devoted complete works of research to prove the unity of Isaiah”;[10] these include—as per Margalioth’s list—Orelli, Hengstenberg, Haevernick, Stier, Loehr, Himpel, Zlotnick, Kleinert, Douglas, Kennedy, Luzzatto, Yabetz, and Kaminka.[11] Margalioth adds that “the hero in this war against the critics is doubtless Dr. Aaron Kaminka, who championed the unity of the book in many articles and researches.”[12] Overall, we really do not know precisely how many scholars support the unity of Isaiah versus the Isaiah multiple-authorship theories.

Several Latter-day Saint scholars have also argued for the unity of Isaiah and have covered a broad range of evidence. Their arguments are well-articulated, reasoned, and compelling. These scholars include the following, listed in alphabetical order (full citations for each work can be found in the bibliography of this book):

• Chadwick, Jeffrey R. “The Great Jerusalem Temple Prophecy: Latter-day Context and Likening unto Us.”
• Chadwick, Jeffrey R. “The Insights of Third Isaiah: Observations of a Traditionalist.”
• Davies, LeGrande. “Isaiah: Texts in the Book of Mormon.”
• Gee, John. “Applying Linguistic Dating to First Isaiah.”
• Jackson, Kent P. “Authorship of the Book of Isaiah.”
• Ludlow, Victor L. “Isaiah: Authorship.”
• Ludlow, Victor L. Isaiah: Prophet, Seer, and Poet. Questions and Responses 201
• Roberts, Brigham H. “Higher Criticism and the Book of Mormon.”
• Sperry, Sidney B. “The ‘Isaiah Problem’ in the Book of Mormon.”
• Talmage, James E. Conference Report, April 1929.
• Welch, John W. “Authorship of the Book of Isaiah in Light of the Book of Mormon.”

For a divergent perspective on the authorship of Isaiah, see Joshua M. Sears, “Deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Latter-day Saint Approaches.”

Question. Why do scholars claim that there were multiple Isaiahs?

Answer. There are various reasons, including the following:

1. Denial of the principle of prophecy (predictive prophecy). There are scholars who maintain that Isaiah (and other Old Testament prophets) could not predict the future and that the principle of prophecy does not and cannot exist. The denial of the principle of prophecy has been pointed out by numerous scholars from various religious backgrounds and within many scholarly contexts. Such scholars may reject the idea that God or any supernatural entity would be able to reveal to prophets matters that pertain to the future. John Kennedy writes, “The objection [to the unity of Isaiah] which stands first in time is what we may briefly call the Anti-Supernatural.”[13] Similarly, J. J. Lias argues for the unity of Isaiah and then states, “the other argument offered, if argument it can be called, is one that we must reject; it is the assumption that miracles and prophesy are both impossible.”[14] The denial of the principle of prophecy has been pointed out by numerous scholars from various religious backgrounds and within many scholarly contexts.
2. Isaiah could not have prophesied concerning Jesus Christ. This second argument is associated with the first. Many scholars argue that prophets spoke only to their contemporary communities and that they could not have prophesied of later events, including prophecies of the life of Jesus Christ.
3. Isaiah could not have known the name Cyrus. The fact that Isaiah specifically prophesied of Cyrus and even named him (see Isaiah 44:28; 45:1) is a huge stumbling block for many scholars, who question how any mortal could know the name of an individual who would not be born for more than a century.
4. First Isaiah mentions Isaiah by name, but Second and Third Isaiah do not. This theory points out that Isaiah’s name is mentioned sixteen times in Isaiah 1–39, but it is not mentioned at all in Isaiah 40–66; thus, many scholars assume that Isaiah 40–66 must have been authored by someone other than Isaiah.
5. Stylistic differences. This theory states that First Isaiah uses words and expressions that are different from the words Second (or Third) Isaiah uses—in other words, a different style of language.
6. Theological differences. Another reason scholars argue for multiple authors of Isaiah is that, in their view, First Isaiah presents prophecies of judgment, whereas Second and Third Isaiah present prophecies of redemption and hope, implying a structural conflict in the book.
7. Late Biblical Hebrew forms. This argument states that there are syntactic and lexical features, grammatical forms, verbs, and phrases that exist in Isaiah 40–66, which establish that all or parts of Isaiah 40–66 was written after the Exile, and thus that large section of Isaiah could not have been written by Isaiah, the son of Amoz, in the eigth century BC. I will deal with some of these claims in the next question.

Over many decades, scholars who support the unity of Isaiah have responded to each of these claims by scholars who maintain a multiple-authorship theory for Isaiah. These responses are published and available for anyone to scrutinize.[15]

Question. Does Isaiah 40–66 present Biblical Hebrew words or forms that would suggest that it was written somewhat later than the time of Isaiah?

Answer. Shalom Paul[16] has written an article that claims that Isaiah 40–66 features Biblical Hebrew words and forms that date to a period much later than the prophet Isaiah. Paul claims this provides evidence that all or part of Isaiah 40–66 was written more than a century after Isaiah, the son of Amoz. I submit a different point of view regarding Paul’s claims. In my opinion, Paul at times did not examine the evidence of Isaiah 1–35 as well as other Biblical Hebrew texts that predate the timeframe of Isaiah.[17]

There is another factor at play here. Professionally, since 1994 I have conducted research on the Dead Sea Scrolls, including the Isaiah scrolls. During that period (about thirty years), I have learned a great amount regarding the sacred work of scribes as they made new copies of biblical texts onto leather scrolls. Many of the scribes had their own styles and conventions as they made new copies. For example, sometimes the scribes updated the Biblical Hebrew vocabulary, verbal forms, and spelling as they copied the scriptural texts onto the new leather.[18] What do I mean by updating the vocabulary, verbal forms, and spelling? To illustrate what this means, I will use English examples of updating, which are found in many of the modern translations of the Bible: says instead of saith; you instead of ye; you have instead of thou hast; before instead of afore; artisan instead of artificer; baked foods instead of bakemeats; lament instead of bemoan; rude person instead of churl; square instead of foursquare; and basin or bowl for washing instead of laver. While the scribal changes did not necessarily change the meaning of Isaiah’s words, they must be considered when one conducts studies regarding Biblical Hebrew words and forms.

Question. What are the arguments that support the unity of Isaiah?

Answer. The arguments for the unity of Isaiah deal with the following topics:

1. Superscriptions, or introductory notes. According to Dillard and Longman, “The most obvious reason for regarding Isaiah as the author of the book that bears his name is the superscription to the book (1:1). All fifteen books of the ‘latter prophets’ in the Hebrew Bible begin with a similar heading; in each case the heading is most naturally understood as providing the name of the prophet whose utterances are found in the book.”[19]
2. Manuscript or material evidence. There is no manuscript evidence in the Dead Sea Isaiah Scrolls (1QIsa^a , 1QIsa^b , etc.), the Masoretic Text manuscripts (Aleppo Codex, Leningrad Codex, and other medieval Masoretic manuscripts, including those collated by Ginsburg and Kennicott), or the Greek Septuagint that supports the idea of multiple Isaiah authors. Some scholars have argued that the three-line space at the end of chapter 33 of the Great Isaiah Scroll is a division that indicates multiple authors. But the division is in the wrong place to fit the scholars’ authorship theories! For more on this division, see Emanuel Tov, as well as the recent study of Mladen Popovic ́ et al.[20]
3. New Testament attributions and quotation formulas (citation markers). The prophet Isaiah (Esaias in some translations) is explicitly named[21] twenty-one times in the New Testament by six different individuals— Jesus Christ, John the Baptist, Matthew, Luke, John, and Paul. Of these twenty-one references, Isaiah is identified ten times as the author of verses from Isaiah 1–39 (so-called First Isaiah) and eleven times as the author of verses from Isaiah 40–66 (so-called Second/Third Isaiah).[22]
4. Quotation formulas in other texts. The New Testament is not the only ancient document that contains quotations from Isaiah. Other ancient documents—The Damascus Document, 4QMiscellaneous Rules (4Q265), 4QConsolations (4Q176), Ben Sira, various Jewish writings, the Book of Mormon, and Josephus—contain accounts of individuals who quote Isaiah and who use similar quotation formulas that introduce Isaiah’s words with his name.
5. Isaianic citations and paraphrases by other preexilic prophets. According to Dillard and Longman, “Zephaniah, Nahum, and Jeremiah contain passages quite similar to utterances in Isaiah 40–66. If this dependence could be established beyond question, it would mean that Isaiah 40–66 itself was also preexilic.”[23] For examples that support this concept, see Schnittjer’s Old Testament Use of Old Testament, wherein he deals with both Jeremiah and Nahum.[24]

6. Isaiah’s literary style—figures of speech, parallelisms, and chiasms. As mentioned previously, many scholars have posited that the literary styles of First Isaiah, Second Isaiah, and Third Isaiah are at variance.

   In my study of scholars’ arguments that First, Second, and Third Isaiah present different literary styles, it seems to me that these scholars have largely ignored four prominent and consistent aspects of Isaiah’s literary style:

   (a) Isaiah’s figures of speech and literary forms (see chapter 11), including apostrophe, duplication, epithet, exclamation, exultation, imprecation, inclusio, metaphor, metonymy, multiple negatives, personification, quotations within verses, rhetorical questions, rhyming sounds, simile, synecdoche, triads, and others, are scattered throughout Isaiah’s sixty-six chapters. Such consistency and frequency of these literary devices in the book of Isaiah is in favor of the unity of Isaiah.

   (b) Isaiah’s more than 1,000 parallelistic structures (see chapter 6), which are configured in myriad ways—synonymous, antithetical, gender matched, resultative-relationship, identical words, rhetorical questions, grammatical, syntactical, semantical, phonological, lexical, and many others—are also scattered throughout Isaiah’s sixty-six chapters; they are not positioned solely in First Isaiah or unique to Second or Third Isaiah.

   (c) Isaiah’s chiasms (see chapter 6 and the appendix). About 100 chiastic structures exist in the book of Isaiah. They depict a wide variety of lengths and configurations, such as chiasms that give prominence to proper names, word pairs, keywords, nouns, and verbs; furthermore, there are a variety of grammatically focused chiasms that feature syntactic, structural, or thematic configurations. Isaiah’s chiastic structures are not conspicuous in First, Second, or Third Isaiah; rather, they are distributed throughout.

   And (d) Isaiah’s symbols (see chapter 8), including implication, synecdoche, metonymy, simile, metaphor, and personification are scattered throughout his book.

   The fact that all four literary devices and structures appear throughout the entire book of Isaiah demonstrates consistent writing patterns and a unified and distinctive literary style. Again, these four literary devices provide support that Isaiah is a unified whole. Scholars have not yet systematically and exhaustively examined these four topics in view of the multiple-authorship theories of the book of Isaiah.

Question. What about John Gee’s recent study, wherein he discussed various Biblical Hebrew words and forms with regard to the book of Isaiah?

Answer. In November 2022, Professor John Gee presented a significant paper at the Society of Biblical Literature Conference in Denver, Colorado, that was held for biblical scholars from various faiths and denominations. In his paper, titled “Applying Linguistic Dating to First Isaiah,” Gee set forth a new methodology that provided evidence (through the careful examination of scores of Hebrew words and verbal forms) in Isaiah’s text that all sixty-six chapters constituted a unified whole.[25] In my view, Gee’s unique approach and conclusions provide additional evidence regarding the unity of Isaiah.

Question. What about reading Isaiah with the help of the Holy Ghost?

Answer. In previous questions, we have asked questions that may be answered through analysis, rationalization, and academic study. But we must never neglect the influence and power of the Holy Ghost as we diligently search scripture. To his disciples, Jesus said, “The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things” (John 14:26). After all, Isaiah spoke by the Holy Ghost (Acts 28:25); he prophesied (so stated Jesus; see Matthew 15:7); he beheld the Lord in vision (Isaiah 6:1, 5);[26] and he was called a “prophet” (Isaiah 37:2; 38:1).[27] Nephi’s words have relevance in this discussion: the words of Isaiah “are plain unto all those that are filled with the spirit of prophecy” (2 Nephi 25:4). President Dallin H. Oaks’s article, “Scripture Reading and Revelation,” also applies here:

Many of the other things mentioned in the scriptures can be comprehended only by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. In the words of the Apostle Paul, “The things of God knoweth no man, except he has the Spirit of God” (JST, 1 Cor. 2:11). . . .

Latter-day Saints know that true doctrine comes by revelation from God, not by scholarship or worldly wisdom (see Moses 5:58). Similarly, the Apostle Paul wrote that we are not “sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God” (2 Cor. 3:5). Rather than trusting in our own interpretations of written texts, we rely on God and the glorious “ministration of the spirit” (2 Cor. 3:8). . . .

As Paul told Timothy, “all scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16; also see 2 Pet. 1:21). This means that in order to understand scripture, our minds need to be enlightened by the Spirit of the Lord. As we learn from the fiftieth section of the Doctrine and Covenants, “he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth” (D&C 50:21). When this happens, the reader is edified by personal revelation.[28]

So, yes, it is crucial that we invite the Holy Ghost to assist us as we determine to comprehend Isaiah’s words.

Question. Why is Isaiah quoted so often in the New Testament?

Answer. Isaiah is the most-cited prophet in the New Testament. New Testament writers, including Matthew, Luke, John, Peter, and Paul, quoted or paraphrased Isaiah more than any other prophet. One of their chief aims was to show that many of Isaiah’s prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, witnessing that Jesus was indeed the promised Messiah. On occasion, Jesus Christ himself cited a prophecy from Isaiah and then declared its fulfillment (see Matthew 4:14–15; 13:13– 15; 15:7–8).

Question. Why is Isaiah quoted so often in the Book of Mormon?

Answer. There are multiple reasons, but perhaps two of the most significant reasons are as follows: (1) Isaiah was an important witness of the Lord—he “verily saw [the] Redeemer,” wrote Nephi (2 Nephi 11: 2; see also Isaiah 6:1).[29] (2) Isaiah wrote much about pride and its consequences, a subject of great concern for many Book of Mormon prophets.[30]

Question. Is it not odd or unconventional that the Book of Mormon prophets cited Isaiah?

Answer. Not at all; in fact, it is just the opposite! As they wrote their sacred texts, God’s ancient prophets regularly cited, paraphrased, or alluded to the writings of other prophets. This important scriptural practice is attested within the Old Testament itself, as well as in the New Testament, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants.

Schnittjer’s book Old Testament Use of Old Testament carefully examines the way that the Old Testament prophets cited other Old Testament prophets. Schnittjer demonstrates how most books of the Bible—from Genesis to Malachi—referred to earlier scriptural texts in the form of citations, paraphrases, or allusions. For example, in the Old Testament, Jeremiah cited or alluded to several scriptural texts in his book, including Exodus, Deuteronomy, 2 Kings, Isaiah, Hosea, Proverbs, Micah, and Obadiah. Additionally, Micah cited or alluded to Genesis, Isaiah, and 1 Kings; Daniel cited or alluded to Genesis, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and Jeremiah; Ezra cited or alluded to Exodus, Leviticus, Joshua, 2 Chronicles, Haggai, and Jeremiah; and the list continues throughout the books of the Old Testament.[31] Some books rely heavily on earlier scriptural writings; it is well-known that the Chronicler regularly used the books of 1 and 2 Samuel in 1 Chronicles and 1 and 2 Kings in 2 Chronicles.[32]

Similar to the prophets and writers of the Old Testament, who cited earlier texts, the New Testament authors also used earlier texts, such as those belonging to the Old Testament. The volume Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, carefully catalogs and examines hundreds of Old Testament passages that are cited, paraphrased, or alluded to in the New Testament. For example, with regard to the book of Matthew, Craig L. Blomberg writes that “the Hebrew Scriptures—or Christian Old Testament—permeate Matthew’s Gospel. Approximately fifty-five references prove close enough to wording for commentators typically to label them ‘quotations.’ . . . In addition to explicit quotations, numerous allusions and echoes of Scripture may be discerned in every part of this Gospel. . . . Virtually every major theological emphasis of Matthew is reinforced with Old Testament support.”[33]

Furthermore, John cited or alluded to Exodus, Isaiah, Psalms, Deuteronomy, Zechariah, and others; Paul cited or alluded to Genesis, Isaiah, Habakkuk, Malachi, and others; and the list continues. Jude 1: 14 cites a passage from the book of Enoch, which is not presently extant: “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints.” Most of the New Testament writers cited or alluded to Old Testament texts.[34] It is clear, based on the evidence, that prophets cited other prophets in the Old and New Testaments. Therefore, it is not at all odd or unconventional that the Book of Mormon prophets cited earlier prophets, including Isaiah, Zenos, and others.

Question. It seems like Joseph Smith and his scribes simply copied the Isaiah quotations from the KJV of the Bible. Is that correct?

Answer. Our knowledge about this matter is incomplete. Perhaps, over the coming decades, we will learn more about this subject; for now, however, there exist several fascinating and complex pieces of information indicating that Joseph Smith and his scribes did not simply copy the Isaiah portions of the Book of Mormon from the King James Version. Consider the following complexities:

1. The base text of the Isaiah quotations in the Book of Mormon seems to be the King James Version, but there are also several textual variants in the Isaiah quotations. Where did these come from if Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery simply copied from the King James Version?

   In fact, there exist several textual variants in the Isaiah texts in the Book of Mormon. Sperry explains, “The text of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon is not word for word the same as that of the King James version. Of 433 verses of Isaiah in the Nephite record, Joseph Smith modified about 233. Some of the changes made were slight, others were radical.”[35] Some of these variants agree with ancient witnesses. Skousen and Carmack write, “Are there any significant differences in the biblical quotations in the Book of Mormon? Yes, and some are not only quite surprising but are also supported by other ancient textual sources.”[36] If Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery had simply copied the text from the Bible, such textual variants would not exist.

2. Some writers have claimed, without solid evidence, that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery must have used a copy of the King James Version when they came to the Isaiah sections of the Book of Mormon. Contrary to these writers’ claims, eyewitnesses to the translation of the Book of Mormon have attested that neither Joseph nor his scribes employed any book or manuscript during the translation process, let alone a copy of the Bible. In connection with this, Skousen and Carmack write: “Did Joseph Smith hand over a marked-up Bible to Oliver Cowdery when he came to the biblical quotations in the Book of Mormon? Oliver Cowdery’s misspellings tell us that the answer is no. Joseph Smith dictated the biblical quotations, just like all the rest of [the] Book of Mormon.”[37]
3. Oliver Cowdery’s spellings in the Isaiah portions (in the original manuscript for the Book of Mormon) were often different from the King James Version. If he simply copied from a Bible, why would there be so many spelling differences?
4. Similarly, sometimes Oliver Cowdery wrote down the wrong word as Joseph Smith dictated the passages from Isaiah. Again, if Oliver was simply copying from a Bible, such errors would have been less likely to occur.
5. Some of Oliver Cowdery’s errors are phonological errors (errors of hearing), which indicates that he was listening to Joseph Smith and copying Joseph’s words as he heard them, rather than simply copying from a copy of the Bible.
6. The original Book of Mormon paragraphing system for the Isaiah quotations is different from the chapter and versification system of Isaiah in the King James Bible. It is unlikely that this system would be different if Oliver Cowdery was copying the text directly from the Bible.[38]

Question. “How much of the textual differences in the biblical quotations rely on the use of italics in the King James Bible?”

Answer. “Not a lot. Only about 23 percent of the differences involve italics. And of the italicized words themselves, only about 38 percent of them show differences. Even so, there are a few clear cases where differences are related to italics (or to the Hebrew original), in particular, six expressions that involve the linking be verb. But overall, there is little evidence for the role of italics, as can be seen when the Sermon on the Mount is quoted in 3 Nephi 12–14, where there are numerous differences without any influence from italics.”[39]

Question. Can you provide examples of the textual variants in the Isaiah quotations in the Book of Mormon versus the Isaiah in the Bible?

Answer. In chapter 13 of this book, under the heading “Isaiah in the Book of Mormon,” I have presented several examples of textual variants in the Book of Mormon. For additional variants, see the publications of Tvedtnes and Skousen.[40]

Question. Is it true that some of the textual variants of the Isaiah quotations in the Book of Mormon are aligned with readings from ancient sources or versions? If so, can you provide some examples?

Answer. Yes, that is true. But to date, no one has conducted a thorough study of such variants, especially with regard to all twenty-one copies of Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls.[41] Tvedtnes has provided several examples of Book of Mormon Isaiah readings that are different from our Bible but agree with ancient texts; these include the following:

1. Isaiah 3:9. Tvedtnes gives several examples where the Book of Mormon Isaiah uses the conjunction and, which is lacking in the KJV. But the BoM Isaiah has support from one or more ancient versions. For example, Isaiah 3:9 reads “they hide it not,” versus the BoM Isaiah, which reads “and they cannot hide it” (2 Nephi 13:9; this is the same reading that is in the Great Isaiah Scroll and the Septuagint, an ancient Greek translation of the Bible). Other examples of the conjunction and that is lacking in the KJV but present in the BoM and the Great Isaiah Scroll includes Isaiah 48:8/ /1 Nephi 20: 8; Isaiah 48:13/ /1 Nephi 20:13; and Isaiah 48:14/ /1 Nephi 20:14. Admittedly, the and readings are considered minor textual variants.
2. Isaiah 9:3. The KJV reads “and not increased the joy,” but the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 19:3) reads “and increased the joy” (lacking the not). This agrees with the Septuagint, the qere reading (an ancient or medieval marginal note) of the Masoretic Text, and several medieval Hebrew manuscripts, all of which also lack the not.
3. Isaiah 9:9. The KJV reads “inhabitant,” while the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 19:9) uses the plural “inhabitants.” The Great Isaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint both attest the plural “inhabitants.” There are other examples of the singular versus the plural in the KJV Isaiah/BoM Isaiah, where ancient texts support the BoM Isaiah.
4. Isaiah 48:11. The KJV reads “for how should my name be polluted?” In contrast, 1 Nephi 20:11 reads “for I will not suffer my name to be polluted.” Three Dead Sea Isaiah Scrolls support the reading of 1 Nephi 20:11, where the first-person singular I is attested as part of the verb.
5. Isaiah 51:15. The KJV reads “his name,” while 2 Nephi 8:15 reads “my name.” The Septuagint supports the Book of Mormon version.

Question. I have heard that occasionally the Book of Mormon Isaiah text completes a chiasm in places where the KJV Isaiah does not. If this is so, can you provide examples?

Answer. Here are three examples (for more on chiasmus in Isaiah, see also the appendix). Note that I have bracketed the words in the Book of Mormon Isaiah that are not included in the King James Version of Isaiah:

1. Isaiah 14:2/ /2 Nephi 24:2

A And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place;

B [yea, from far

B unto the ends of the earth;

A and they shall return to their lands of promise.]

2. Isaiah 48:16/ /1 Nephi 20:16

A I have not spoken in secret

B from the beginning;

B from the time that it was

A [declared have I spoken;]

3. Isaiah 49:1/ /1 Nephi 21:1

A [Hearken,

B O ye house of Israel,

C all ye that are broken off and are driven out

D because of the wickedness of the pastors of my people;

C yea, all ye that are broken off, that are scattered abroad,

B who are of my people, O house of Israel.]

A Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far.

Question. I have heard that occasionally the Book of Mormon Isaiah text completes a parallelism in places where the KJV Isaiah does not. If this is so, can you provide examples?

Answer. Here are four examples (for more on parallelisms in Isaiah, see chapter 6 in this volume). The first example is an antithetical parallelism and the next three are synonymous parallelisms. Note that I have bracketed the words in the Book of Mormon Isaiah that are not included in the King James Version of Isaiah:

• Isaiah 2:5/ /2 Nephi 12:5

  O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the LORD[;]
  [yea, come, for ye have all gone astray, every one to his wicked ways.]

• Isaiah 5:9/ /2 Nephi 15:9

  In mine ears said the LORD of Hosts, Of a truth many houses shall be desolate,
  [and] great and fair [cities] without inhabitant.

• Isaiah 48:2/ /1 Nephi 20:2

  [who is the Lord of Hosts,
  yea], the LORD of Hosts is his name.

• Isaiah 50:8/ /2 Nephi 7:8

  [And the Lord] is near,
  [and he] justifieth me.

Conclusion

Over approximately three decades of teaching Isaiah at Brigham Young University (using both the Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls books of Isaiah as my text), I have encountered a host of questions from students regarding Isaiah and his book. Many of my students’ questions have been put forward in this chapter.

Apart from their questions, it is clear that there are scores or even hundreds of questions that may be asked regarding Isaiah and his book. For example, how old was Isaiah when he began his ministry? What was the name of Isaiah’s wife? What was Isaiah’s age when he saw the Lord (see Isaiah 6)? Is there any information about Isaiah’s mother? Did Isaiah have siblings? Where in Jerusalem did Isaiah live? Why do we not have any information about his childhood? Did Isaiah write other texts that are not presently found in the Bible? Will other ancient scrolls (like the Dead Sea Scrolls) that include the book of Isaiah ever come forth?

We do not have answers to some of these more esoteric questions now. For the present time, we are certainly blessed to have the writings of Isaiah available to search. May each and all of us search his words diligently and rejoice as we do so.

Notes

[1] For a brief history of the various theories dealing with the authorship of Isaiah —both those who argue for the unity of Isaiah as well as those who make the case for multiple authors—see Young, Who Wrote Isaiah?, 15–26; Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 371–78; and Baloyi, “Unity of the Book Isaiah,” 106–7; see also the bibliographic references in these writings.

[2] Radday, Unity of Isaiah, 6.

[3] McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible, 397.

[4] Schnittjer, Old Testament Use, 217n6.

[5] Oswalt, Book of Isaiah, 24. On the lack of agreement among scholars, see also Young, Who Wrote Isaiah?, 25.

[6] Motyer, Prophecy of Isaiah, 25.

[7] Torrey, Second Isaiah, 13.

[8] Young, Who Wrote Isaiah?, 20.

[9] Oswalt, Book of Isaiah, 24.

[10] Margalioth, Invisible Isaiah, 30.

[11] Margalioth, 30nn47–48. Margalioth published her book in 1964; since then, there have been many other scholars who have argued for the single authorship of the book of Isaiah. A few of these scholars are identified in the notes below.

[12] Margalioth, 30. See also Kaminka, Mechkarim ba-Mikra v’Talmud, 1–88, which argues for the unity of Isaiah. Very few scholars cite Kaminka, presumably because his book is written in Hebrew.

[13] Kennedy, Popular Argument, 29; emphasis in original.

[14] Lias, “Unity of Isaiah,” 77.

[15] As a side note, I have personally studied about one hundred books and articles regarding the authorship of Isaiah; I have written approximately fifty pages on the topic that I may wish to publish sometime in the future.

[16] Paul, “Signs of Late Biblical Hebrew,” 293–300. As a side note, I have been personal friends with Shalom Paul for many years, as we served together as directors of the board on the Dead Sea Scrolls Foundation.

[17] For example, Paul evidently failed to examine the evidence of Isaiah 1–35 as well as other Biblical Hebrew texts when he examined the following Biblical Hebrew words and forms in Isaiah 40–66: (1) the use of the “to be” verb plus a participle; (2) the use of the verb “to go/walk” in a particular Biblical Hebrew verbal form (called the Piel stem); (3) the use of certain verbal forms with attached pronominal suffixes; (4) the use of a special verbal form called infinitive absolute. Sometimes Paul’s claims contradict the writings of well-known Biblical Hebrew grammarians. For instance, in this fourth example, Paul’s claims are not aligned with grammarians Joshua Blau (Blau, Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 88) and Bruce K. Waltke and Michael Patrick O’Connor (Waltke and O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 581).

[18] I deal with these and many other scribal conventions in Parry, Exploring the Isaiah Scrolls.

[19] Dillard and Longman, Introduction to the Old Testament, 272. See also Allis, Unity of Isaiah, 39.

[20] Tov, “Exegesis and Theology,” 96. See also the photographs of columns XXVII, XXXII, and XLVI presented in Parry and Qimron, Great Isaiah Scroll, 64–65, 92–93. See also the following recent study: Mladen Popović, Maruf A. Dhali, and Lambert Schomaker, “Artificial intelligence based writer identification generates new evidence for the unknown scribes of the Dead Sea Scrolls exemplified by the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa),” PLoS ONE 16, no. 4 (2021), e0249769. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249769

[21] In addition to this explicit naming, Isaiah is also cited or alluded to dozens of times in the New Testament.

[22] See also Bullinger, Appendixes to the Companion Bible, 131–32; and Allis, Unity of Isaiah, 42.

[23] Dillard and Longman, Introduction to the Old Testament, 272.

[24] See Schnittjer, Old Testament Use, 259–60 (for Jeremiah) and 420 (for Nahum).

[25] Gee, “Applying Linguistic Dating.”

[26] On this, see Holland, “‘More Fully Persuaded,’” 1–18; and Holland, Christ and the New Covenant, 33–35.

[27] Note that Jesus Christ (Matthew 13:14), Matthew (Matthew 4:14), Luke (Luke 3: 4), John (John 1:23), John the Baptist (Matthew 3:3), Paul (Acts 28:25), Nephi (1 Nephi 19:24), and others also called Isaiah a “prophet.”

[28] Oaks, “Scripture Reading and Revelation,” 7–9. I recommend that readers thoughtfully study President Oaks’s entire article.

[29] For more on this topic, see Holland, “‘More Fully Persuaded,’” 1–18.

[30] For Nephi’s use of Isaiah’s message about pride and its consequences, see Seely, “Nephi’s Use of Isaiah 2–14,” 151–69.

[31] For a discussion of these and other instances of scriptural citations and allusions in the Old Testament, see the respective chapters in Schnittjer, Old Testament Use; see also the respective chapters in Lange and Weigold, Biblical Quotations and Allusions.

[32] Of all the books of the Old Testament, the Song of Songs is an exception because it does not cite or paraphrase other scriptural books; see Schnittjer, Old Testament Use, 591.

[33] Blomberg, “Matthew,” 1.

[34] For studies on the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament, see Beale and Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament; and Beale, Handbook on the New Testament.

[35] Sperry, Answers to Book of Mormon Questions, 92.

[36] Skousen, “Text of the Book of Mormon.”

[37] Skousen, “Text of the Book of Mormon.”

[38] Many of the ideas in this paragraph originate from Skousen, “Textual Variants,” 369–90. See also Skousen’s other writings on the topic at hand, including his discussion in Analysis of Textual Variants, mostly in parts 1, 2, and 5 of volume 3, King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon.

[39] This question and its response are taken directly from Skousen, “Text of the Book of Mormon.”

[40] Tvedtnes, “Isaiah Variants,” 165–78; and Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants, vol. 4, which examines the textual variants of the KJV Isaiah versus the Book of Mormon Isaiah readings.

[41] Admittedly, most of these copies are severely fragmented. Tvedtnes, “Isaiah Variants,” 165–78, has conducted a preliminary inquiry, but a comprehensive investigation remains to be conducted.