The Case for Second Isaiah

Most scholars are convinced that Second Isaiah (Isa. 40-55) was written in its entirety at least a century after Isaiah lived—after the Israelites went into exile. Consider the fact that while Isaiah was active, Assyria was the dominant world power, and every prophet active during that time—including Isaiah—prophesied about the Assyrian threat. All through chapters 1-39, Isaiah prophesies about how Yahweh will bring the Assyrians in judgment against his people (Isa. 7:17-20) and how Assyria will destroy the northern kingdom of Israel (Isa. 8:4). When God has pity and restores his people, Isaiah says God will build up “a highway from Assyria for the remnant that is left of his people” (Isa. 11:16). When God ultimately brings peace to the world, Isaiah says he will do so by pacifying the Assyrians: “On that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian will come into Egypt and the Egyptians into Assyria, and the Egyptians will worship with the Assyrians” (Isa. 19:23). All throughout these chapters, Israel’s punishment and salvation are presented with reference to the Assyrians.

But beginning in Isaiah 40, the Assyrians are suddenly nowhere to be found; they’re only mentioned in a single verse that deals with happenings from “long ago” (Isa. 52:4). Now the people are in Babylon, and the author is told to “comfort my people . . . and cry to her that she has served her term, that her penalty is paid, that she has received from Yahweh’s hand double for all her sins” (Isa. 40:1-2). The people are commanded, “Go out from Babylon, flee from Chaldea” (Isa. 48:20). And while First Isaiah presents salvation in terms of the people returning on a highway “from Assyria” (Isa. 19:23), now the highway comes from Babylon (Isa. 40:3). Cyrus, the Persian king who would capture Babylon in 539 BCE and allow the Jews to return to the land of Israel, is mentioned by name twice (Isa. 44:28; 45:1) as a savior who would humble Babylon and redeem God’s people (Isa. 47). The audience for Second Isaiah is thus best described as the exiles at the end of Babylonian captivity.

. . .

The academic consensus around the exilic origin of Second Isaiah poses a problem for the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Regardless of whether Second Isaiah was composed in its entirety during the exile, the final form of the book of Isaiah would not have come until quite late. Yet 2 Nephi 12-24 quotes the entirety of Isaiah chapters 2-14 almost exactly, which would mean that Nephi had these chapters in practically the same form we have them today. For such a collection to exist so early would be highly unlikely, particularly since the words of Second and Third Isaiah do not appear extensively in the final form of the book. When these sections were added, the later authors shaped the entire book of Isaiah—including the prophecies of First Isaiah—to give the book greater coherence. For example, Second Isaiah begins in Isaiah 40;1, but Isaiah 36-39 had to have been added after the exile since it quotes from the Deuteronomistic History.

Even in the sections quoted in the Book of Mormon we see clear examples of post-exilic editing. For instance, Isaiah 6:13 describes Isaiah as the stump left behind after a tree is cut down. Questions arose in post-exilic Israel as to whom exactly this stump (symbolizing the chosen people) referred to. Were they the people who were left behind in Israel during the Babylonian captivity, or were they those who were taken to Babylon but preserved the Old Testament’s traditions? The group that was taken to Babylon came to be referred to as “the holy seed” (e.g., Ezra 9:2). A later editor came back to Isaiah 6:13 and clarified that the Babylonian captives were indeed the chosen people by inserting the phrase, “The holy seed is its sump” (Isa. 6:13). We can tell that this addition is late not only because it refers to a post-exilic debate that took lace well after Isaiah’s time, but also because on of our earliest witnesses to the book of Isaiah—the Greek translation made in the second century BCE_-does not include the addition at all. Even though it was added well after Nephi left Jerusalem, the addition appears in Nephi’s quotation (2 Ne. 16:13), which should be impossible.

. . . .

The problem of Second Isaiah in the Book of Mormon is part of a broader problem: Why does so much of the Bible—including quotations from the New Testament—appear in the Book of Mormon when these sources could not possibly have been accessible to the Nephites? For example, how could Abinadi use phrases from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:54-55) to describe Christ’s victory over death (Mosiah 16:7-8)? How could Alma quote from John the Baptist (Matt. 3:2) and Jesus’ conversion with Nicodemus (John 3:3) while preaching to the people at Gideon (Alma 7:9, 14)? Was the exact wording of the King James Bible given to the Nephites through revelation? Or did Joseph Smith find these ancient ideas and render them using wording he knew from the New Testament? These issues provide an invitation to think deeply about the book at the center of the LDS Church.