Two answers:

1. Charlesworth said Mormon may have done some major editing and "Christianizing" to the text, as was often done to the OT pseudepigrapha.
2. [answer with a question] Do we have a scholarly consensus that there is a 2nd Isaiah? My OT professor, David Rolph Seely, said that scholars believed there was a 2nd Isaiah because the prophecies came true.

As for 2nd Isaiah, we have the people of Mulek:

I throw this out as a wild theory: what if 2nd Isaiah was brought over by the Mulekites? Verse 15 says they "came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah..." Does "at the time" necessarily mean simultaneously? Could it be just a rough time reference and the Mulekites actually left at a future date, with 2nd Isaiah in their possession?

Verse 16 states

How long did they journey? How far away did they journey? How long after the journey was undertaken before they came across the great waters?


Am I hitching my wagon to this theory? No, but it serves at a minimum to show that other peoples besides Lehi & Co. could and did make the journey from the Middle East to the New World and does not preclude the possibility that something like 2nd Isaiah could have made the journey after Lehi hitched his wagons.

I know Seely (but doubt he knows me) - he's a fine man and very sharp. Nevertheless, I think the consensus among Hebrew scholars is that there are indeed two authors, if not three, of the book we call Isaiah. Open the book -there is quite a difference between Isaiah 39 and Isaiah 40. Isaiah's name never occurs after ch. 39.

IMO, the best tack for an LDS apologist would be to place second Isaiah before 600 BCE, not to deny his existence altogether.

what about Charlesworth's explanation? If people can add stuff to Isaiah, why can't Mormon add stuff?

There are myriad theories that could explain 2nd Isaiah in the BoM - but they're just theories - just as unproveable as any personal spiritual witness.

Maybe Mulek's folk did take off from Babylon 40 years late (2nd Isaiah seems to have been written ca. 540 BCE). I don't begrudge you the theory. However, it seems more likely (to me) that whoever wrote the 2nd Isaiah sections of the BoM put them in much later than the mid sixth century BCE.

I understood that to be a separate consideration. Sure, why couldn't Mormon edit as he saw fit?

This, however, doesn't explain why the author of Mosiah 14 quotes "Isaiah" 53 nearly verbatim.

There are multiple theories that could explain this away - Joseph Smith just used the language he was comfortable with - another group of Hebrews came over the pond - Jesus brought 2nd Isaiah with him on his Blackberrry - whatever. In the end, they're all theories, unsubstantiated by facts. That's okay - that's what religion's for - to believe in something that contravenes natural occurrences. But those experiences - along with these types of theories - might be better suited for the other religion category.

The Documentary Hypothesis which Friedman is summarizing has its supporters, but also legitimate detractors.

Take for example an old one but legitimate one, Umberto Cassuto, who endeavors to explain away the Jawist versus Eloihist usage into distinctive types of usage.

Take for example Kitchen, a noted biblical scholar who defends the authenticity of the OT based on real good work.

I'm not stating I accept these positions, only that if we read a summary we will receive a distorted view of what the scholarship really is. For example, in NT scholarship, Q is generally acceptd but Mark Goodacre makes a convincing argument without Q.

I understand the Deutor Isaiah argument, but don't some of the Nag Hammadi findings throw into doubt the Post-Exilic nature of the Isaiah writings, creating a possibility that the existence of a unified Isaiah existed before the time we generally attribute thereto?

I don't know enough about the debate, to be honest. I do know that most consider there to be multiple authors, but - as you note - the trick would be to nail down more precisely when the writings were combined, not to argue for a single author.

The wiggle room I see is twofold.

First, a letter exists wherein the first presidency still claims much of the material was at one time compiled by Moses but that it has passed through many hands.

This acknowledgement leaves enough room for multiple authors if Moses generated an oral tradition of several aspects with details filled in my subsequent authors.

Second, finding the starting date for Deutero Isaiah, once thought easy, is becoming increasingly difficult to nail down as more transcripts are discovered which tend to show an earlier compilation of Deutero Isaiah.

I will note that I at one time held out some belief in the Seeley theory, that scholars discounted prophecies because they came true. I didn't exactly discount it for that reason but for the reason that some believed you couldn't predict the future.

In reality, scholars' opinion is more sophisticated and appealing. Why would a prophet spend a lot of time talking to a people about an event so distant it had no bearing or apparent bearing upon his people? That makes a lot of sense. If I'm a prophet I'll mostly foretell the future of near future events, not distant future.

They also critisize Isaiah by the reference to Cyrus, but it seems the name could have been a later addition, once the prophecy was fulfilled.

Once you dig into these arguments, no side has a clear victory, unless one takes a simplistic fundamentalist approach.

And I have only read one third of what you have probably read, so the "I don't know enough" is probably a diversionary poker player technique. I'm not buying it. If uninitiated me knows this stuff, I'm certain a real scholar such as yourself has a good handle on it.