Quote:
Originally Posted by Solon
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.