Our church family just poured over Isaiah 2 in our inductive study last night. Each week, we will be studying a new chapter together.
I am going to need some clarification from LDS friends on whether this is standard LDS belief as I quote various authors on Isaiah 2.
ISAIAH 2:2-3
(1) The mountain of the LORD’s house is the Salt Lake Temple
Victor L. Ludlow in his book Unlocking Isaiah In The Book of Mormon (SLC: Deseret, 2003) notes,
Many prophets and apostles of this dispensation have shared important insights about these passages, providing various clarifications beginning with the identification of ‘the mountain of the Lord’s house’ as a temple, especially the Salt Lake Temple. The Salt Lake Temple is literally a house of the Lord that has been established in the tops of the Rocky Mountains (81).
Ludlow further substantiates partial fulfillment of Isaiah 2 with the teaching by one of the LDS apostles. In 2002, one of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Robert D. Hales, proclaimed,
As Salt Lake City has hosted the 2002 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, we have seen a partial fulfillment of many prophecies. The nations of the earth and many of their leaders have come. . . . “The mountain of the house of the Lord,” with its brightly lit spires, has been witnessed by 3.5 billion people around the world (Robert D Hales, “Out of Darkness into His Marvelous Light,” Ensign, May 2002, 69)
(2) The mountain of the LORD’s house is the LDS Conference Center
I didn’t realize this, but Ludlow shares, “In October 200, President Gordon B. Hinckley quoted this Isaiah passage as he dedicated the LDS Conference Center:
As I contemplate this marvelous structure, adjacent to the temple, there comes to mind the great prophetic utterance of Isaiah: “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. . . . O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the LORD.” I believe that prophecy applies to the historic and wonderful Salt Lake Temple. But I believe also that it is related to this magnificent hall. For it is from this pulpit that the law of God shall go forth, together with the word and testimony of the Lord (Gordon B. Hinckley, “This Great Millennial Year,” Ensign, Nov. 2000, 69).
I remember taking a tour of the conference center. The flow of water in every direction by the fountain on the top terrace, directly above the pulpit in that vast auditorium, indeed confirms the belief that the modern-day LDS prophet has designed the conference center to fulfill the hopes for “Judah and Jerusalem” in Isaiah 2:1-5.
(3) The mountain of the LORD’s house is all LDS temples like the Idaho Falls Temple
When the temple in Idaho Falls celebrated a fiftieth year anniversary in my hometown, I remember the front page of the Post Register, the local newspaper, highlighting the inspired prayer of the First Presidency in connecting the Idaho Falls Temple with Isaiah 2 and the United States Constitution with “the law” (v. 3). Past president Harold B. Lee believed this interpretation.
ISAIAH 2:6
John Bytheway teaches in the popular book, Isaiah For Airheads (SLC: Deseret, 2006), “Pleasing themselves in the ‘children of strangers’ means to intermingle and marry with those not of covenant Israel” (73).
Bytheway plans on staying with the KJV traditional rendering rather than translate “clap” or “clasp”? What about the alternative sense of “abound with” that the KJV translators insert in the margin?
ISAIAH 2:9
Back to Ludlow, he writes, “In the King James Version, verse 9 reads, ‘The mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself; therefore forgive them not.’ In this translation, the Lord is seemingly refusing to forgive those who bow down and humble themselves before Him. The Savior does not work in this way, as the Book of Mormon clarifies: ‘The mean man boweth not down, and the great man humbleth himself not.’ It is for the arrogant and proud who refuse to repent that the Lord will show no forgiveness” (86-87).
Yet is the Hebrew text in error without the insertion of the “not”? Does 2 Nephi 12:9 really need to correct the Hebrew rendering?
ISAIAH 2:16
Ludlow explains,
While verse 16 consists of three phrases – the ships of the sea, the ships of Tarshish, and the pleasant pictures, the ancient Greek (Septuagint) and Hebrew (KJV) texts each contain only two of the above phrases, as shown below: . . . The Book of Mormon is the only text of the three [KJV, Septuagint, Book of Mormon] that retains all the phrases, again indicating that the brass plates contained a more correct and unedited version of the original Isaiah text (88).
I have never seen this before. Because I am just getting started, does the Book of Mormon do this often with the Isaiah text? Adding both the English translation of the Masoretic text and the variant Septuagint translation in the same verse (2 Nephi 12:16)? Does not the science of lower textual criticism teach that the addition of both phrases pegs this verse as a later version?
On this verse, Bytheway boxes in what he believes to be fact:
Book of Mormon scholars get very excited about 2 Nephi 12:16, because it comes as close to a “proof” that the Book of Mormon is an ancient book as anything could. If you’ll look at footnote 16a, you’ll see that the Greek Septuagint (the oldest existing Greek text of Isaiah, about A.D. 500-1000) contains only the phrase “ships of the sea.” The oldest existing Hebrew text (or Masoretic text, dated about 250 B.C.) contains only the phrase “ships of Tarshish.” The Book of Mormon restores both phrases, showing that it came from an older text of Isaiah than either existing text (i.e., from the brass plates). There is no evidence that Joseph Smith had access to the Septuagint, and he couldn’t read Greek at the time anyway! The only explanation is that these phrases appear because the Book of Mormon is indeed an ancient record and was in fact translated by the gift and power of God (75).
Wait a minute, wasn’t Tarshish as referring to “sea” a circulated opinion in Joseph Smith’s day? Why would you need to know Greek? Just listen to the various preachers or read the commentaries on Isaiah in the early 1800s. I have Joseph A. Alexander’s exhaustive Commentary on Isaiah. He was born in Pennsylvania on April 24, 1809. Did Smith have access to Presbyterian clergymen who debated whether to accept Luther’s opinion (following the Septuagint translation) on Isaiah 2:16 or just a straightforward transliteration of the Masoretic text? Isn’t it a stretch to say that all other explanations are eliminated?
ISAIAH 2:22
“Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?”
On this verse, Donald W. Parry, Jay A. Parry, and Tina M. Peterson in the book, Understanding Isaiah (SLC: Deseret, 1998) share,
God gave man the breath of life (42:5; Gen. 2:7), and man is forever reliant on God for all things (D&C 59:21), including air to breathe (Mosiah 2:20-21). King Benjamin reminds us, “Are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have? (Mosiah 4:19) (35).
Here is the million dollar question. I don’t think God’s created angels need air in their nostrils to survive. And God, Who is unlike both angels and mankind, does He? If He needed breathe in literal nostrils, why should I depend wholly upon Him?
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
Todd Wood on his website is discussing Isaiah. He is quoting the LDS scholar Daniel Ludlow in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism; He is discussing ideas about Isaiah in the Book of Mormon:
Ludlow explains,
While verse 16 consists of three phrases – the ships of the sea, the ships of Tarshish, and the pleasant pictures, the ancient Greek (Septuagint) and Hebrew (KJV) texts each contain only two of the above phrases, as shown below: . . . The Book of Mormon is the only text of the three [KJV, Septuagint, Book of Mormon] that retains all the phrases, again indicating that the brass plates contained a more correct and unedited version of the original Isaiah text (88).
Todd Wood says:
I have never seen this before. Because I am just getting started, does the Book of Mormon do this often with the Isaiah text? Adding both the English translation of the Masoretic text and the variant Septuagint translation in the same verse (2 Nephi 12:16)?
Kerry:
Not often, but there are many places where the BofM is different than the Isaiah text. The idea is comparing Isa. 2:16 with 2 Ne. 12:16, we see that the Book of Mormon reads: “And upon all the ships of the sea, and upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures.” The Greek Septuagint includes the phrase “and upon every ship of the sea,” which the Authorized Version leaves out, but the Septuagint omits “and upon all the ships of Tarshish,” which the Authorized Version includes, and words the third phrase differently. The Book of Mormon contains all three phrases, the Authorized Version and the Greek Septuagint two each. This is an excellent example of what often happens in translation and copying. This indicates that the Hebrew lost the first phrase which the Greek Septuagint preserved, and the reverse was the case on the last phrase.
Todd Wood:
Does not the science of lower textual criticism teach that the addition of both phrases pegs this verse as a later version?
Kerry:
I don’t know, do you have references to them saying this? I believe the idea that is being illustrated was shown by Royal Skousen in his amazingly dense, detailed textual criticism of the Book of Mormon.
In the Book of Mormon text of Isaiah we have some very interesting readings. I am going to cite you a couple, to show you that when the Prophet Joseph Smith came to a known text, in this case Isaiah, he did not just quote it verbatim. I call your attention to 2 Ne. 12:16, which corresponds to Isa. 2:16. First, let me read the King James rendering of the text. The King James Version, as well as the Hebrew text, has only two clauses:
And upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures. (Isa. 2:16)
Now in the Book of Mormon parallel we find three clauses. The first one is found neither in the King James Version nor in the Hebrew text. The text reads:
And upon all the ships of the sea, and upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures. (2 Ne. 12:16)
That the Prophet was actually translating independently is shown by the first clause, which is missing in the familiar versions. The scholar will say, “That’s very interesting, but is there any evidence of a scientific nature that will bear out the Prophet’s rendering of the first line?”
I have brought with me this morning a translation of the Greek Septuagint. It was made many years ago by a noted Englishman, and any of you are free to examine it. I will not translate the Greek parallel of Isaiah but will let this translation tell the story:
And upon every ship of the sea, and upon every display of fine ships.
Notice just two clauses; the first one agrees with the first clause in the Book of Mormon. Here we have ancient evidence supporting the Nephite text. Observe also that each clause of the Isaiah text in the Book of Mormon begins with the words, “And upon all.” When scribes are copying such a text it is easy to drop out a line by a slip of the eye. I have tested that fact many times on my own secretaries. Here is a case where Nephi had copied the three clauses of Isaiah’s original correctly. When the Septuagint text of Isaiah was made-that is, when the Hebrew text was translated into Greek-it is obvious that the first clause in the Book of Mormon was present in the Hebrew text. As time went on, one clause of the Greek text fell out, and the third clause was corrupted. In the Hebrew text the first clause fell out after Septuagint times, but the last two clauses were retained correctly. The Book of Mormon has preserved all three. There is good reason, as I have shown, to believe that the Nephite text has preserved correctly Isaiah’s text of this verse. (Isaiah , FARMS Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 4, no. 1 (Spring 1995), 178.)
Todd Wood:
On this verse, Bytheway boxes in what he believes to be fact:
Book of Mormon scholars get very excited about 2 Nephi 12:16, because it comes as close to a “proof” that the Book of Mormon is an ancient book as anything could. If you’ll look at footnote 16a, you’ll see that the Greek Septuagint (the oldest existing Greek text of Isaiah, about A.D. 500-1000) contains only the phrase “ships of the sea.” The oldest existing Hebrew text (or Masoretic text, dated about 250 B.C.) contains only the phrase “ships of Tarshish.” The Book of Mormon restores both phrases, showing that it came from an older text of Isaiah than either existing text (i.e., from the brass plates). There is no evidence that Joseph Smith had access to the Septuagint, and he couldn’t read Greek at the time anyway! The only explanation is that these phrases appear because the Book of Mormon is indeed an ancient record and was in fact translated by the gift and power of God (75).
Wait a minute, wasn’t Tarshish as referring to “sea” a circulated opinion in Joseph Smith’s day? Why would you need to know Greek? Just listen to the various preachers or read the commentaries on Isaiah in the early 1800s. I have Joseph A. Alexander’s exhaustive Commentary on Isaiah. He was born in Pennsylvania on April 24, 1809. Did Smith have access to Presbyterian clergymen who debated whether to accept Luther’s opinion (following the Septuagint translation) on Isaiah 2:16 or just a straightforward transliteration of the Masoretic text? Isn’t it a stretch to say that all other explanations are eliminated?
Kerry:
Because a source was published and available in Joseph Smith’s day does not prove he knew about it, nor had heard of it. Royal Skousen, again, in a most significant and astonishing analysis of the King James Quotes in the Book of Mormon, has noted something peculiar about this Isaiah passage, along with an old shop worn criticism against the Book of Mormon that definitely has to be revamped now in light of the most current research.
Italics in the King James Bible
Larson also claims that Joseph Smith knew that italicized words in the King James Bible represent words that are not found in the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), but were added by the translators to complete the intended sense of the original. As before, Larson gives a few examples to support his contention (pp. 130-31), but does not give a complete analysis.
In 1991, as a part of a course on textual criticism of the Book of Mormon, three of my students (William Calhoun, Margaret Robbins, and Andrew Stewart) wrote research papers on various aspects of this question. Calhoun and Robbins examined various copies of the King James Bible (including a good number that were printed in the early decades of the 1800s). (William Calhoun, “Isaiah, Italics, and the Book of Mormon,” and Margaret Robbins, “King James Version as a Source for the Biblical Passages Quoted in the Book of Mormon,” unpublished research papers for Royal Skousen’s Fall 1991 course on textual criticism of the Book of Mormon, Brigham Young University.)
As one might suspect, they found examples of variation in the use of italics, even in King James Bibles published after the supposedly final revision of 1769. Moreover, Calhoun notes that he found only one Bible (printed in London in 1800) that actually mentions (in an introduction) what the italics mean. The original 1611 edition does not explain the use of italics; in fact, it silently borrowed the idea from the Geneva Bible, which does explain the use of italics. Given the general lack of knowledge even today about what the italics mean in the King James Bible, one might surely wonder if Joseph Smith himself knew this, especially in those early years when he was translating the Book of Mormon.
Calhoun and Robbins also compared the italicized words in the King James Bible with the original text of the Book of Mormon (as found in the two manuscripts). And both discovered many examples where Joseph Smith deleted, added, or altered words that are not in italics in any of the King James printings they examined. Each concluded that there was no direct connection between the italics and the original Book of Mormon text. Simply giving examples where changes correspond with italics means nothing; one must look at all the changes, including the ones that occur independently of italics.
There is also the possibility that the source for the biblical quotations in the Book of Mormon could come from other English Bibles (namely, ones published prior to the King James Version, beginning with Tyndale’s New Testament [from as early as 1526] and ending with the Geneva Bible and its various editions). Most of the phraseology of the King James Bible is dependent upon previous editions of the English Bible. (S. L. Greenslade, “English Versions of the Bible, 1525-1611,” in S. L. Greenslade, ed., The Cambridge History of the Bible: The West from the Reformation to the Present Day (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 144-45, 165-66; David Daniell, Tyndale’s New Testament (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), vii-xiv.)
In fact, as part of the critical text project I have discovered evidence (from variation in the use of the definite article the) that the compositors for the King James Bible set type from a minimally edited copy of an earlier edition of the English Bible. In fact, nearly all the English translations during the 1500s and early 1600s were minor revisions. Only Tyndale’s translation (of the New Testament and the first half of the Old Testament) and part of Matthew’s Bible (the second half of the Old Testament, translated by Miles Coverdale) represent fresh translations into English. (David Daniell, Tyndale’s Old Testament (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992), xxiv-xxvii.)
Moreover, nearly all the famous passages for which the King James translation is praised can be found in these early English editions. Consequently, it is not immediately obvious that the passages quoted in the Book of Mormon are strictly from the King James Bible.
In order to test this question, Andy Stewart (one of the students from my class) compared the various translations into Early Modern English, looking for unique substantive readings in these passages. Interestingly, he found that the Book of Mormon biblical quotations, except for one example, agreed with the unique substantive readings found in the King James Bible. Thus what has been taken as obvious can in fact be shown to be correct. The assumption that the Book of Mormon biblical quotations come from the King James Bible has, until now, been based on simple familiarity with the King James Bible and not by comparing that translation with the earlier translations that the King James Version is dependent upon.
The one exception Stewart found is in the famous example from 2 Ne. 12:16 (Isa. 2:16), where the text reads “upon all the ships of the sea and upon all the ships of Tarshish.” The first phrase is found in the Septuagint (or koine Greek) version of Isaiah, the second in the Masoretic (or traditional Hebrew) text. While looking for unique substantive readings, Stewart discovered that the first phrase (but not the second) occurs in Coverdale’s Bible (“upon all shippes of the sea”), while all the other early English Bibles have only the second phrase. Quite possibly Coverdale’s translation is based on the Septuagint, but in any event this is an interesting discovery, one that would not have occurred had we simply assumed that the Book of Mormon biblical quotations were from the King James Bible. (FARMS Review of Books, 6/1 (1994): 127-129)
Todd Wood:
ISAIAH 2:22
“Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?”
On this verse, Donald W. Parry, Jay A. Parry, and Tina M. Peterson in the book, Understanding Isaiah (SLC: Deseret, 1998) share,
God gave man the breath of life (42:5; Gen. 2:7), and man is forever reliant on God for all things (D&C 59:21), including air to breathe (Mosiah 2:20-21). King Benjamin reminds us, “Are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have? (Mosiah 4:19) (35).
Here is the million dollar question. I don’t think God’s created angels need air in their nostrils to survive. And God, Who is unlike both angels and mankind, does He? If He needed breathe in literal nostrils, why should I depend wholly upon Him?
Kerry:
THE point here is, in context, discussing HUMAN mankind, who does need breath in our nostrils.
Hope some of this helps Todd. Great ideas and discussion.
Kerry, I am soon heading out of Idaho Falls to speak at a ministerial conference in Denver. I will be back in town next Wednesday. Of course, you have provided some FARMS material that has created some more questions for me. 🙂
And by the way, thanks. I am in the dark to whom Bytheway could be referring to.
Textual Criticism
Wouldn’t one of the rules of textual criticism be to take the more simple of variants in getting to the original? Scribes have the tendency to add when not sure of which variant is correct. Now, I will need to pull out some succinct quotes on the topic from books on textual criticism.
The LORD alone exalted in Isaiah 2
And before I get back to posting at the end of next week . . . aren’t those in Jerusalem and Judah putting other men to be their help in the place of God? Of course, God will correct everything. “The LORD alone will be exalted in that day.” But after the fierce judgment, even when His people are no longer making war, how is that the LORD alone will be exalted among the righteous?
What is the fundamental drive behind the Jehovah’s command, “Cease from man”?
Stay warm this weekend, Kerry. Heading to Colorado, I hope to get into some deeper snow.
Do some fun snowboarin, stay safe, and we can catch up when you return my friend! I have math homwork to work on also, for my first test on Wednesday. We are working on Fibonacci numbers, population growth, and Mandelbrot series, all pretty doggone fascinating stuff for me……
Best,
Kerry
Hey, in the spirit of updating myself, and in helping us truly understand this rather complex issue, here is the very newest, latest, most up-to-date analysis of the Ships of Tarshish in Isaiah and the Book of Mormon. As one can read for onself, there is nothing simple about it. The extended analysis and scholarship of just this one verse in Isaiah as quoted in the Book of Mormon is ab-sooooo-lutely PRICELESS! And it figures, its from two of the BYU Dead Sea Scrolls International team members! WOW. I mean WOW!
Notice they don’t just accept the LDS party-line of meaning or interpretation either! This is crisp, tasty scholarship on the scriptures for all of us to taste……..
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=374
Best,
Kerry
Kerry, I am back in town.
I just read Pike and Seely. Thanks for the link. They have definitely spent some time mulling over this verse by covering the old opinion among church fathers about “ships of the sea” and also spotlighting Isaiah 2:16b, “pictures of desire”. It could perhaps be ships of Tarshish (military and trade) and ships of desire (luxury). But to add “ships of the sea” seems redundant.
I appreciate also their honesty in how they express their presuppositional faith to the BoM. This is signicant as also my underlying faith in the sufficiency of Isaiah comes into play.
You mentioned them being a part of the BYU Dead Sea Scrolls International team. I would be interested to see how they handled Isaiah 3:24, “burning instead of beauty.” Doesn’t the Dead Sea Isaiah scroll speak of “humiliation” instead of “burning” or branding?
Another question. Wouldn’t their scholarship in the ancient languages require a new translation of the Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon because of the textual evidence?
Kerry, one thing for sure . . . IT’S GREAT TO BE BACK IN IDAHO FALLS. I am definitely an Idaho boy.
I dunno, I haven’t read a lot of their translations of Isaiah so far. I’m back in school so my free time is not overly abundant now, darn it. Welcome home pahhhhhdnnuh – GRIN!