You note that the Book of Mormon doesn’t contain the El=Yahweh parts of Second Isaiah, but isn’t the fact that it contains any of (post-Exilic) Second Isaiah problematic enough? Can you comment further on this?
Not everyone accepts the idea of a second Isaiah. So, if the hypothesis seems a threat, we can turn to scholars who do not accept it. We get a choice in deciding whether we even have a significant problem. In dealing with problems, we all get to choose whether to treat the them as potentially productive puzzles, or as counter instances. And when we face problems we get to decide whether we have to solve them now, or whether to leave it for later, or even for a later generation. Finally, in dealing with problems, we also get to balance them against the existing solutions. One thing we should not do it to treat LDS scripture like a fragile bubble that totally disintegrates if we poke it anywhere.
Before reading Barker’s The Older Testament, I tended to lean towards Gileadi’s arguments for a unified Isaiah, though I also liked Nibley’s discussion in Since Cumorah, which made some room for the possibility of a Second and Third Isaiah. Nowadays, I like Jack Welch’s minimalist suggestion, that we don’t have to assume that the Brass plates contained anymore of Isaiah than it quotes from the Brass plates. And we should leave room for Joseph Smith to participate with his own understanding, as Nibley and Ostler have suggested. I personally see the Isaiah sitation as promising and fruitful. There have been some very good studies and observations on the issue. I’d be interested in seeing more. For instance, what happens to Abinadi’s message if we replace Joseph Smith’s King James dependent translation of Isaiah 53 with Margaret’s independent one?
Part 4: El Elyon; Barker’s Methodology; Joseph Smith