Isaiah's Servant in original context

[neilgodfrey]

All this being said Neil I have to also say that in spite of the lack of evidence that anyone thought of 53 as referring to an individual before Christianity, I admire your Faith that someone did and determination to find the evidence to support your conclusion.

Well, it's hardly for lack of evidence that I am asking about this. I have been reading lots of detailed evidence in the scholarly literature that looks at the various versions of the passage during the Second Temple period- - the evidence for what Greek translators read in their Hebrew text which is different from our Hebrew text, for example, and the evidence for how authors of some of the Qumran manuscripts interpreted the passage, and the evidence for how it was understood by authors of Zechariah, Daniel (not as black and white as often assumed), and a raft of other Second Temple literature.

But I have been guilty of commenting without actually reading carefully what I'm responding to, too, so I can understand and forgive.

[cienfuegos]

"for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they understand."

Does anyone here know where I can locate studies that argue what/who might have been the contemporary reference for Isaiah's Servant as an individual? Most discussions I can find acknowledge the Servant is alternately depicted as a collective (Israel) and as an individual person. What I would like to understand is who was in the author's mind if indeed he did sometimes speak of a single person as the Servant.

JW:
In a Thread who's key is understanding the underlying Hebrew I fear that Jesus might actually return before you or anyone else here looks at the underlying Hebrew. spin!:

53:8

Str	Translit	Hebrew	English	Morph
6115 [e]	mê-‘ō-ṣer	מֵעֹ֤צֶר	By oppression	Noun
4941 [e]	ū-mim-miš-pāṭ	וּמִמִּשְׁפָּט֙	and from judgment	Noun
3947 [e]	luq-qāḥ,	לֻקָּ֔ח	He was taken	Verb
853 [e]	wə-’eṯ-	וְאֶת־	and	Acc
1755 [e]	dō-w-rōw	דּוֹר֖וֹ	his generation	Noun
4310 [e]	mî	מִ֣י	who	Pro
7878 [e]	yə-śō-w-ḥê-aḥ;	יְשׂוֹחֵ֑חַ	shall declare	Verb
3588 [e]	kî	כִּ֤י	for	Conj
1504 [e]	niḡ-zar	נִגְזַר֙	he was cut off	Verb
776 [e]	mê-’e-reṣ	מֵאֶ֣רֶץ	out of the land	Noun
2416 [e]	ḥay-yîm,	חַיִּ֔ים	of the living	Adj
6588 [e]	mip-pe-ša‘	מִפֶּ֥שַׁע	For the transgression	Noun
5971 [e]	‘am-mî	עַמִּ֖י	of my people	Noun
5061 [e]	ne-ḡa‘	נֶ֥גַע	was he stricken	Noun
-	lā-mōw.	לָֽמוֹ׃	to	Prep

The Hebrew לָֽמוֹ is plural. So the meaning is "For the transgression of my people were they stricken" and not "was he stricken":

ISAIAH 53 PART 1 PDF UNEDITED By Moshe Shulman

Isaiah 53:8: He was taken from prison (D: oppression) and from judgment: and who shall declare his
generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living {lit: the living land}: for the transgression of my
people was he stricken {Heb. Lawmo. KJV mistranslates 'was HE stricken', instead of the correct THEY.}
Before explaining this, let me show the mistranslation. The Hebrew word is Lawmo and in it's other
appearances in Tenach the KJV is CORRECTLY translated to 'them'. For example in Isaiah 44:7 (unto them)
16:4 (to them). (There are no examples of exceptions where a plural prepositional pronoun is used referring
to other than a plural noun). The translation is just made to distort the true meaning

The original Hebrew had no Chapter divisions (but you already knew that). Israel is explicitly identified as The Servant in the Chapter before and after as well as multiple times before and after. Since the offending Chapter mixes the singular and plural in its description of the Servant, it can only refer to the collective. The singular descriptions simply refer to the collective as a whole. I know it, Bob Dole knows it, Christian Bible Scholarship knows it, even the Palestinians know it. In his recent debate with Rabbi Singer, Craig Evans confessed that CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship) accepts that the straight-forward likely meaning is collective Israel. He was reduced to trying to argue that there were early interpretations of it referring to an individual. In a more recent debate with Rabbi Singer, the head of Jews for Jesus (the position opened up like the Heavens in GMark due to his predecessor returning to Judaism after debating Rabbi Singer) similarly confessed that the straight-forward likely meaning is Israel but added that it wasn't just interpretation that was needed here but interpretation under the influence of Heavy Spirits. Amen.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Am I missing something here? First, I think we are most interested in hellenized Jews, aren't we? So shouldn't we be using the Septuagint, not the Hebrew Bible?

From ellopos (http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-te ... 43&page=53), I get this translation:

In [his] humiliation his judgment was taken away: who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken away from the earth: because of the iniquities of my people he was led to death.

Translated from:
ἐν τῇ ταπεινώσει ἡ κρίσις αὐτοῦ ἤρθη· τὴν δὲ γενεὰν αὐτοῦ τίς διηγήσεται; ὅτι αἴρεται ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ἡ ζωὴ αὐτοῦ, ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνομιῶν τοῦ λαοῦ μου ἤχθη εἰς θάνατον.

This seems to also refer to an individual: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/ ... s-nets.pdf

It seems that a mistranslation of a Hebrew text is irrelevant if we think, as I do, that the speculations concerning a suffering servant figure were based on the LXX, not the Hebrew. I can't translate the Greek above, but the key here is did [edit: some first century] Jews interpret Isaiah 52/53 in such a way that it could refer to an individual. What the Hebrew actually says is 100% irrelevant.

I think the "to" here in Greek is εις, isn't it?

[Leucius Charinus]

What the Hebrew actually says is 100% irrelevant.

As far as I can understand what the Hebrew says is 100% relevant to the OP.

What I would like to understand is who was in the author's mind if indeed he did sometimes speak of a single person as the Servant.

The author here is the author(s) of the Hebrew version(s) available for study, arranged in a chronological sequence. The author of the LXX serves as a translator and may very well have a different spin on the story. The mind of the author (translator) of the Hebrew Bible to LXX texts is a different and later mind which served the author of the Hebrew.



LC

[cienfuegos]

What the Hebrew actually says is 100% irrelevant.

As far as I can understand what the Hebrew says is 100% relevant to the OP.

What I would like to understand is who was in the author's mind if indeed he did sometimes speak of a single person as the Servant.

The author here is the author(s) of the Hebrew version(s) available for study, arranged in a chronological sequence. The author of the LXX serves as a translator and may very well have a different spin on the story. The mind of the author (translator) of the Hebrew Bible to LXX texts is a different and later mind which served the author of the Hebrew.



LC

Ah. ok.

[neilgodfrey]

Not being a specialist in Hebrew and Greek I can only defer to what I read in the literature and there it appears that there are good grounds for believing at least some of our LXX was translated from a Hebrew text -- but sometimes that earlier Hebrew text is not the same as in our MT's today. So the question is complex. Further, there is also evidence that our LXX was not the only version of Greek translation once available.

Such things warn me against being too dogmatic about any particular wording in one manuscript trail.

[Leucius Charinus]

FWIW here is a list of evidence that specifically relates to existence of the Greek LXX.
FWIW the all important LXX could be late.



DATE ITEM

281-246 BCE Rule of Ptolemy II Philadelphus Letter of Aristeas

170-130 BCE Estimated forgery of the Letter of Aristeas

2nd Cen BCE Papyrus Rylands 458 (assigned palaeographically)

1st/2nd BCE Greek papyri in the Qumran (LXX translations?)

1st/2nd BCE 9 Greek papyri in the Qumran (LXX translations?)

1st Cen BCE Papyrus Fouad 266: a papyrus manuscript in scroll form. (assigned palaeographically)

--------------------------

050 CE P.Oxy 3522 - Job 42.11,12 (assigned palaeographically)

037-100 CE Titus Flavius Josephus aka Joseph ben Mattathias

100 CE P.Oxy 4443 - Esther 6,7 (assigned palaeographically)

150 CE P.Oxy 656 (150 CE) Gen 14:21-23; 15:5-9; 19:32-20:11;24:28-47; 27:32-33, 40-41 (assigned palaeographically)

185-254 CE Origen and the Hexapla

312-339 CE Eusebius got most, if not all, of his information about what Christian writings
were accepted by the various churches from the writings and library of Origen


4th century Cotton Genesis: Illuminated manuscript copy of the Book of Genesis. It was a luxury manuscript with many miniatures.

6th century Codex Marchalianus: Greek manuscript copy of the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh or Old Testament) known as the Septuagint.

[neilgodfrey]

53:8 . . . .

The Hebrew לָֽמוֹ is plural. So the meaning is "For the transgression of my people were they stricken" and not "was he stricken":

ISAIAH 53 PART 1 PDF UNEDITED By Moshe Shulman

Isaiah 53:8: He was taken from prison (D: oppression) and from judgment: and who shall declare his
generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living {lit: the living land}: for the transgression of my
people was he stricken {Heb. Lawmo. KJV mistranslates 'was HE stricken', instead of the correct THEY.}
Before explaining this, let me show the mistranslation. The Hebrew word is Lawmo and in it's other
appearances in Tenach the KJV is CORRECTLY translated to 'them'. For example in Isaiah 44:7 (unto them)
16:4 (to them). (There are no examples of exceptions where a plural prepositional pronoun is used referring
to other than a plural noun). The translation is just made to distort the true meaning

ErrancyWiki

Joe, please do tell me you have not been using Judaism Is the Answer sources as your translation authority for the Hebrew text in ErrancyWiki!

The pdf you link to is the Jewish equivalent of the worst Christian apologetics that we would never be caught dead having ever read. Above its title we read its declared purpose: "New Aid For Faith". Its preface describes any Christian view as "a deception" and declares that there is only one correct interpretation -- that of today's rabbis. They are all unanimous obviously and no doubt teach what the author of Isaiah 53 exactly originally wrote and meant.

I have copied here one page from a chapter ("The Fourth Servant Song in the Context of Second Isaiah" by Hans-Jurgen Hermisson) from The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, ed by Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher, and translated by Daniel Bailey. It takes a more scholarly perspective than a Judaism Is The Answer tract.

[rakovsky]

Does anyone here know where I can locate studies that argue what/who might have been the contemporary reference for Isaiah's Servant as an individual? Most discussions I can find acknowledge the Servant is alternately depicted as a collective (Israel) and as an individual person. What I would like to understand is who was in the author's mind if indeed he did sometimes speak of a single person as the Servant.

I strongly recommend:

The Jewish Gospels
https://books.google.com
Daniel Boyarin - 2012 -

Makes the case that the conventional understandings of Jesus and the origins of Christianity are wrong: that Jesus' core teachings were not a break from Jewish beliefs and that Jesus was embraced by many Jews as the Messiah ..

Boyarin is a Talmudic scholar and Orthodox Jew and he goes over Isaiah 53.

The Messiah is the Servant of Isaiah 53. In Isaiah 20:3 God refers to "my servant Isaiah." And Isaiah 49(JPT) says:
1. listen closely, you nations, from afar; the Lord called me from the womb,
3. And He said to me, "You are My servant, Israel,”
5. And now, the Lord, Who formed me from the womb as a servant to Him, said to bring Jacob back to Him, and Israel shall be gathered to Him, and I will be honored in the eyes of the Lord, and my God was my strength.
6. And He said, "It is too light for you to be My servant, to establish the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the besieged of Israel, but I will make you a light of nations, so that My salvation shall be until the end of the earth."

But Isaiah distinguishes himself, the “servant Israel”, from Israel itself by immediately adding: “the Lord, Who formed me from the womb as a servant to Him, said to bring Jacob back to Him, and Israel shall be gathered to Him” (49:5-6).

As in Zechariah 11, where Zechariah prophetically envisions himself as the Good Shepherd, it appears that in Isaiah 49, Isaiah propheticially envisions himself as the Servant who plays a Messianic role, not only of gathering Israel to God, but of being a light to the nations.

So in Isaiah 49 that leads into 53, the servant is definitely the Messiah, not Israel.

[rakovsky]

I don't know. I noticed something a few years back that may be of no significance, but thought I'd mention it. The tenses used for past-present seem to vary in this passage as if some of it had occurred already and some of it was to occur in the future. Is that a function of the editors/translators or is there reason to believe the tenses have been retained over time?

You have to check the sentence where each tense is used and show it here. One of the hard things is that I think in old Hebrew the future tense was made by using the past tense.

[rakovsky]

I think if the author was imagining a future individual to come then we have a bigger problem or at least another one in its place. Why would he do this?

The Tanakh has numerous messianic teferences, starting with Nathan's prophecy to David about his descendant having reign over the world. Then in Isaiah 11, the writer picks up this David messiah theme.

It would be quite something if out of the blue we get this prophecy of a future being who will suffer, die for sins and in so doing save his people and the gentiles.

Great question.
One factor is the centrality of the idea of atonement and sacrifice in torah and 2nd temple period judaism, which is where Isaiah gets his lamb imagery from, along with the sprinking in isaiah 52.
This is how redemption from sins was viewed in that time, and the Messiah was a redeemer, so it fit into Isaiah 53 with the sacrifice images.