Isaiah's Servant in original context

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi neilgodfrey,

"The I-speeches in the second and third Servant Songs (Isa 49:1-6; 50:4-9) cannot be used to fill this biographical vacuum because these texts are written in a conventional style (“formgebundene Sprache”) that permits no insight into a personal biography.12 The suffering and death of the servant-figure in Isa 53 can also not be inter- preted as the destiny of an individual."

from ULRICH BERGES (UNIVERSITY OF BONN) "Servant and Suffering in Isaiah and Jeremiah: Who borrowed from whom?, OTE 25/2 (2012): 247-259

You can download in pdf at http://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/21321

Here's the abstract:

In this paper I propose a reading of the fourth Servant Song that goes beyond the alternative of the “suffering servant” as either an individual or a collective body. The search for a combination of these two main approaches is indeed not a new venture.3 I hope to shed some new light, however, on the question by identifying the group of authors as formerly exiled temple-singers who presented themselves to post-exilic Israel as the suffering, atoning servant – using some elements of the literary portrait of Jeremiah.

It sounds plausible to me.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

[cienfuegos]

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.

Maybe this is something you might be looking for. It is not what the author thought, though, but a later interpretation of the Song of the Suffering Servant. Recent article.

I don't know if you have access to this, but if you are interested, I can send you the PDF:

The oldest interpretation of the suffering servant
Harold Louis Ginsberg
Vetus testamentum ,2013,Vol.63,p.25-28

A selection (in Word converted from PDF,so there might be issues with the conversion):

Undoubtedly our author has identi­ fied the Many of Isa Iii 13-liii 12 with the masses in the time of the Antiochan religious persecution, and the Servant with the minority of steadfast anti­ hellenizers. Not that the masses were eager to become hellenistic pagans, but thatJudaism seemed to them a lost cause. Only a minority-among them, our author-thought otherwise. They were convinced that so far from being the wave of the future, Seleucid Syria was the tail end of the past. They knew their Bible, and it was obvious to them that Antiochus Epiphanes was the •king of Assyria about whom Isaiah had said (Isa x 12): 'And it shall come to pass that when the Lord has achieved all his work upon the mount of Zion and in Jerusa­ lem, he will visit upon the majesty3 of the king of Assyria's pride (cf. Dan xi 37) and upon the grandeur of his haughtiness.' And Seleucid Syria was clearly the Assyria of which Isaiah had said (Isa xiv 24): 'The Lord of hosts has sworn saying, Indeed, what I have planned shall come to pass, and what I have intended shall materialize: to break Assyria in my land, and to crush him upon my hills. (Cf. Dan xi 45.) Then shall his yoke depart from (you), and his burden (be lifted) from (your) backs.' It was only a question of waiting until the Lord's indignation was spent (Isa x 24 ff.; xxvi 20-21); see above, I. These men were not content to be merely Maskilim in the sense of Enlightened and to keep their knowledge to themselves, but became Enlighteners and instructed the Many (Dan xi 33a); and many of the Many joined them (xi 34b).

This one is interesting because it is more of a apologetic argument and, yet, I think correct. The suffering servant is "Jesus," just not Jesus of Nazareth.
Lessing, R. (2011). Isaiah's servants in chapters 40-55: Clearing up the confusion. Concordia Journal, 37(2), 130-134.

selections:

Those who identify the servant with an individual have named, among others, Hezekiah, Isaiah, Uzziah, Josiah, a leper, Jeremiah, Moses, Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, Nehemiah, Jehoiachin, Eleazar, Ezekiel, Cyrus, Job, Meshullam, and Zedekiah. The dominant Christian position until the end of the nineteenth century was that Jesus of Nazareth is the servant in these songs (see Acts 8:32-35).

...Isaiah presents us with two servants; the first is the nation of Israel (chapters 41-48) and the second is an individual (chapters 49-55). There is, to import Pauline terms (e.g., Rom 8:4-5; 1 Cor 10:18), a servant κατά σάρκα ("according to the flesh") and a servant κατά πνβυμα ("according to the Spirit"). Therefore, while typology best defines how the NT employs 42:1-4, rectilinear prophecy characterizes the manner in which the NT understands the servant in the next three songs. He is Jesus.

Some maybe not relevant, but still interesting:

SYREN, R (1989)
JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES
Volume: 40 Issue: 2 Pages: 201-212
FAL 1989

This is interesting in light of the dying/rising messiah debate:

But recently Koch, Chilton and Page have remarked that the targumic wording in its context, taken together with the Hebrew text the reading of which preceded the Tg in the synagogue, may at least have suggested to the audience that the Messiah would die, or left the door open for such a conclusion.5

Walton, J. H. (2003). The Imagery of the Substitute King Ritual in Isaiah's Fourth Servant Song. Journal of Biblical Literature, 122(4), 734-743.

It is my thesis that the imagery, background, and obscurities of the fourth song can be adequately resolved when the passage is read in light of the substitute king ritual motifs known from Mesopotamia as early as the Isin period (early second millennium) and as late as Alexander the Great.

[neilgodfrey]

I am saying that from what I can remember there isn't much in the way of Jewish commentary (meaning in the rabbinic writings not scholars who happen to be 'Jewish').

I did not mean "scholars who happen to be Jewish". The rabbinic writings addressing Isa 53 support the Christian interpretation indicating that the church derived its interpretation of Isa 53 from pre-existing Jewish ideas and applied them to Jesus.

[neilgodfrey]

from ULRICH BERGES (UNIVERSITY OF BONN) "Servant and Suffering in Isaiah and Jeremiah: Who borrowed from whom?, OTE 25/2 (2012): 247-259

Many thanks. Have access to this one. Will read.

[neilgodfrey]

The oldest interpretation of the suffering servant
Harold Louis Ginsberg
Vetus testamentum ,2013,Vol.63,p.25-28

Thanks -- have downloaded to read. The extract you provided is describing Daniel's interpretation of Isaiah 52-3. That's part of the larger question I'm exploring -- the influence of Isaiah's Suffering Servant on the thinking of later Jewish works such as Daniel, Zechariah, DSS, and a raft of other Second Temple texts and how each of these reinterpreted it for their own time.

This one is interesting because it is more of a apologetic argument and, yet, I think correct. The suffering servant is "Jesus," just not Jesus of Nazareth.
Lessing, R. (2011). Isaiah's servants in chapters 40-55: Clearing up the confusion. Concordia Journal, 37(2), 130-134.

selections:

Those who identify the servant with an individual have named, among others, Hezekiah, Isaiah, Uzziah, Josiah, a leper, Jeremiah, Moses, Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, Nehemiah, Jehoiachin, Eleazar, Ezekiel, Cyrus, Job, Meshullam, and Zedekiah.

Bull's eye! Thanks so much. That's what I'm looking for -- now all I have to do is find out where I can read the arguments made in favour of each person. I only have Goulder's article making the case for Jehoiachin so far.

Some maybe not relevant, but still interesting:

SYREN, R (1989)
JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES
Volume: 40 Issue: 2 Pages: 201-212
FAL 1989

This is interesting in light of the dying/rising messiah debate:

But recently Koch, Chilton and Page have remarked that the targumic wording in its context, taken together with the Hebrew text the reading of which preceded the Tg in the synagogue, may at least have suggested to the audience that the Messiah would die, or left the door open for such a conclusion.5

Yes, I'd uncovering quite a range of evidence that certain Second Temple Jews did indeed interpret the Isaiah's Servant as a dying and rising figure.

Walton, J. H. (2003). The Imagery of the Substitute King Ritual in Isaiah's Fourth Servant Song. Journal of Biblical Literature, 122(4), 734-743.

Have this one, too, thanks. Yet to read.

[Bernard Muller]

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.

Even if I come late on that issue, I want to express my thought here:
First the second part of Isaiah was not written by the original author, but either by different authors, or the same (other) one at different times.
These "updates" were made after the beginning of the Persian rule but before the rebuilding of the temple.
Each occurrence of the "servant" in the second part is in a different "update" and therefore the "servant" is different in the mind of the writer.
That brings us to the suffering servant, the final one.
I think he was a human figure which had been existing, and then died recently before the time of the writing. He was seen often by people of Jerusalem, with his increasing obvious wounds and deformations on his body.
The writer used him as such: glorious Zion is coming soon for the elects, but you Jews think you will not be part of it because of your sins. But wait, that suffering servant absorbed the sins of many, therefore if you STAY JEWS (despite the awful condition of Jews then, making them leaving the faith) you have a good chance to be the beneficiary of the new world order to come.

Cordially, Bernard

[Stephan Huller]

A wild stab in the dark (not particularly directed at Neil). The leper messiah of the early rabbinic tradition might be connected with Isaiah's suffering servant.

[Stephan Huller]

I was right - Babylonian Talmud: "The Messiah --what is his name?...The Rabbis say, The Leper Scholar, as it is said, `surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God and afflicted...'" (Sanhedrin 98b)

Midrash Ruth Rabbah: "Another explanation (of Ruth ii.14): -- He is speaking of king Messiah; `Come hither,' draw near to the throne; `and eat of the bread,' that is, the bread of the kingdom; `and dip thy morsel in the vinegar,' this refers to his chastisements, as it is said, `But he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities'"

[neilgodfrey]

My earlier attempt at a cut and paste comment omitted a key paragraph. This is the complete comment as originally intended:

I was right - Babylonian Talmud: "The Messiah --what is his name?...The Rabbis say, The Leper Scholar, as it is said, `surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God and afflicted...'" (Sanhedrin 98b)

This interpretation precedes the Talmud. It is found in the Septuagint. Isa 53:4 ἐν πληγῆ ("in a plague (transliteration "plege")" translates מֻכֵּ֥ה ("struck" -- as in "the ten plagues on Egypt") and in Isa 53:3 πληγῇ translates "מַכְאֹב֖" ("sorrows/pain")

One can see the ambiguity in the terms (cf stricken -- could be either with a disease like leprosy or with a fist etc.)

But Isaiah 53:10 is where the suggestion of leprosy becomes most likely. In our Bibles this is:

The Lord was pleased to crush him and put him to grief/make him suffer.

Crush him (דַּכְּאוֹ֙), making him suffer (הֶֽחֱלִ֔י) but in the LXX this is translated as

᾿καὶ κύριος βούλεται καθαρίσαι αὐτὸν τῆς πληγῆς

--- with καθαρίσαι and πληγῆς ("cleanse/purify" and "strike/'plege'"). These two words could suggest leprosy -- as the later Talmud interpretation suggests was the case among some sects.

So the Greek meaning would be:

The Lord desires to purify him of the plague.

If so, the meaning would almost certainly have been metaphorical.

If that was the LXX translation one does wonder what was the original Hebrew text those translators knew. Hengel suggests זכְּוֹ֙ "he made him clean" was there instead of דַּכְּאוֹ֙ "crush him" and מחולי ("from my sickness") instead of הֶֽחֱלִ֔י ("he made him sick").

We see other interpretations of the Isaiah terms in Daniel, Zechariah and some of DSS -- there the understanding was not a disease/plague/leprosy but struck down as in physical assault, death.

See Hengel, "The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the Pre-Christian Period", in The Suffering Servant ed by Janowski and Stuhlmacher.

[andrewcriddle]

I am saying that from what I can remember there isn't much in the way of Jewish commentary (meaning in the rabbinic writings not scholars who happen to be 'Jewish').

I did not mean "scholars who happen to be Jewish". The rabbinic writings addressing Isa 53 support the Christian interpretation indicating that the church derived its interpretation of Isa 53 from pre-existing Jewish ideas and applied them to Jesus.

It is not clear that the Babylonian Talmud and post-Talmudic writings are good evidence for pre-Christian Jewish understanding of Isaiah 53.

Andrew Criddle