Isaiah's Servant in original context

[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.

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

Of themselves this is correct. One cannot simply take their writings and make assumptions about prior beliefs.

I was referring to the scholarly literature and I can assure you the scholars in question do not make naive assumptions.

I would have to address each point separately but in general one can identify when certain ideas are explicable in terms of being pre-Christian in provenance or a reaction/post-Christian -- with varying degrees of confidence.

[andrewcriddle]

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

Of themselves this is correct. One cannot simply take their writings and make assumptions about prior beliefs.

I was referring to the scholarly literature and I can assure you the scholars in question do not make naive assumptions.

I would have to address each point separately but in general one can identify when certain ideas are explicable in terms of being pre-Christian in provenance or a reaction/post-Christian -- with varying degrees of confidence.

Have you read Peter Schafer's work e.g. The Jewish Jesus ?

Andrew Criddle

[neilgodfrey]

Have you read Peter Schafer's work e.g. The Jewish Jesus ?

Andrew Criddle

Yes. A while ago.

[JoeWallack]

"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

[Stephan Huller]

But clearly the early Jewish exegetes accepted the singular otherwise they wouldn't have developed a theory about the 'leper messiah' and connected it to the material. I've been very busy but there is reason to believe that the early gospel references a leper who was a 'fellow sufferer' with Jesus. I will come back to that maybe on the weekend. But the bottom line is that MT is not the final word on any given passage. The Samaritans, the LXX have often older readings and traditions of a given passage.

[JoeWallack]

But clearly the early Jewish exegetes accepted the singular otherwise they wouldn't have developed a theory about the 'leper messiah' and connected it to the material. I've been very busy but there is reason to believe that the early gospel references a leper who was a 'fellow sufferer' with Jesus. I will come back to that maybe on the weekend. But the bottom line is that MT is not the final word on any given passage. The Samaritans, the LXX have often older readings and traditions of a given passage.

JW:
Well try to get back to us before Jesus returns and remember, we are looking for evidence here that is older than today. The original Gospel narrative GMark does not appear to make any appeal to 53. The closest you can get is:

"For the Son of man also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."

But the underlying word for "ransom" is not in 53 (it's elsewhere in The Jewish Bible). It would seem that the pre-Christian understanding was clearly Israel and it was a Chapter to be avoided at the time if you were Christian. GMark's Jesus as a Passover sacrifice comes straight from Paul. The better question here is when did the post-Christian interpretations of the Servant as an individual start.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Stephan Huller]

I am not saying that the Christian identification of Jesus with the suffering servant was original. In fact I am probably going to end up arguing the opposite - namely that Jesus DIDN'T suffer and that the healed leper was the one who actually suffered on the cross was the original (Marcionite) interpretation. I don't know for certain. I just know that Tertullian twice mentions that the Marcionites took the leper 'fellow sufferer' (Simon?) as having special significance in the tradition.

[neilgodfrey]

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

Yes, that's one interpretation that is addressed in the literature. But it's not as conclusive as it might sound. (I'm not so much interested, by the way, in the "correct" meaning of the verse. I imagine scholars can struggle and strive and come to a consensus today that will be dismissed by another batch of scholars at the next conference. What interests me most is how it was understood by various groups back then. Who knows, maybe there were divisions of interpretation as a result of variant manuscripts now lost to us.)

[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

Doesn't the preposition refer to "of my people," people being plural? Not the clause "he was stricken?" "He was stricken" is not a prepositional clause. Maybe I need more explanation of this.

[JoeWallack]

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

Yes, that's one interpretation that is addressed in the literature. But it's not as conclusive as it might sound. (I'm not so much interested, by the way, in the "correct" meaning of the verse. I imagine scholars can struggle and strive and come to a consensus today that will be dismissed by another batch of scholars at the next conference. What interests me most is how it was understood by various groups back then. Who knows, maybe there were divisions of interpretation as a result of variant manuscripts now lost to us.)

JW:

53:9

Str	Translit	Hebrew	English	Morph
5414 [e]	way-yit-tên	וַיִּתֵּ֤ן	And he made	Verb
854 [e]	’eṯ-	אֶת־	with	Prep
7563 [e]	rə-šā-‘îm	רְשָׁעִים֙	the wicked	Adj
6913 [e]	qiḇ-rōw,	קִבְר֔וֹ	his engrave	Noun
854 [e]	wə-’eṯ-	וְאֶת־	and with	Prep
6223 [e]	‘ā-šîr עָשִׁ֖יר	the rich	Adj
4194 [e]	bə-mō-ṯāw;	בְּמֹתָ֑יו	in His death	Noun
5921 [e]	‘al	עַ֚ל	Because	Prep
3808 [e]	lō-	לֹא־	not	Adv
2555 [e]	ḥā-mās	חָמָ֣ס	violence	Noun
6213 [e]	‘ā-śāh,	עָשָׂ֔ה	He had done	Verb
3808 [e]	wə-lō	וְלֹ֥א	neither	Adv
4820 [e]	mir-māh	מִרְמָ֖ה	[was any] deceit	Noun
6310 [e]	bə-p̄îw.	בְּפִֽיו׃	in His mouth	Noun

The Hebrew בְּמֹתָ֑יו is also plural. So the meaning is "in their deaths" (literally "tombs") and not "in his death". Definitely not "in His death".

ISAIAH 53 PART 1 PDF UNEDITED By Moshe Shulman

Isaiah 53:9: And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death (KJV: Heb. deaths)
{Heb. BeMosav 'in his deaths' plural and not BeMoso 'in his death' singular} ; because he had done no violence,
neither [was any] deceit in his mouth. Here again we see that the KJV used singular where there is a plural in the Hebrew.

Yet again since Israel is explicitly identified as The Servant in the Chapter before and after as well as multiple times before and after and the offending Chapter mixes the singular and plural in its description of the Servant, it can only refer to the collective.

We can multiply this plural observation by noting the plural parallelism:

• 53:8 = For the transgression of my people were they stricken
  
  53:9 = And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in their deaths

Note the conclusion here of what happened to the Servant, wounded and killed. The next verse indicates the significance of what happened:

53:10 Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand.

So parallel placement of the plural description at the end of the what?!. Not a coincidence.

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.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki