bwcourtn

I've just started reading this book about the suffering servant (Isa. 53) which is concerned with Isa. 53 as was interpreted by the Jews between approx. 100 b.c.e. and 50 c.e. and this is absolutely fascinating; all of the atheists, agnostics, and ESPECIALLY jews interpret this servant in this psalm as the collective Israel who bring salvation to the gentiles (which i've always believed seemed peculiarly out of context), yet the dead-sea scrolls present a very different (and a very discomforting for the jews) picture..........that particular sect of highly fanatical jews that produced these scrolls, saw the suffering servant as none other that the messiah himself! I've been reading some hymns from the scrolls that make this abundantly clear, and I've always felt it was absurd to read that Isa. 53 (regardless of Jesus' messianic pretensions) as representing Israel, even in context of the preceeding and following chapters of Isa. I suppose the Jews would be uncomfortable knowing that THE MESSIAH would be "pierced for their transgressions!" I'm not apologizing, just making a note that saying Chapter 53 represents Israel is most likely a person's bias, because many ancient Jews did in fact believe it to be a picture of the coming messiah.

The name of the book is "The Messiah before Jesus : the suffering servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls" by Israel Knohl, and it is quiet interesting.

Diogenes the Cynic

I haven't read this material, so I'll reserve comment on the the accuracy of Knohl's book.

I will say that it doesn't matter. Regardless of how any of the Essenes may or may not have interpreted it, the intention of the author was never to present anything but a poetic personification of Israel. It was not about the Messiah and no latter day interpretation by Messianic fanatics can change it into something it wasn't.

The Beatles White Album was not about a race war just because Charlie Manson thought it was.

That's not even to say that I necessarily buy the idea that the DSS interpret the Suffering Servant as Messianic. I'm just saying it doesn't matter either way. They don't inform as about the intent of the author.





I should really catch up on my reading about those scrolls sometime.

Diogenes the Cynic

Actually, if anything it may lend itself to the mythicists if it provides a BCE conception of a suffering Messiah.

Toto

"The Messiah before Jesus : the suffering servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls" by Israel Knohl - searchable on Amazon.

johntheapostate

In my opinion, the fact that the Jesus myth to a small degree is reflected in some peoples interpretation of scripture, is that it was written to fit that interpretation.

The fact still remains that Christianity claim of being a viable interpretation of Hebrew scripture, is very weak.

Chili

And I see this to be just the other way around. The bible was written from the myth and that was attached to history. This also means that the inerrancy is found only in the myth and not in history.

Rick Sumner

I'm not sure that it lends itself anywhere with any notable weight. If there was an historical Jesus, we should expect him to have (at least to some degree) met someone's conception of the Messiah. If there wasn't, we should expect the creators of the myth to have had him meet someone's conception of the Messiah. In either event, not much in either direction can be gleaned from this, as it's not inconsistent with either position.

What it is useful for (at least so far as purposes of NT Messianism go. . .yeah, yeah "Wholesale theft from the Jewish people") is providing background for the birth of Christianity.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Diogenes the Cynic

I've always thought the cross was a marginal point in favor of historicity since its so contrary to Jewish expectations of the Messiah. It's something I've thought would not be likely to be invented. If it can be shown that such a conception of the Messiah existed BCE (rather than afterwards as a sophisticated apology for a crucified HJ) then I think it helps the plausibility of the mythicist position. I'm not trying to argue that it makes it more likely or HJ less likely. I agree that it doesn't.

From what I can glean from the Amazon reviews, I'm not quite convinced that Knohl's textual evidence is that solid, though.

Amaleq13

So this earlier conceptualization could be understood as either the inspiration for the Mythical Jesus or the inspiration for the myth told about the Historical Jesus?

Amaleq13

A monkeywrench for that notion is the possibility that Paul introduced the specific means of execution. Some scholars (not arguing for a mythical Jesus) have suggested that references to the cross were added to the allegedly pre-Pauline hymn.

"and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross"
(Phil 2:8)