Phlox Pyros

Sanhedrin 98b "Messiah ...what is his name? The Rabbis say,'The leprous one'; those of the house of the Rabbi (Jehuda Hanassi, the author of the Mishna, 135-200) say: 'Cholaja' (The sickly), for it says, 'Surely he has borne our sicknesses' etc. (Isa.53,4)."

Diogenes the Cynic

This is a nice bit of cherry-picked, post-Christian rabbinic speculation about the name of the Messiah but unfortunately does not have any relevance to the authorial intent of Isaiah 53.

Apikorus

Diogenes and Phlox are both correct. I don't believe that the plain sense of Isa 53 is referring to a messianic figure, but rather to a group, as explained above. The Hebrew Bible itself does not present a coherent messianic framework, although it did of course serve as a resource for later Jewish tradents, who mined its verses for material which could be reinterpreted messianically. On the subject of early Jewish messianic beliefs, I very much recommend the book by John Collins, "The Scepter and the Star," already cited by Vork above.

The term mashiakh = "messiah" in the Hebrew Bible simply means "anointed." It is used only 38 times in the entire HB, usually designating the king (Saul, David, Solomon, or a later Davidide) or the high priest. In ceremonies, the anointing was done with oil. Later on the oil thang was forgotten and the term came to connote selection (by YHWH). It is used as a noun exactly once in all of Isaiah, in 45:1, where it refers to the Persian King Cyrus.

The suffering servant of Isa 53 does not function as an anointed priest or ruler. As I describe in my post above, I believe the identification of the servant with a faithful subgroup of Israel is the most sensible from a historical-critical point of view.

Beyond its plain sense (peshat), Isa 53 lends itself well to those who seek a derived, allegorical, or mystical meaning -- exegesis the rabbis called derash, remez, and sod, respectively. This began rather early on, as the example adduced by Phlox shows. It is from the 11th pereq of tractate Sanhedrin in the Babylonian Talmud (B. Sanh. 90a - 113b), which is replete with messianic material. This particular selection from daf 98b is delightful. In it, representatives of various rabbinic "schools" argue over the identity of the messiah, adducing biblical texts in a characteristically Talmudic wordplay, so as to identify the names of their own masters:

Rav said, "the world was created only on David's account." Samuel said, "on Moses account." R. Yochanan said, "for the sake of the messiah." What is his [the messiah's] name? — The school of R. Shila said, "his name is Shiloh, for it is written, 'until Shiloh come'" (Gen 49:10). The school of R. Yannai said, "his name is Yinnon, for it is written, 'his name shall endure for ever; may his name be continued (Heb. yinnon) as long as the sun'" (Ps 72:17). The school of R. Haninah maintained, "his name is Haninah, as it is written, 'forasmuch as I will show you no favor (Heb. chaninah)'" (Jer 16:13). Others say, "his name is Menahem the son of Hezekiah, for it is written, 'because far from me is the comforter (Heb. m'nacheim) he that should refresh my soul'" (Lam 1:16). The rabbis said, "his name is 'the leper of rabbi's house,' as it is written, 'surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted'" (Isa 53:4).

Each of the schools in turn adduces a biblical text with some messianic odor. The various selections contain words which resemble the leaders of their respective study groups. Finally, the opinion of "the rabbis" (v'rabbanan amrei... = "and the rabbis say..."): his name is "the leper of rabbi's house" (often translated "the leper scholar"), which recapitulates an earlier discussion from daf 98a:

He [R. Yehoshua b. Levi] then asked him, 'When will the messiah come?' — 'Go and ask him himself,' was his [Eliljah the prophet] reply. 'Where is he sitting?' — 'At the entrance.' And by what sign may I recognise him?' — 'He is sitting among the poor lepers: all of them untie [their bandages] all at once, and rebandage them together, whereas he unties and rebandages each separately, thinking, should I be wanted [should I have to heed the call], I must not be delayed [by having to bandage all these sores].'

Incidentally, the passage from daf 98b is preceded by a remark by Rabbi Hillel, who claimed that the messiah had already come during the time of Hezekiah.

There is an extensive Jewish tradition in reading the suffering servant pericope in Isa 52:13 - 53:12 messianically. Understandibly many Jews today are uncomfortable admitting this, given the long harangue by Christians on this topic, and many 'anti-missionary' Jews go so far as to deny that the passage is regarded as messianic, which is patently false. Christians have no problem reminding us Jews of our own traditions.

I once heard a rabbi from "Jews for Judaism" speak at my synagogue during Shavuot. He gave a very dishonest presentation about Isa 53, and I chewed him out afterward, insisting that Isa 53 was redolent with messianic imagery, that it should be only natural that our rabbis would make use of this material in creative ways, and that it is both dishonest and pathetic that he would deny our own traditions just because the Christians make use of the same text for their own purposes. He was quite shocked.

Some Christians insist that the Jewish identification of the suffering servant as corporate Israel is medieval, beginning with Rashi in the 11th century. They imply that it is a canard -- a response to Christian claims on Isa 53. This is also quite false. That Jewish scholars interpreted the suffering servant as a corporate entity is evidently truly ancient; evidence can be found in Origen's Contra Celsus.

Phlox Pyros

Much thanks, Apikorus! That was some great information that I didn't see in the F.A. anywhere (though perhaps I missed it).

One question I would ask is do you know what the date of the material in Sanh 98b is? Scholars may say it dates earlier than when it was written down, do you also know that date?

Anyway, I brought that up mainly to show that I think people get stuck in today's mindset..."these things aren't prophecies", but various groups of Jews did interpret these scriptures as prophecies.

I think James Tabor made some very interesting points in his recent book, and had some relevant questions simlar to the following: "Was Jesus possibly attempting to fulfill some of the passages that certain groups of Jews believed to be prophecies?"

Apikorus

Phlox, it is famously difficult to date the rabbinic literature. A scholar like Jacob Neusner would insist that one can only be sure that the date of any passage in the Bavli is sometime before its final redaction in the 6th or 7th century CE. Other scholars like David Kraemer suggest that a 'close reading' and comparisons (where available) with the Yerushalmi can help us nail down a less conservative date. In the case of B. Sanh. 98b I would guess 5th century CE, but I haven't given it enough thought yet.

P.S. what is "F.A."? The f*cking archives?

Anat

Oh No! Friendly Archives. Of course