martini

hey all,

just wanted to get the information straight on this. the last thing i am is a Biblical scholar, so i would like some opinions on why it does or doesn't mean "stricken" as in by leprosy in this verse. here's what my (cursory) research leads me to think:

Isa53:4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken (naga'), Smitten (naga') of God, and afflicted.
click for source

compared contextually to:
2Ki15:5 The LORD struck(naga`) the king, so that he was leprous to the day of his death, and lived in a separate house.
click for source

naga': to touch, reach, strike
1. (Qal)
1. to touch
2. to strike
3. to reach, extend to
4. to be stricken 1a
2. stricken (participle)
3. (Niphal) to be stricken, be defeated
4. (Piel) to strike
5. (Pual) to be stricken (by disease)
6. (Hiphil) to cause to touch, reach, approach, arrive
1. to cause to touch, apply
2. to reach, extend, attain, arrive, come
3. to approach (of time)
4. to befall (of fate)

is the word used, in context, for leprosy?

my thoughts were solidified by a trip to jewishencyclopedia.com and found this under eschatology:

The origin and character of the Messiah of the tribe of Joseph, or Ephraim, are rather obscure. It seems that the assumed superhuman character of the Messiah appeared to be in conflict with the tradition that spoke of his death, and therefore the figure of a Messiah who would come from the tribe of Joseph, or Ephraim, instead of from Judah, and who would willingly undergo suffering for his nation and fall as victim in the Gog and Magog war, was createdby the haggadists (see Pesik. R. 37; comp. 34.).

To him was referred the passage, "They shall look unto him whom they have pierced and mourn for him" (Zech. xii. 10, Hebr.; Suk. 52a), as well as the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah (see Justin, "Dialogus cum Tryphone," lxviii. and xc.; comp. Sanh. 98b, "the Messiah's name is 'The Leper' ['ḥiwwara'; comp. Isa. liii. 4]; the passage quoted in Martini, "Pugio Fidei," p. 417, cited by Gfrörer [l.c. 267] and others, is scarcely genuine; see Eppstein, "Bereshit Rabbati," 1888, p. 26). The older haggadah referred also "the wild ox" who with his horns will "push the people to the ends of the earth" (Deut. xxxiii. 17, Hebr.) to the Ephraimite Messiah (Gen. R. lxxv.; comp. Num. R. xiv.). The Messiah from the tribe of Ephraim falls in the battle with Gog and Magog, whereas the Messiah from the house of David kills the superhuman hostile leader (Angro-mainyush) with the breath of his mouth; then he is universally recognized as king (Suk. 52a; comp. Targ. Yer. to Ex. xl. 9, 11; Targ. to Isa. xi. 4, Cant. iv. 5; Sefer Zerubbabel, in Jellinek, "B. H." ii. 56, where he is introduced with the name of Nehemiah b. Ḥushiel; comp. l.c. 60 et seq., iii. 80 et seq.).
click for source

i would appreciate any comments on this. i did a search for it here and couldn't find anything relevant. apologies if it has already been brought up (or it is patently absurd to even suggest). :Cheeky:

andrewcriddle

(This is only a comment on the Talmudic use of Isaiah 53:4 not on its original meaning.)

The standard text of tractate Sanhedrin in the Babylonian Talmud reads However in the Pugio Fidei a medieval anti-Jewish work by Martini a Jewish convert to Christianity the passage is rendered This version with its parallel between (ch)ulya and (ch)olayenu makes better sense than the standard text with (ch)ivra and (ch)olayenu and is regarded by the Jewish scholar Fishbane as probably the original.

Hence the reference to 'the leper' in the comment on Isaiah 53:4 in the present Talmud is probably not original but replaces an earlier Talmudic teaching about a suffering Messiah.

(See Fishbane 'Midrashic Theologies of Messianic Suffering')

Andrew Criddle

martini

thanks for the information. do you know where i can look to find the oldest Hebrew traditions regarding this passage? i am very curious as to why this verse does not imply leprosy.

andrewcriddle

The verse may well imply grave illness. But IIUC there is nothing in its language that explicitly claims that the illness is leprosy.

(Although the passage as a whole seems to refer to the sufferer in Isaiah 52-53 being gravely facially disfigured.)

Andrew Criddle

John A. Broussard

The latest opinions is that early (circa the beginning of the christian era and before) references to leprosy were hardly proof of the disease's existence or that any given case of "leprosy" was actually leprosy.

Even to the present day, diagnosis is difficult without an actual culture. And we do know that the "lepers" of the middle ages may have been suffering from an endless series of skin ailments ranging from psoriasis to scrofula.

I don't know if that helps any, but keep in mind that the verse may imply just about any disease.

JoeWallack

JW:
In my opinion you have the following reasons to doubt Andrew's conclusion above that "The Jews" unilaterally changed their own Talmud here to hide a reference to a suffering Messiah:

1) In General we have many documented examples of Christianity intentionally Editing religious writings in the last two thousand years and in comparison relatively few Jewish examples. So my General advice, just like when betting on Women's Tennis always bet against the heterosexuals, is when betting on dishonest Editing, always bet against "The Jews".

2) Raymond Martini's Specific primary related purpose was the Immoral action of Editing the Talmud for supposed unflattering references to Jesus. In the absence of really good specific evidence that he was correct (which would be very difficult for such old writings) this observation by itself would make him the Likely candidate for being dishonest.

3) Yitzchak Baer, A History of Jews in Christian Spain, vol. I pp. 150-185, claims (successfully in my opinion) that Martini forged quotations (surprise), ch. 4 f. 54, 82.

4) Martini believed that 98b referred to Jesus. He is the one who would have found the description of "leper" here unflattering and he is the one whose job it was to Edit unflattering references. Hence he is the likely candidate for an Edit here.

5) I've already indicated that according to Rabbi Moshe Schulman:

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/yg/img/doc/word.gif

the correct translation is:

Rabbi Schulman explains:
We can see from the related context of 98b that it's all about pun proof-texting out-of-context from Scripture to a known Rabbi:

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedr...hedrin_98.html

So, for the verse in question to be consistent with the rest of the discussion, it needs "leper".

Also, the general discussion is all about the Son of David. In 107a:

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedr...edrin_107.html

David is desribed as smitten with leprosy. Seems to be a theme. Maybe "The Jews" changed this too.

6) This type of pun proof-texting doesn't require exact matches as evidenced in 98b itself:

So changing "ulya" to "ivra" would not be needed, especially since they can be used inter-changeably in compact Biblical Hebrew. Besides, "leper" or "afflicted" refer to suffering either way.

The implication from Andrew's conclusion is that "The Jews" changed it to "leper" so it couldn't refer to Jesus. The problem though is the Rabbi's understanding of 53:4 here is Figurative so it wouldn't really matter which word was used.

On an indirectly related note, The Rashi's (only the greatest Jewish Bible commentator of all time, of all time -with no Apologies to Muhammed Ali) Commentary of the Jewish Bible is now available online:

http://www.chabad.org/library/articl...showrashi=true

You may be interested in Rashi's Commentary on 53:4:


JW:
Note that Rashi's commentary, based on the standard previous commentary and setting the standard for future Jewish Commentary, makes clear that in Literal, straight-forward analysis of the Clear meaning of the text, Israel is the Subject. Of special interest is The Rashi's confirmation of the Plural words used in 53:8 & 9 making it clear that the subject is Plural:

As Andrew knows II Isaiah was more of a Naturalist anyway and generally doesn't make Messianic prophecies like I Isaiah does.

Perhaps more interesting than any of the above is that this thread was started by someone who asks an awful lot of questions for someone from New Jersey who appears to know at least as much based on their opening post on the subject as anyone here and has not yet been responded to by the one person here qualified to respond to the OP.

In my opinion Martinis should be shaking the Forum and not stirring (or Spinning) it.



Joseph

LIAR, n.
A lawyer with a roving commission.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Notsri

One point of interest: Fishbane also mentions in the same chapter, "Midrashic Theologies of Messianic Suffering," that the reading "hulya" from b. Sanhedrin 98b is attested as well in a work by Abrabanel (15th c CE).

Regards,
Notsri

JoeWallack

JW:
Well this is just fascinating new evidence. Thanks. Does Fishbane also mention that Abrabanel:

1) Was from Spain (like Martini), famous for Editing Jewish writings?

2) Lived at the height of the Inquisition?

3) Was famous for quoting Christians in his eX-uh-Jesus (I wonder why)?

If Abrabanel was trying to gain favor with the Spanish it probably wouldn't have been a good idea to appear to contradict their favorite son, would it?



Joseph

Notsri

Fishbane, unfortunately, does not address these concerns in the chapter. However, from the little I know of Abrabanel--and I'm afraid we've completely derailed the thread at this point--he didn't exactly sympathize with Christian messianology; which is to say I think it unlikely that he would've quoted a possibly-corrupt reading from the Talmud in the Pugio Fidei to confirm (directly or indirectly) the Christian's "favorite son." Two of his works are of special interest: (1) a commentary on Daniel, titled Sources of Salvation (Mayene HaYeshuah), and (2) an exposition of the Jewish doctrine of the Messiah, entitled The Salvation of His Anointed (Yeshuot Meshiho; a work referenced in the aforementioned chapter from Fishbane; the same work in which Abrabanel quotes the reading in question from b. Sanhedrin). From what I understand of the first of these, Abrabanel largely devotes himself to controverting Christian interpretations, particularly messianic interpretations, of the Book of Daniel. In the second he of course examines the Jewish approach to messianic texts, covering the entirety of the Hebrew Bible. And once again, he apparently makes frequent and pointed attacks on Christian exegesis on the relevant passages. So I don't get the impression that he was concerned with what the Christians thought of him. (Of course, all this doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility that Abrabanel was working with a corrupt text of the Talmud in the case of Sanhedrin 98b. IMO, though, Fishbane's emended text, following Martini and Abrabanel, makes much better sense, especially in the context of the talmudic discussion.)

Regards,
Notsri

martini

much thanks again, all.
actually, i'm from OH. i am certainly glad that the info i already had wasn't that far off the mark. ironically (or not), i have one of my Xian friends to thank for making me do the legwork to "prove" that it was really about Jesus. the results were much to his dismay. if nothing else, the passage does seem to imply a disease of some kind and this would obviously remove any "perfect sacrificial lamb" status from whomever is being spoken of.
the shakes? yeah. coming off of a lost weekend will do that to me, though.

actually, shaking cocktails was never necessary unless they would fizz. that included Collins, and other drinks that used soda or tonic. stirring drinks -- martinis included -- did not affect the taste in any fashion.

thanks again,


mike

EDIT:
who is the "one person here qualified to respond"?