Juststeve

Isaiah 53 has no utility if you are trying to convince a Jewish Audience. Any Jew would understand that the suffering one is the nation of Israel. That modern Christians don't get it doesn't mean that first century Jews wouldn't.

Steve

Duvduv

The Jew may or may not be convinced, depending on reliance on traditional Jewish commentaries, but a judeophile gentile working from the Septaguint would get his "ammunition" so to speak of "proofs" for his messiah.
I forgot to add that the authors of 1 Corinthians who references a couple of things from Isaiah 53 also totally ignores the most salient verses for their Christ.

Diogenes the Cynic

But the Suffering Servant had never been read Messianically before Christianity, so there is no reason to assume that such a connection would even occur to John. Moreover, John was likely originally a Gnostic text, which means that it was looking to de-emphasize any humanity in Jesus. John's Jesus does not suffer or agonize even while he's on the cross. John was also try to push a preexistant Logos, so a physical birth story was a distraction. I
d say that John was probably trying to deal with the embarrassment of a Galilean Messiah by claiming he wasn't really "born" at all. He always existed.

Duvduv

Well, certainly GMatt and even GLuke should have seen the "prophecies" in the entirety of Isaiah 53 and surely would have invoked them.

Diogenes the Cynic

There are no prophecies in Isaiah 53. It has nothing to do with the Messiah, and it's not a predictive prophecy. It's a past tense poetic allegory of the history of Israel.

Duvduv

I know that, and you know that, but the fact is that just as the the gospel writers attributed many other verses from the Tanakh for their own purposes, they could have done so in this case as well very easily. Their Christ suffered and was crucified. So presumably they could jump at the opportunity from Isaiah 53 just like other verses. ESPECIALLY when as I noted GMatt, GLuke and GJohn DID invoke at least one verse.

Diogenes the Cynic

It would have had to occur to them, individually, to do that. It wasn't anything they'd have automatically thought of reading that way.

Duvduv

Well, once they determined that Jesus fulfilled a verse from Isaiah 53, one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to follow along the logic for the rest of the pertinent verses. IF they could apply certain verses they could certainly apply these ones in the trial and crucifixion theme.

Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

Diogenes the Cynic

But the servant is not crucified or even killed. That makes the passage less of an obvious parallel.

Duvduv

Come on, you know such exact distinctions never interfered with invoking Old Testament themes or verses. It was always possible to fit issues into the verses. The writer called Justin Martyr did it alot. Besides, didn't the same gospel writers say that their Jesus was born in Bethelehem to the family of David even though it didn't exactly fit?!