PrizeFighter Inferno

Yeah, here's the thing about that. There are any number of ways to interpret Isaiah 53. The general consensus among Biblical scholars, as far as I understand, is that passage is either discussing Israel, or possibly the author/redactor of Isaiah II himself. The idea that this is a messianic prediction isn't given much credence outside of evangelical apologetics, as critical analysis from secular, Jewish and Christian throws the supposed messianic significance of this text into contention.

Also of note is the fact that older samples of this text omit the phrase "the light of life," suggesting that it was added in later.

It's also pretty clear that the messianic figure Isaiah is portraying is Cyrus, who brought Israel out of exile.

Isaiah 45:1

So, nevermind the fact that hellenistic ideas about the soul and need for salvation are needlessly projected upon Hebrew texts, the term "Messiah" isn't even referring to a single person. Even the gentile king of Persia, who the passage goes on to show didn't even BELIEVE in yehowah (hope I don't get struck down for romanizing the hebrew there), is called the messiah. There is no "the" messiah being referred to.

Not like the reference would matter in the case of the lineage anyway. Each lineage for Jesus has the wrong number of generations, makes up some names and omits others to fit the stylings of the authors of the gospels.

References for my old testament stuff would be Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and John J. Collins "Into to the Hebrew Bible." Though you'll be able to find the information in any scholarly survey of the Old Testament that uses the Documentary Hypothesis.

Diogenes the Cynic

I forgot to add that this verse doesn't actually say "pierced" in the Hebrew.

dzim77

So, you're saying...

"Israel" took up Israel's infirmities and carried Isreal's sorrows...
"Israel" was pierced for Israel's transgressions and crushed for Israel's iniquities...
the LORD has laid on "Isreal" the iniquities of us all...
"Israel" had done no violence nor was any deceit in his mouth... (doesn't sound like the OT Israel I know)
the LORD made "Israel" a guilt offering...

So, if Israel is the righteous servant, how can she be guilty of trangression and iniquity at the same time?

This passage is obviously describing an innocent, righteous servant, chosen by God to atone for the sins of his people... the idea that the suffering servant is Israel just doesn't make sense in this context.



here's a brief answer to start...

this is not found in Zechariah... where is this from? Are you saying Isaiah's servant is Zechariah's pierced one?

And if it is not 'pierced', what is the proper translation in your opinion?


I guessed. Just some well-intended humor. Guess you had to be there.

But I would venture to guess that you DO accept the virgin birth of the cosmos. So perhaps you do have great faith afterall?

PrizeFighter Inferno

Y'know. You seem to be taking for granted the idea that, even if the bible reads the way you imagine it does, it has some sort of absolutely, maybe powerful or divine authority of some sort. You are aware that this is in rather irretractible (sp?) dispute, yes?

Diogenes the Cynic

Correcting for your misunderstandings of the pronouns (easy to do) and the deceptive Christian translations, this is all about the servant (Israel) suffering at the hands of the Gentile nations and the Gentiles eventually feeling chastized (the "we" is the Gentile nations, not Israel).
She isn't guilty. The Gentiles are.
The passage does not say that the servant will atone for anybody (he's wounded "BY our transgressions" not "FOR" them). Israel is an innocent servant abused by other nations. Eventually, Israel's example will chasten those nations (according to Isaiah).
You're using a Christian writing as a proof that Isaiah didn't know what he was talking about?

I'm aware of how Christians interpret Isaiah but 1 Peter does not offer any critical inisght into the authorial intent or understanding of Isaiah.
My mistake. I was typing quickly (I had to get out the door for something) and assumed you were talking about Isaiah without actually reading your quoted passage.

The "pierced one" in Zechariah is obscure. It seems to refer either to an unknown wounded hero or perhaps to fallen Israelite martyrs in general. It's still not Messianic in context and the the wounded one is not a savior figure.
In Isaiah it's "he was wounded." In Psalms 22, it's "like a lion."

dzim77

Would you care to point me to what you consider a "trustworthy" translation or to post one here? Because I can't find anything that is significantly different than the one I am familiar with.

I see your idea. Is there anything else in Isaiah like what you are propsosing... where Isaiah is speaking as the voice of the Gentiles??

You're saying there's no atonement in Isa 53? How would explain verses 4-6? If I were trying to explain the idea of atonement, I don't think I could do much better than these verses.


I'm not saying that Isaiah "didn't know what he was talking about." I'm not saying that Isaiah himself didn't know that he was speaking of the Messiah in Isa. 53.

I'm suggesting that OT prophets had limited perspective or limited revelation as to the fullness of God's plan of salvation. The Israelites, because they did not yet have a full understanding, were looking for and expecting only a 'conquering king' Messiah. From this perspective it wouldn't make sense to them that the Messiah could be both a suffering servant and a conquering king. They wouldn't know what to do with a Scripture like Isaiah 53... so an alternative meaning would have to have been attributed to the passge, even if it doesn't fit very well. I'm suggesting that, given the fuller revelation of Jesus and the apostles we can now see that Isa. 53 was a Messianic prophecy, and-as such- it is a perfect fit in the context of the passage.

Neither have you, I'd like to respectfully point out.

1 Peter offers an explanation as to how passages concerning a suffering Messiah - like Isa. 53 - are indeed messianic prophecy.

no problem.

Zech 13.1 seems to flow with the context as part of the discription of the events surrounding the 'pierced one'...

Appears to be another mention of a suffering, atoning, messiah figure.

Diogenes the Cynic

The Jewish Messiah neither suffers nor atones. You keep selecting passages that are not Messianic in context.

Do you actually know anything about how the Messiah is understood in OT and Jewish tradition? He's just a human king. An heir to the throne of David who will accomplish such things as bringing world peace, rebulding the Temple at Jerusalem, returning the Jews to Israel and causing the world to worship one God (none of which was accomplished by Jesus). The Jewish Messiah is not God, is not a redeemer of sins and is not supposed to die without fulfilling the prophecies.

Bringing the NT into the conversation means nothing because the thread is supposed to be about the Hebrew Bible and the intents of those authors, not the distortions and revisions and recontextualizations made by later Christians to serve their own agendas.

dzim77

I'm sure you realize that your arguments here are circular. You base your arguments on the general messianic understanding of "Jewish tradition" without citing specific textual evidence. Your basic point is circular: 'Jewish tradition doesn't account for a suffering messiah, therefore Isa. 53 cannot be about the messiah.' You assume Jewish tradition is correct in it's views.

Have you considered that perhaps Jewish tradition is mistaken concerning it's view of the Messiah? ... that perhaps it has misread Isaiah?

I have shown that an interpretation of Isa. 53 with "Israel" as the suffering servant makes no sense. You claim bad translation. I would like to see what you consider a "trustworthy" translation.

I am saying that Isa. 53 is indeed messianic... that it portrays a suffering, atoning, righteous messiah figure... and have given an explanation as to why it is so.

Diogenes the Cynic

Isaiah 53 is not about the Messiah because it SAYS SO. It explicitly identifies the servant as Israel and there is absolutely nothing in the Old Testament which says the Messiah will suffer or atone for anyone's sins. Every single verse which is misappropriated by Christians to indicate that can invariably be shown to have no such meaning in context.
Jewish tradition really has only marginal relevance. The authorial intent of the text can usually be understood without regard to any external tradition.
When it comes to the Bible, it's best not to bother with any translation and just learn the original Hebrew or Greek but if you don't know Hebrew, you can see the Jewish Publication Society translation of Isaiah 53 right here.
I know what you're saying. I'm trying to inform you that your interpretation is factually wrong. There is no internal evidence within Isaiah to support it, neither does the idea have any scholarly support outside of Christian apologetics. The Suffering Servant was certainly never understood by Isaiah's original audience to have anything to do with the Messiah. Show me where Isaiah says that the servant is the Messiah. Show me where it says he's a king or a descendant of David.

douglas

How much of a "limited perspective" are they permitted to have before they cease to be considered a prophet? According to God's law and your argument, then Isaiah must be disqualified as a "prophet." Correct?