Steven Avery

We have two historical documents that give a good picture as to whether early Jews considered Isaiah 53 as applying to the Messiah in the first century.

One is the New Testament, which indicates yes, with some ambiguity (read the chapter of the Ethiopian in the chariot in Acts).

The other, earlier, is Targum Yonathan, which applies the section unambiguously and fully to Messiah (starting from 52:13), albeit with the emphasis on what could be termed Moschiach Ben David, not the suffering servant. It is clearly and fully Messianic, and Targum Yonathan (Yonathan Ben Uziell) was held in high regard in Jewish exegesis. Aramaic Targumim (expansive translations, with defacto embedded commentary) would be read in the synagogues after the Bible reading in Hebrew.

For scholarship integrity, any claim that Isaiah 53 as Messianic was a Christian invention should best be simply discarded.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Jayrok

If more christians would really study the OT, in particular Isaiah and its context, they would realize it really isn't talking about the messiah. Unfortunately, there is strength and comfort in numbers... and for the most part, they are happy to remain ignorant in the teachings of church leaders and content in their belief and longing to live forever.

Your post probably will remain unanswered, just as Steven Carr's challenge, because chrisitans really don't want to dig into Hebrew scripture when it is so vague... especially about a dying/risen messiah/son of God.

Jayrok

You need only to read Isaiah 1 to realize the theme of his contribution to the scriptures.

Isaiah 1:2-6 -- 2 Hear, O heavens! Listen, O earth!
For the LORD has spoken:
"I reared children and brought them up,
but they have rebelled against me.
3 The ox knows his master,
the donkey his owner's manger,
but Israel does not know,
my people do not understand."

4 Ah, sinful nation,
a people loaded with guilt,
a brood of evildoers,
children given to corruption!
They have forsaken the LORD;
they have spurned the Holy One of Israel
and turned their backs on him.

5 Why should you be beaten anymore?
Why do you persist in rebellion?
Your whole head is injured,
your whole heart afflicted.

6 From the sole of your foot to the top of your head
there is no soundness—
only wounds and welts
and open sores,
not cleansed or bandaged
or soothed with oil.



From the first chapter, Isaiah sets the tone of his writing. He is talking about Israel rejecting God and as a result, God punished him (Israel) by scattering them at the hands of Babylon.

Why should you be beaten anymore? Who? Israel
Your head is injured and your body is sick... who? Israel
From your feet to your head, there is no soundness.. only wounds and welts and open sores... who? Israel

We read more of the same throughout this book. In many parts he specifically calls the servant Israel. And in Isaiah 53, we see once again, welts and wounds and being beaten. Who? Israel.

Isaiah is using figure of speech in describing what has happened to his beloved community. In Isaiah 54, he talks about God abandoning Israel/Jerusalem for a brief moment (as described in 53).. but he will restore him/her back once again (verses 7 and 8). Then he goes on to say that no one else will prevail against Israel and Israel will refute every tongue that accuses it.

It's really easy to see why the early Jews rejected the notion that Jesus was the messiah. I don't think these scriptures are messianic, but simply the perils and salvation of the nation of Israel as seen from the eyes of Isaiah.

Steven Carr

But you claimed that you don't have to be God to give people the authority to forgive sins.

Do you ever bother reading what you post?

Vorkosigan

As ranking scholar John J. Collins wrote in Scepter and Star, a study of pre-Christian messianic beliefs:

• "There is surprisingly little use of Isaiah 53 in the New Testament, a fact that would be difficult to explain if that passage had been understood with reference to a suffering eschatological figure in Judaism."(p208).

On page 126 he notes:

• The alleged allusions to a suffering messiah in the Scrolls disappear under examination. The Christian belief in such a figure, and discovery of prophecies relating to him, surely arose in retrospect after the passion and death of Jesus of Nazareth. There is no evidence that anyone in first-century Judaism expected such a figure, either in fulfillment of Isaiah 53 or any other basis.

Actually, for scholarship integrity, just the opposite is indicated. Isa 53 as messianic is strictly a post-Christian phenomenon.

Steven Avery

:-)
As I have already pointed out, Targum Yonathan
"Behold my servant messiah will prosper ... "

is the single most significant non-NT writing for this analysis, and it is simply being ignored here, apparently because it was not in the DSS scrolls, which is the subject about what Collins is writing.

Making your quote apples and oranges, since you have deliberately ignored and fanned out away from the most powerful and authoritative and clear evidence, the one early Jewish translation/commentary on that very section ! Afaik, there is not a single Tanach commentary in the DSS literature.

wow, it is truly funny when a scholar is used to make an argument that is simply contradicted by opening up the NT itself.

Only one verse can be considered as standing as possibly equal or above Isaiah 53 in NT application, Psalm 110, which is, like Isaiah 53, used in a variety of circumstances.

And Isaiah 53 has the longest section discussion of any Messianic passage, and the very topic of the discussion is its messianic application!

Now I will ignore any less direct allusions, and look at the six direct applications of quoting from the Isaiah 53 section.

John 12:37-38
But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?

Romans 10:16
But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

Acts 8:32-35
The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Romans 15:21 (Isaiah 52:15)
But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.

Matthew 8:17 (Isaiah 53:4)
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.

1 Peter 2:24-25 (Isaiah 53:5)
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Amazing. This is what happens when folks quote scholars rather than simply reading the New Testament. The evidence right in front of their eyes is missed. Well, to be fair, after starting on my own I had a little help from Bullinger http://bennieblount.org/Online/Appendix/app80.htm .

LOL.. 'no evidence' -- other than the Targum and the NT, the two primary source materials for early Jewish commentary on Tanach, both of which resoundingly contradict Collins.

Ironically, sometimes the Jewish scholars like David Flusser (and even those who are essentially anti-mish like Professor Lawrence Schiffman, as when I heard him speak about the Sannhedrin trial) accept and understand the NT evidence with far clearer eyes than the Christian and other non-Jewish scholars.

One other point -- of course some later Jewish writings, but still way before the rabbinic age, also sees Isaiah 53 as messianic, most exceptionally in the powerful section in the Midrash on Psalms. And rabbinic writers directly acknowledge that this was in fact the earlier interp of the midrashim. All in all there is a harmony between Midrash, later rabbinics, the Targumim, and the NT in understanding the early Jewish perspective.

The one attacking the NT and Targum as anomalies or unrepresentative then has to posit that the Jews actually added/created a type of new contra-mirror-exegesis to Isaiah 53, and one that would actually validate the basic New Testament message, and one that they later actively denied. Wow ... And this is a decidely un-Occam analysis of the evidences --

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Roland

That argument seems logical on the surface, but it doesn't answer the main question, which is why Matthew, Mark and Luke didn't include any of those statements in the first place. And how did they wind up including so many of the same quotes while leaving out those found in John?

If Jesus really said all the things John claims he said, Matthew, Mark and Luke would surely have included SOME of them. After all, these are not throwaway lines from Jesus, but some of his most self-revelatory and profound comments.

No, I'm afraid the most simple and logical explanation is that whoever wrote John invented sayings for Jesus that reflected the author's understanding of who Jesus was and what he represented.

NOGO

All this is unnecessary. You are so predictable.
If only God can forgive sins then only God can forgive sins.
You are trying to have it both ways.
Others on this thread have shown that the statement that only God can forgive sins was incorrect. You are now confirming this.
So what else is new.

It is then possible according to YOUR religion to forgive sins in the name of God.

"as the Father sent me, so I send you."

This says to me that Jesus is JUST PASSING ON the authority to forgive sins. So Jesus claims to forgive sins in the name of God just like the apostles did after him and others did before him.

Vorkosigan

This relates to Isa 53 because....? Flesh it out. In any case this targum apparently dates from after the period under discussion.

Probably because it is a later targum.

I "deliberately" did nothing.

I have read the NT. What I noticed is that you have 5 cites of Isa 53 (+ 1 of Isa 52, why, I don't know). Two of them are citations of the same passage. That makes 4. There's no contradiction between your 5 citations of 4 passages and Collins' statement:

• "There is surprisingly little use of Isaiah 53 in the New Testament, a fact that would be difficult to explain if that passage had been understood with reference to a suffering eschatological figure in Ludaism."(p208).

IOn any case the citation in Romans does not place Isa in any messianic context. Actually, we're done to just 4 citations in a messianic context in the multitude of verses from the NT.

The NT is evidence for what early Christians thought, and the Targum dates from a later period. That is probably why there's no solid evidence for your claims.

Vorkosigan

Steven Avery

Best scholarship place the Targum early. Start by reading the section of the Jewish author Samson Levey "Messianic Exegesis of the Targum".

The Isaiah 53 section is rather universally considered to begin at Isaiah 52:13. Even when read in the synagogue, as I recall. I'm a bit suprised you are you not familiar with this.

Here is the section on the web, taken from the Driver/Neubauer book.
The Suffering Servant of Isaiah, According to the Jewish Interpreters
http://www.makestraightthewayofthelord.org/tj.htm

The rest of your post really speaks for itself :-)

Using the theory of
"when my position is shot, find 'something' to say".

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic