juergen

Recently, a friend sent me some pages of Dr Michael L Brown's "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk)," which I'm in the process of working through, unfortunately with mostly online material only.

I know there have been multitudes of threads and google gives me uncountable links, but with limited time and and about 15 open tabs at once, it gets a bit overwhelming.

Could anyone recommend books or good online materials that deal with Isaiah 53 from a non-Christian POV?

With not much time for it, I'd still like to be able to go through it without feeling walls are caving in over me, and without abandoning it half-way.

Thanks!

bacht

Here's a piece from the Jewish Encyclopedia (late 19th C scholarship):

Servant of God

Special Usage in Isaiah.

There are, however, four passages in the Isaian compilation where perhaps the "national" interpretation is not admissible, namely, Isa. xlii. 1-4, xlix. 1-6, l. 4-9, lii. 13-liii. 12. The descriptions in them of the attitude and conduct of the 'ebed Yhwh seem to be idealizations of the character of an individual rather than of the whole of Israel. Especially is this true of Isa. lii. 13-liii. 12, the exaltation of the "man of suffering." In this a prophetic anticipatory picture of the Messiah has been recognized by both Jewish and Christian tradition. Modern critics read into it the portraits of Jeremiah, Zerubbabel, or Sheshbazar. Rothstein (and Sellin at present) holds the description to be meant for Jehoiachin; while Bertholet, dividing the chapters into two distinct "songs," regards the first (Isa. lii. 13-15, liii. 11b-12) as a glorification of a teacher of the Torah; and the second (ib. liii. 1-11a) as that of Eleazar (II Macc. vi. 18-31). Duhm also is inclined to separate this description into two distinct "songs"; but he declares it to be impossible to assign a definite person as the model. The "man of suffering" is, however, a teacher of the Torah. Even the period when these four 'ebed Yhwh songs were written is not determinable save in so far as they are post-exilic—perhaps as late as the days immediately preceding the Maccabean uprising.

It may be noted that these interpretations, according to which the picture is that of a definite individual, were anticipated among Jewish commentators of the Middle Ages. Saadia referred the whole section (Isa. lii. 13-liii. 12) to Jeremiah; and Ibn Ezra finds this view a probable one. Kraetzschmar, among moderns, selects Ezekiel for the model on account of Ezek. iv. Cheyne was at one time inclined to associate this 'ebed Yhwh with Job.

Present Conditions of Problem.

Ingenious as these various identifications are, of late years there has been in evidence a decided reversion to the theory that also Israel, or at least a part of the congregation, is idealized in these songs. Budde has successfully met the arguments of Duhm; and other scholars, e.g., Marti, Giesebrecht, and König, are now ranged on his side. This concession must be made: in the four songs, somewhat more strongly than in others where Israel is hailed the servant of Yhwh, stress is laid on missionary activity, both within and without Israel, on the part of the servant; furthermore various characteristics are dwelt on that are attributed in a certain group of the Psalms to the "pious." For this reason there is strong presumption that the "poor," the "anawim" (meek) of the Psalms, are the Israel to which the epithet "'ebed Yhwh" and the portrayal of his qualifications refer. Budde reverts to the theory of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Ḳimḥi, that the confession in Isa. liii. is uttered by the "nations" referred to in Isa. lii. 15, and that thus Israel is the martyr, with which view Wellhausen, Giesebrecht, Marti, and others agree. If the "remnant" (the "poor") be personified in the "servant," the "We" of the confession may refer to those of Israel that had rejected these "poor" and "meek"; if such an interpretation were to be accepted the exilic date of these idealized personifications would, of course, have to be abandoned. But these "poor" were just such quiet missionaries as are described in Isa. xlii. 1-4. They suffered in the pursuit of their missionary labors (ib. l. 4) as well as at the hands of their own fellow Israelites (ib. lii., liii.).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...h=servant#1638

juergen

Thanks bacht!

Was the majority view before Rashi that the prophecy meant an individual? Origen mentions that the Jews were identifying the servant as Israel, did Rabbinical thought differ from the belief of what general Jews thought?

I apologize if my questions are naive.

PLOINY

Merely identifying hints in Yeshayah or indeed elsewhere of the belief in a future messiah is to state the obvious. Talmudic Judaism has always emphasised that.

"Answered Jewish Objections to Jesus" is a complete farce. The man knows no Aramaic or Hebrew and relies upon the outpourings of ignorant earnest and well meaning ignorami quoting earlier ignorami. Using translations and relying on the screamingly funny suppositions of Hebraist monks and Christian scholars who base many arguments on obvious mistakes and missed links and connections - is like following a commentary on a cricket match by a Yiddish-speaking Hassidik Jew who has never heard of the game. But millions have been murdered in the name of the "truth" thus revealed.

Any Jew educated in his religion and literature will be powerly strengthened in his religion if he were to read "Answered Jewish Objections to Jesus" .

It is a book for the hopeful and ignorant - who are terrified of the so obvious and so often proven truth. If you want the truth - study the sources and hobestly examine the facts of early Christianity. If you wish to continue fooling yourself - don't. But please do not rely on "Answered Jewish Objections to Jesus". They are simply not even touched never mind answered. Obviously ignorant Jews - reform, conservative, progressive rabbis and such - arguing with Chriatians are easily defeated because they cannot quote in the original the Hebrew bible all its commentaries and the Aramaic Talmud. This is the ignorant fighting the ignorant. The better debater wins.

Examining secularised third hand "knowledge" like that in the "Jewish" Encyclopaedia is like trying to appreciate a Beethoven late quartet through its performance on four digeridoos.

The problem with Jesus is that he appears (in the only scientifically authenticated source from that period) as the opposite of a messianic figure. And that source - the Talmud -dismisses him as a lewd and unsuccessful scholar tried and executed for denying monotheism. This is in passing and with no axe to grind - he was one of many - and no one could guess that he would be resurrected by Paul to become the head of the first form of reform Judaism.

I am genuinely amazed by this discussion. You are all working form hopelessly incorrect translations and 2000 years of hypothesis based on wishful thinking. Just read and research the available historical documents from the time. Josephus' quote is accepted by all as a fraud. The early Christian writers merely copied each others mistakes, lies and wishful myths - and contradicted one another incessantly. The Aramaic NT was rapidly dropped because the Jews could read it and laughed themselves silly at its misquotes and plagerisms, missmash of borrowed half understood ideas and nonsense. They all knew the source perfectly. So Paul had to ensure it was Greek and sold the ignorant Romans. Paul "Answered Jewish Objections to Jesus" by forgetting the Jews and moving to easier prey. Of course tortue, money and ignorance has led to thousands converting - but those with knowledge could never take Christianity seriously.


In 1995 the Vatican published a letter (see lnk below) stating quite clearly that the evidence for the details of Jesus’ life is entirely questionable. According to such a stance, the message is -- that the very “usefulness and good consequences” of that message prove that the messenger must have existed. Now this sort of logic angers atheists because it is entirely irrelevant and amuses agnostics because - it is entirely irrelevant.

What the Vatican dare not do is quote their source of any information – that maddening Jewish Talmud -which they kept chopping bits off and burning when they got bored with chopping bits off and burning the Jews.

The entire gospel/ early Christian/ accounts are utterly self-contradictory as Christians themselves agree. They argue that this is a test of faith, the work of Satan, or only to be expected of ancient documentation. Paul’s entire contribution discredits the “history” further. Yet they argue the central “fact” is that Jesus must have been the claimed messiah – to have inspired such a vast out-pouring of (agreed) illogicality and contradiction. That "Answered Jewish Objections to Jesus" ???

All the stunningly ridiculous 17th – 19th century Biblical criticism is based on casuistic reasoning as to why there are repetitions or omissions, inconclusive pieces or even contradictions – in a twice mis-translated text. The entire edifice is laughable to anyone fluent in Hebrew and Aramaic or commonsense. Yet centuries of serious academic debate and millions of murders and torturings were based upon different groups of ignorami proving their interpretation – by killing other Christians and of course a few Muslims and Jews as well.

Why not simply examine proven documents from that very time. As I have tried to satte - the only scientifically accepted document from the precise time is yes, that extremely annoying Jewish Talmud – the collection of computer-like logic, head-splitting thought, philosophy, maths, deep cynicism, weird kaballistic conundrums and chillingly clear deductions of law and argumentation.

Jumbled in this are accounts of events and personalities – and a very few clear references to “Ye-shy” An abbreviation for “may his name be blotted out for ever”. From this, rather paradoxically, the ignorant early Christians (who could read Hebrew and some Aramaic and stumble through translated sections with the help of renegade or tortured Jews) called him “Yeasus”.

And of course they - as often as possible- censored it – cutting every reference to Ye-shy out of it. Because he appears rarely and as a failed irrelevancy.

Today’s prints of the Talmud – used by those Jews still literate in their religion - have still the large white gaps at the bottom of pages showing that text has been cut out. And of course one or two original versions – carefully secreted from the evangelic but not angelic barbaric torturers - have survived – now scientifically authenticated . The excised sections are printed in some modern Talmuds.

As they do not affect the outcomes of the debates and are generally short accounts of his immodest behaviour, illogical argument or general failure in the academic field, for the Talmudic scholar, there is no real point in resetting the pages. This is because for nearly two millenia the precise layout, as well as the brain-churning contents – have been so thoroughly learnt that each page has been literally photographed by tens of thousands of minds in each generation.

Now what do these excised chunks say? It is clear that this “Ye-shy” existed. He is mentioned in an odd aside here or there in the great rolling debates. He was bitter about being rejected because he was not entirely committed to study. He is noted for winking at and some coarse behaviour with a certain maid in an inn and one or two other passing brief references.

Interestingly a 16th century commentary suggests that Ye-shay is that unknown student who argues in a famous Talmudic passage - that it is better to commit suicide by sharing a bottle of water in a desert – rather than the owner of the water - purely to survive - (albeit reluctantly) keeping the water for himself in order to reach the next oasis. Here the Talmud is dissecting morality and personal responsibility and whether absolutes apply. If a great scholar is present should he get the water or is the owner’s legal ownership of the water the only consideration. Is there a legal or moral requirement on him etc etc.

This is interesting because it reveals the dichotomy between Christianity’s nominal desire for “goodness” – share the water, man – and the strictures against suicide and using emotion - not logic in defining “duty” – It’s my vater, already. My vife, she pecked it mit der saltbeef sandwiches.

Ye-shy (possibly Jesus) existed. He was a scarcely mentioned student. He was used many years after his demise as a hook to hang Paul’s new Reformed Judaism on. Paul was a very clever Jewish boy who became the ultimate spin-doctor. His feel-good religion made no real demands except to be good. However badly you ate, thought, acted – as long as you were good to others and repented all was well. It was acceptable to all vaguely moral self –preservative societies – including the few non-barbaric Romans. This was as long as you could include some old pagan customs and torture and murder non-believers. It was soon appreciated as a powerful opiate for the masses.

There is not a shred of evidence of any of the claims of Jesus birth, life or death. The archaeology quoted simply indicates a settlement. Not one potsherd has been discovered vaguely suggested a charismatic character alive 1 – 30 CE . All the details are embarrassingly and fatally flawed because, whether virgin birth, resurrection, performing miracles, surviving without food for forty days, having unwitnessed discussions with a diety, etc etc, they appear in absolutely identical terms in connection with earlier minor gods, kings and messianic figures from the general middle east. In addition much is based on obvious mistranslations and is subject to contradiction within the canon. In December 1995 the Vatican’s famous letter renouncing the literal truth of the New Testament was a rare moment of honesty. The actual letter can be read in the original on the Gottlieb site.

The religion relies entirely on blind faith with no historic paper trail - except a contradictory one from the heretical Jews barbarically burnt for two millenia. Now if they're lying - why burn them and especially every trace of their lies in the Talmud written by contemporie? What was so dangerous about their version?

Do not pretend that any one has ever "Answered Jewish Objections to Jesus"

Toto

Hi PLOINY - welcome to the boards. Your link doesn't seem to have come through.

manwithdream

I like this Jewish anti-missionary site for the traditional Jewish anti-missionary arguments.

http://www.virtualyeshiva.com/counter-index.html

Sarai

Here's another good Jewish source site for anti-missionary info.

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/like-a-lion.html

manwithdream

Sarai,

Juergen originally asked for good links with information about Isaiah 53, not Psalm 22 "like a lion". I think Outreach Judaism has a lot of good information, but maybe he would have to listen to one of the recordings on that site. I have never heard any of them, but I have heard that they are very good.

Analyst

Do you reject the notion that Paul was a Greek, possibly an adult convert to Judaism, who came to reject it and, like Luther, Joseph Smith, L Ron Hubbard and many more, created a new religion on the foundations of a previous one?

Sarai

Thank you for pointing that out, manwithdream. I, too, like Outreach Judaism, but I mentioned Juergen's post to my daughter last night and she reminded me about her favorite site for anti-missionary efforts--messiahtruth.com . She's deeper in the thick of this sort of thing because she has a stepson who has often been targetted in his high school for Christian and "Jews for Jesus" conversion efforts. I haven't had to deal with it recently, so it may be that messiahtruth.com is more current. Here's a link to their article on the "suffering servant" passage...

http://www.messiahtruth.com/isai53a.html

Juergen, I hope you're able to find something helpful in your quest for info!

Warm regards,
Sarai