Talk:Isaiah 53

Orphaned thread

I Know you want to delete the text. But first, we should figure out a way to effectively link to wikisource. Any ideas? AdamBiswanger1 20:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Bob, I hate to keep bothering you and I appreciate everything you are doing, but I gotta disagree with you about removing the text from Isaiah 53. Not only does it make it infinetly easier to understand the article by having a side-by-side comparison, WP:NPS states "Some short texts such as short poems and national anthems are usually included in their article, e.g. Ozymandias". I think this is a short text, or at least borderline. I'm going to put it back. AdamBiswanger1 18:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am Jewish, and I viewed this page for the first time yesterday. As one may expect, I think the quality of this article is quite poor indeed. I plan to post a very different version within the next few days; I am declaring my intention to do so now. Big Mac

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaiah_53&diff=114320650&oldid=114320576 Do what you can, but be careful. Any contradiction of the Christian missionary lunatics will just get reverted within 2 minutes. Obviously, as Jews online, we must continue to suffer at the hands of Christians when we try to serve as a light unto nations and bring the truth of G_d's word to them. 72.74.110.248 16:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC) reply to "suffer" you sound like the suffering servant but it seems noteworthy that the rabbis in the article like Kuzari say the section refers to the nation and that such an interpretation is in conflict with the Rabbinic-Talmud bracot 5a that the verse refers to "a man" one person. They have abandoned their own talmud so it would not refer to one man can you guess why?

This page presents the Jewish position very poorly. It reminds of a passage I once read from the New Testament where Jesus "proves" to the Rabbis that one may shuck grain on Shabbat because David was once allowed to eat the Showbread. I'm not surprised that the Rabbis weren't allowed to answer in the new Testament, but I would think it might be different on Wikipedia. I'll see what I can do to make things better. --Eliyak T·C 14:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply to "Jews position poorly... Rabbis weren't allowed to answer" Kuzari does not count?

I disagree with the statement that "The earliest known example of a Jew and a Christian debating the meaning of Isaiah 53 is the example from 248 cited by Origen stated above." In actuality, the first such discussion that I am aware of occured between Justin Martyr and a Jewish man named Trypho, in approximately 161 AD. Examples include Chapters XIII and XXXII within his 'Dialogue With Trypho.' On that account, I believe this line should be corrected. 207.239.111.117 12:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

My Answer to the discussion above

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dannyza1981/Sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dannyza1981/Sandbox Dannyza1981 (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It`s useful to have the texts next to the dicussion.Andycjp (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe Dannyza1981 made other edits besides removing the text. If your only objection was the chapter removal, then your revert undid neutral edits. As for the specific issue of the text, wikipedia is not a primary source. We have wikitext for that (where we have various free bible translations). I would support removing the full text on the basis that it is not encyclopedic, and goes against WP:NOT to include such large quotations of primary sources. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Redo the article

I propose the following amendments:

1. Take out the quote of Isaiah 53 in the KJV and Judaica Press. This is an Encyclopedia, not a Christian Missionary debate. You don't need to have the full text, glaring at people if they want to research further, they can, in references and links. (This is also Andycjp's point.

2. The statement that reads: "Jewish and Christian scholars both agree that 52:13 is the natural beginning of the section...."

Is simply not true. http://www.betemunah.org/letters.html: The scroll is not divided into verses; but it has two kinds of divisions into chapters ("parashiyyot"), distinguished respectively as "petuchah" (open) and "setumah" (closed), the former being a larger division than the latter (Men. 32a). Maimonides describes the spaces to be left between successive chapters as follows: "The text preceding the Petuchah ends in the middle of the line, leaving a space of nine letters at the end of the line, and the petuchah commences at the beginning of the second line. If a space of nine letters can not be left in the preceding line, the petuchah commences at the beginning of the third line, the intervening line being left blank. The text preceding the setumah or closed parashah ends in the middle of the line, a space of nine letters being left, and the setumah commencing at the end of the same line. If there is no such space on the same line, leave a small space at the beginning of the second line, making together a space equal to nine letters, and then commence the setumah. In other words, always commence the petuchah at the beginning of a line and the setumah in the middle of a line" ("Yad," l.c. viii. 1, 2). Maimonides gives a list of all the petuchah and setumah parashiyyot as copied by him from an old manuscript in Egypt written by Ben Asher (ib. viii., end). Asheri explains the petuchah and setumah differently, almost reversing the method. The general practise is a compromise: the petuchah is preceded by a line between the end of which and the left margin a space of nine letters is left, and commences at the beginning of the following line; the setumah is preceded by a line closing at the edge of the column and commences at the middle of the next line, an intervening space of nine letters being left (Shulchan 'Aruch).

I propose that the paragraph be left as is, and the following paragraph added, to present the JEWISH position:

From a Jewish perspective, the Hebrew text itself comprises of open and closed spaces that mark of sections. The major section is the Petucha which starts at Isaiah 52:1 and ends at Isa 53:12 . There are intervening Setuma breaks throughout. These divide up the text. The servant song begins at 52:13 (following a Setuma break), again there is a break after Isaiah 52:15. From this alone, it is evident that Isaiah's overarching theme is expressed in Isaiah 52:1, and maybe extended until the end of Isaiah 53:12. This suggests that the servant song, is contextually placed as a reference to Israel. It should be noted that chapter numbering is a much more recent phenomenon, and has gone some alteration, since its conception. These were done firstly by Christians, and then later tentatively adopted by Jews. With this in mind, it is clear that if the whole of Isaiah 52-53 be regarded as a single chapter, rather than two individual chapters, the reference to a suffering Messiah is not at all contextual, or clearcut.

3. Judaism agrees that Isaiah 52:13 and 53:6 COULD refer to a Messiah - this Messiah is not a suffering Messiah, but is exalted. (Cf. 52:14-15).

Therefore I think the Jewish part of this article should be thus amended to:

Isaiah 53 in Rabbinic Sources

Technically, Isaiah 52:13 has been viewed as both Messianic and a reference to Israel. Given the overall context and comparison to the other servant songs, the simple meaning of the verses refers to Israel. More interpretative and esoteric interpretations that are midrashic in nature, consider its Messianic theme (see Targum Yonatan, for example). This is specifically on Isaiah 52:13, and possibly Isaiah 53:6. However, the simple meaning of the verses, is clearly a reference to Israel. Even Targum Yonatan agrees, in Isaiah 52:14-15. The Talmud and Medrashim are replete with allusions and references to the Messianic themes that are hinted to in these verses. The Talmud and Medrashic sources, do not reject the plain meaning, and the plain meaning does not reject the Messianic themes and elements portrayed here. The plain meaning is however, built on the simple meaning of the verses, and this, always has a preference in normative interpretation. This is not to deny the Messianic interpretation, but rather to place it as secondary to the main thrust of the interpretation. Rabbi Moshe Alshich said of the passage, "I may remark then, that our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah, and we ourselves shall adhere to the same view." In Christian church father Origen's Contra Celsus, written in the year 248, he writes of Isaiah 53:

Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies; to which my Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions bore reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations.

The Mahari Kara (R' Yosef Kara, a contemporary of Rashi in the 11th century C.E.) says the following on Isaiah 52:13 Behold My servant shall prosper: Israel My servant shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. And [according to] the teachings of our Rabbis: He [Israel] shall be more exalted than Abraham, as it is written: "I have raised my hand toward the L-rd..." [Gen 14:22]. He [Israel] shall be more lifted up than Moses, as it is written: "... as the nurse lifts up the suckling..." [Num 11:12]. And he [Israel] shall be higher than the ministering angels, as it is written: "And they had backs, and they were very high..." [Ezek 1:18].

The important point here is that Mahari Kara, a contemporary of Rashi, referred to "the teachings of our Rabbis", showing this idea of Israel being the servant in Isaiah 53.

Also, In the very first volume of the Talmud, Isaiah 53 is clearly assigned to Israel and the suffering of those involved with Torah, written close to 1000 years before Rashi, these ideas are said to be handed down orally from the Prophets themselves "If the Holy One, blessed be He, is pleased with a man, he crushes him with painful sufferings. For it is said: And the Lord was pleased with [him, hence] he crushed him by disease. Now, you might think that this is so even if he did not accept them with love. Therefore it is said: To see if his soul would offer itself in restitution. Even as the trespass-offering must be brought by consent, so also the sufferings must be endured with consent. And if he did accept them, what is his reward? He will see his seed, prolong his days. And more than that, his knowledge [of the Torah] will endure with him. For it is said: The purpose of the Lord will prosper in his hand.,...It has been taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai says: The Holy One, blessed be He, gave Israel three precious gifts, and all of them were given only through sufferings.. These are: The Torah, the Land of Israel and the world to come."

4. My citation to http://www.virtualyeshiva.com/counter/isaiah53a.swf and http://www.virtualyeshiva.com/counter/isaiah53b.swf Should help to clarify these points.

5. Mainstream Judaism understands that Isaiah 53 refers to the Nation of Israel because that is the simple meaning of the verses, based on context. Its not like Jews dreamed up this theory in the 11th Century, It is based solidly on the text. (this was cited above: Targum Yonatan, the Talmud (Berachos 5a) and Origen's statements all point to this.

6. This is evident from the Context (Isaiah 46, 48), and references in the Talmud (Berachos 5a)

7. I want to add the following two links at the end as additional external links: http://www.virtualyeshiva.com/counter/isaiah53a.swf http://www.virtualyeshiva.com/counter/isaiah53b.swf

Dannyza1981 (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information on the divisions. As for the current article I would remove the text and do a re-write of the information on the divisions, as a self-published muslim-apologist's site does not meet the standards for citations (though neither does a Jewish site). As for Isaiah 53 being about Israel, I would also present the other interpretations in the Talmud, not just the one which Reformed Judaism adheres to, as Reformed Judaism is in the minority, historically, of what the more ancient interpreters said about this secion; Jewish sources backing this up and affirming this (non-messianic) include, among others, the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 98b), the Midrash Ruth Rabbah, Targum Jonathan (explicitly translates it to mean Messiah), Zohar, Moses Maimonides, Rabbi Mosheh Kohen Ibn Crispin (who said "having forsaken the knowledge of our Teachers, and inclined after the `stubbornness of their own hearts,' and of their own opinion, I am pleased to interpret it, in accordance with the teaching of our Rabbis, of the King Messiah....This prophecy was delivered by Isaiah at the divine command for the purpose of making known to us something about the nature of the future Messiah, who is to come and deliver Israel, and his life from the day when he arrives at discretion until his advent as a redeemer, in order that if anyone should arise claiming to be himself the Messiah, we may reflect, and look to see whether we can observe in him any resemblance to the traits described here; if there is any such resemblance, then we may believe that he is the Messiah our righteousness; but if not, we cannot do so."); those are just a few. There are also some great Medieval sources of Rabbis rebuking the modernistic interpretations which contradict the older Jewish interpretative history, besides the fact that saying this passage is of Israel contradicts the other scriptures in the Tanakh: it’s just poor scholarship, or perhaps I should say inattentive reading. No offense. Whenever studies are done by reading this passage to kids in Israel, or in public, the Jews themselves say "it's of Jesus"...till you tell them it's from the TANAKH.

And so it’s in the open I am a Christian…but one who appreciate the Jewish history and heritage (being myself of that stock and thankful for it).

And just so I'm not putting-out unbacked claims of "poor scholarship", if this passage was of Israel it could not say the suffering servant said nothing: Israel has always groaned under oppression and persecution--why not? The suffering servant is sinless...Judah is as Sodom and Jerusalem as a harlot (Isaiah). The sufferer not only is a sin-offering (Heb., English is usually "atoned for") but does this for "my people" (the prophet's), who are "my [the prophet's] people"? Israel: the passage is not about Israel, which is plain by just reading the thing in its own context. The list goes on and on.

I propose this article should show the ancient interpretations from Jewish sources, being considerate of the literary devices and references as well, first, before the apologetic-polemic: the older interpretations are more consistent and better adhere to the text, not what polemicists try to read into it. I think it should also, then, present the other views, (NPOV). It's just more honest, and balanced. [note the four tildes never give my screen name, "The Research Persona", only :

tooMuchData

21:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I know this was posted a long time ago, but I would like to comment on this, one Ibn Crispin, did not identify Isaiah 53 as the Christian missionaries say, and too he is in fact not notable in Judiaism. Ibn Crispin said the following about Isaiah 53, '

I have here transcribed an exposition of this Parsha; perhaps an answer may be found in it against the heretics who interpret it of Jsus. It is my intention to keep myself continually at the doors of the learned; and so far as my ability can command, I shall follow the saying of our Rabbis, '"And know how to answer the Apikorus." though it does not seem to me to be right or permissible to apply the prophecy to the King Messiah... it must, in fact, be referred either to Israel as a whole, or to Jeremiah.'

Also your claim that Sanhedrin 98b identifies Isaiah 53 as refering to the Messiah is wrong. Sanhedrin 98b discusses the "leper scholar" and it makes a JOKE about the messiah (quoting Isaiah 53). Again, Sanhedrin 98b is one of those "quotes" the Chrstians USE to prove the rabbis said Isaiah 53 was about the messiah.

The rabbis ask each other what is the messiahs name? And they have various answer. The one that gets the apologists all excited is the one that jokingly says:

The Rabbis said: His name is 'the leper scholar,' as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of G-d, and afflicted.

I love how you get to decide that they are joking based on your presupposition, namely that the afflicted of ISA 53.--Teacherbrock (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

e.g. נגע neh'-gah

From H5060; a blow (figuratively infliction); also (by implication) a spot (concretely a leprous person or dress): - plague, sore, stricken, stripe, stroke, wound. That is we, the Jewish people, esteemed him נגע which the rabbis did in tractate San98b. The rabbis unknowingly, and in writing, how they esteemed Yeshua. Either they are confirming that the suffering servant would be esteemed נגע or as you interpret they are 'joking' about Mashiach as calling Him נגע --Teacherbrock (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The leper scholar was a real person who shows up time and again in Talmud. This statement is a joke where the rebbes are saying hey, maybe it was THIS guy. Read 'Margulious HaYom' by Rabbi Reuven Margolious. 2 page 81 paragraph #16 where he says:

Rebbi had a exceptional student who taught a chapter of the work of the chariot without the permission of his Rabbi, and he was stricken with leprosy. This student who was stricken with leprosy was called 'the leper of the house of Rebbi'"

The discussion continues beyond this point with one rabbi saying this will be the name of the messiah and another saying, no THIS is the name of the messiah. The bandy about David, Daniel, Moses, Haninah and others. The leper scholar is just another in a long laundry list and again is aggudah. . . NOT something to be taken literally.

In the preceding paragraph R' Hillel says that the Messiah has already came, and it was Hezekiah !

So in Sanhedrin 98b the reference of Isaiah 53 is simply part of a speculative discussion among the Ravs. Shabbat Shalom.

Rabbis have never identified Isaiah 53 as refering to the Messiah read Messiahtruth.yuku.com

Christian apologists argue such by misquoting rabbis, taking a small sections of texts out of its context, or by simply fabricating quotes.

Then let he who has eyes read and a mind understand. Read it for yourself.

(Sanhedrin 98b Soccino Ed. ) --Teacherbrock (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

--13:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with tooMuchData. I only want to add that the standard Christian interpretation of the Suffering Servant is that he is Jesus Christ, as we find in Acts 8:32-35, where the authority is apostolic. Acts 8:32-33 is a direct quote of Isaiah 53:7-8. Dannyza1981's reference to the opinion of a well-known Christian apostate like Origen about Isaiah 53 is a straw-man argument and thus without merit; it is comparable to relying upon a mere rabbi's opinion for support and ignoring the published, contradictory opinion of Moses.

One cannot avoid controversy with this article. It should therefore include a dialogue between those who maintain that the Suffering Servant is Israel and those who maintain that the Suffering Servant is Jesus Christ. The polemics should be respectful and allow development of the two views. There probably needs to be a separate discussion area for each of the two views so that consensus can be achieved for each polemic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.125.232 (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that the rabbinicals in here get to decide when several hundred year old quotes written in the Talmud are jokes or their normal not very informative disagreements. Or is the joke that they actually agree in the summary and final thought on the matter? Because the rabbis in their normal argumentative banter actually come to an agreement as it is said "The Rabbis say, The Leper Scholar, as it is said, `surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God and afflicted...'" --Teacherbrock (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"The Messiah --what is his name?...The Rabbis say, The Leper Scholar, as it is said, `surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God and afflicted...'" (Sanhedrin 98b Soccino Ed. ) --Teacherbrock (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The Talmud also "records" a supposed discourse between the great Rabbi Joshua ben Levi and the prophet Elijah. The rabbi asks "When will the Messiah come?" And "By what sign may I recognize him?" Elijah tells the rabbi to go to the gate of the city where he will find the Messiah sitting among the poor lepers. The Messiah, says the prophet, sits bandaging his leprous sores one at a time, unlike the rest of the sufferers, who bandage them all at once. Why? Because he might be needed at any time and would not want to be delayed. Elijah says he will come "Today, if you will listen to his voice." (Sanhedrin 98a)

There is also a strange story about the Baal Shem Tov, founder of the Hasidic movement. One day the rabbi was riding with a young student. He stopped his wagon at the hut of an old leper, horribly affected by the disease. The rabbi climbed down and spent a great deal of time with the poor man. When he returned to the wagon and recommenced his journey, the puzzled student asked the rabbi who it was that the rabbi had visited with. The rabbi replied that in every generation there is a Messiah who will reveal himself if the generation is worthy. The leper he had been meeting with was that Messiah, but the generation was not worthy, so the Messiah would depart. (Quoted in The Messiah Texts, by Raphael Patai, page 31.)--Teacherbrock (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

References

Wikitexts

The Chapter Isaiah 53, needs to be in wikitexts I took it out. Also, technically, the issue begins at Isaiah 52:13 for Christians and for Jews Isaiah 52 and ends at the end of Isaiah 53. Readers should be referred to wikitexts to form their own conclusions. Dannyza1981 (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

New Changes

I think the citation of Christian Scholars about the earliest reference to their position in the Talmud, needs to go in the section entitled theories against the nation of Israel.

Also I added in a reference to Psalm 44, which adds weight to the Israel theory.

I want to change the reference to the Talmud as being neither against or for....

Dannyza1981 (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've moved your post to the bottom. Do you have a citation you could add to a scholar who uses Ps. 44 to support the Israel theory? Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

POV Tag

• I added the POV tag because this article doesn't seem very objective to me. For instance, there is a lot of Jewish rebuttal of Christian perspectives. Also the Jewish scholars "tell us" while the Christian "argue". It seems more reasonable to have a section titled "Jewish Interpretation" and a section titled "Christian Interpretation". All the rebuttal arguments should be left out as they develop into spiritual tit-for-tat and leads to a lower quality article. Wikipedia is not the place for either Christian or Jewish proselytizing. It also seem unlikely that either the Christian or Jewish interpretations are monolithic and there may be more interpretations available in each of those traditions. Kevin Rector (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Wrong, Jews have always identified Isaiah 53 as Israel, just by looking at the fact that Jeremiah, the Psalms, and Isaiah all use the same formula of referring to Israel as the servant, also there are grammatical issues if one identifies Isaiah 53 as the messiah and not Israel. The article is not POV, the articles shows why most Christians think Isaiah 53 isn't Israel and the messiah, and why all Jews think Isaiah can't be the messiah and must be Israel. That is reasonable. An article should show both sides, which it does. --Java7837 (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not arguing against what Jews teach. There are also Christians who believe this. The point isn't what one group or person says or the other. The article does show both sides but in an imbalanced way that's why it has the POV tag. Kevin Rector (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Also your criticism to rebuttals I think makes no sense, if a Christian, members of religion dating almost 2,000 years after the birth of Judaism, says ... is what a Jewish prophet meant, it makes sense to show why Jews do not accept that interpretation. I think you are not thinking this true, if a Mormon says a certain verse in the NT predicts Joseph Smith, it would be reasonable to show why Christians do not accept the Mormon's interpretation because of say grammatical problems, and the same formula appearing in the NT meaning say the Holy Spirit, or John the Baptist. --Java7837 (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• I concur with Kevin Rector on this one. A simple word count of the sections expounding a/the Jewish view in the Talmud (written centuries after the NT) versus the scant section on the Christian interpretation(s) will suffice to make the point that this article is extremely imbalanced, in form and in substance. Points regarding what the Mormon religion may or may not claim are irrelevant; the article ought to be factual, fair and not misleading rather than designed to lead to a particular conclusion. --Unknown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.90.254 (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. The POV is smothering. This article needs to be rewritten. A billion people read it one way, 5M read it the other way, and somehow the billion should be a footnote with a smiley face next to it?! Someone be bold and fix it, rather than 7 more years of talk page...--Mrcolj (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• WP:DEM. If you believe in the inerrancy of the Christian Bible and critically examine OT prophecies about Jesus, you risk becoming a Christian apostate. If you are a liberal Christian you will say that Jesus is the Messiah is a strictly Christian belief, with no basis in the OT. Isaiah 53 is prima facie a prophecy about Jesus, that is if you don't read more than one chapter. But other so-called prophecies about Jesus fare much worse. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not Christian vs. Jewish

My main problem with this article is that it proposes with scant references to support it to say that one view is Christian and is what "Christians" support while contending that another view is Jewish. It is not a Christian vs. Jewish argument. The only source listed to present the "Christian" argument comes from a single web page of one Fred Klett - whoever that is. There are reputable Christian scholars who view the servant as Israel (for example http://www.crivoice.org/isa53.html which was written by a Christian Ph.D. in OT Dennis Bratcher). This whole thing should be redone as it is currently not very good.Kevin Rector (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC) This is an amazingly simplistic and error-filled article. It desperately needs to be rewritten from an academic perspective. As it now stands it is worthless.Toroid (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a first time reader of this article. I can't vouch for the Jewish position on this, but I can wholeheartedly say that it doesn't explain Christian messianic interpretations of the text very well, nor does it rebut the Jewish idea that this text refers to the nation of Israel. I'd like to see a bit more from a Christian apologetic viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.176.44 (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Like these? [2] [3] [4] [5]Daniel1212 (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Isaiah 53

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Isaiah 53's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceA":

• From Dominican Order: Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "St. Dominic"
• From Jesus: "John, Gospel of St." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
• From Prophet: Isaiah (Commentary), John Goldingay, Hendrickson, 2001
• From Book of Isaiah: "Servant Songs." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
• From Dead Sea Scrolls: John C. Trever. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Gorgias Press LLC, 2003

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect assertion about Christian version

I removed this paragraph from the Versions section, because it is not sourced, and is contrary to my own observation. ...quote... The Christian "Man of Sorrows" passage of Isaiah 53 is a selected text that usually omits those characteristics of the human scapegoat for the sins of Israel that are not applicable directly to Jesus, or that can only be applied through allegory, such as "he is as a root in a thirsty land: he has no form nor comeliness; and we saw him, but he had no form nor beauty. But his form was ignoble, and inferior to that of the children of men." (Septuagint version) ...end quote... The passage copied here is not omitted from the New International Version (c) 1984 by the International Bible Society.

Elliot Svensson mr.svensson@gmail.com 4/23/2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.41.48.251 (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit referencing D.F. Payne

Several edits have been made along the lines of inserting the following into the article:

While the nature of this song continues to present difficulties in interpretation among theologians, the best explanation for the Christian theologian's view of the Suffering Servant as the Messiah, Jesus Christ, is to place the context of this particular passage within the greater context of the nature of Scripture being a metanarrative. In light of God's overall plan of redemption for His people, the Messiah as God's Suffering Servant is a viable interpretation.

with a reference to "Payne, D.F. 'The Servant of the Lord: Language and Interpretation,' The Evangelical Quarterly 43 (July-September 1971): 143" There are some issues with this edit that need to be addressed:

• It is not clear that D.F. Payne is an authoritative enough source for this. I was only able to find Payne cited by one other source. Please establish that Payne is an authority or find a more authoritative source.
• I read the work by Payne and the suggested edit does not appear to summarize Payne accurately. The suggested content appears to suffer from WP:OR

Please discuss this edit before attempting to insert it again. Cheers.. Zad68 20:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

POV Check February 2013

Nothing seems to have happened regarding POV for a while, so I've asked for the article to be checked. I agree with what has previously been said about a bias towards the Jewish interpretation of this passage, which is of great significance for both Christians and Jews, not to mention part of both their Holy Books. There is a big imbalance of discussion of the two interpretations, and the Jewish one uses language such as 'proves' which is totally inappropriate (and untrue!) in this context.

Since this has been an ongoing discussion, and since it has been revisited several times since the original POV point was made, most recently in August 2012, I feel justified on adding an additional POV tag to acknowledge this dispute. Aiyda (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Poorly written, biased, polemic article

The article simply leads the reader by having the reader believe that the "suffering servant" in Isaiah 53 is synonymous with the nation of Israel. While this is one conclusion the reader could draw, it is nowhere stated in the chapter itself, and in fact some of the wording seems to indicate the text is indeed referring to an individual and NOT to an entire nation.

Isaiah 53:8 - By oppression and judgment he was taken away, and with his generation who did reason? for he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due.

The text appears to indicate that this was an individual who was cut off out of the land of the living, as a SUBSTITUTE for the people of Israel.

Moreover, the reference to the redemption of the people of Israel in the preceding chapter, 52(as opposed to suffering and cutting off of the servant in Chapter 53) appears to directly contradict the prevailing interpretation of the article that Israel is the suffering servant that gets cut off out of the land of the living:

Isaiah 52:9 - Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem; for the LORD hath comforted His people, He hath redeemed Jerusalem.

By contrast, a preceding verse is making a clear reference to an individual, and not to a group:

Isaiah 52:7 - How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger of good tidings, that announceth peace, the harbinger of good tidings, that announceth salvation; that saith unto Zion: 'Thy God reigneth!'

There are also clear uses of the term "My servant" by Isaiah, which clearly refer to an individual. One such instance refers to himself (Isaiah 20:3), another to Eliakim (Isaiah 22:20), and another to David (Isaiah 37:35).

Another example where "My servant" is clearly being used for an individual in contradistinction to the people Israel is Isaiah 49:5-6 -

5. And now saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be His servant, to bring Jacob back to Him, and that Israel be gathered unto Him--for I am honourable in the eyes of the LORD, and my God is become my strength--

6. Yea, He saith: 'It is too light a thing that thou shouldest be My servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the offspring of Israel; I will also give thee for a light of the nations, that My salvation may be unto the end of the earth.'

Am I saying that this is indeed the intended interpration of Isaiah 53? By no means. But by the way this article is written at the moment, it stacks the deck in favor of one interpration, and leads the reader into adopting its conclusions through a series of polemics, omissions, and fallacies.

JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.149 (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Unreadable

As someone who just came to get some info about this passage, I found this article totally unreadable. It's confusing, filled with statements and language that presume you have some pre-existing knowledge, and was generally unhelpful in helping me learn more about the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.190.116 (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isaiah 53. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080505020728/http://www.tmtestimony.org.uk/library/2000_3.htm to http://www.tmtestimony.org.uk/library/2000_3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060108184309/http://www.uhcg.org/suffering-servant/The-Servant-vs-jc.html to http://www.uhcg.org/suffering-servant/The-Servant-vs-jc.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

For anyone who has access to Coogan's Introduction

If anyone has access to the Introduction by Coogan, I'm curious how much of the material in the second paragraph in the "Fourth servant song" section is actually sourced to it. My suspicion is that the paragraph probably needs to be rewritten to match what the source says. Alephb (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

2022 Need for Rewriting

As I review this article, I note three key things:

• Since 2008, this article has been criticized as needing a total rewrite
• A major rewrite was made in 2013 by a user who is now banned from Wikipedia
• The 2013 rewrite, which survives in substantial form in 2022, is deficient in many ways.

In my opinion, the article's current deficiencies include:

• The goal of the article, as currently written, is to disprove the Christian position and to portray Jewish unanimity on the chapter (which is an inaccurate portrayal). The article should not prove or disprove a major religious interpretation, but rather describe in neutral POV what the history of interpretation has been: Pre-Christian, Post-Christian, Hellenistic Jewish, Patristic, Talmudic, Medieval Jewish, Medieval Christian, and modern positions
• The article ignores the Parting of the Ways and its influence on the topic. For example, the Talmudic, Mishnaic, and Zohar quotes in the current article were all written in a post-Christian context where Jewish authorities were attempting to distance themselves from the monolithic Christian interpretation. This dynamic needs to be illustrated chronologically.
• Poor use of sources. Non-reputable and non-academic sources should not be cited as authorities. Quotes from rabbinic sources ought to be sourced from Sefaria (if available) and not quoted in full unless necessary. Modern academic journals and published works from reputable sources should be cited.
• The article ignores pre-Talmudic Jewish sources, early patristic sources (such as Justin), and gives substandard sections for the New Testament and medieval Jewish commentators. In contrast, the Talmud, Midrash, and Zohar (especially) are given a lopsided weight.
• No mentions of Jewish interpretations outside of the national interpretation are included. The history of this article's revisions shows that these references have been deleted repeatedly. This is more evidence of POV bias.
• The Jewish-Christian relations section makes an incorrect opening statement (ignores Dialogue with Trypho, for example) and seems to be written only to convince the reader of the passage's use in antisemitism.

In response to these things, I again call for a total rewrite of this article. Because this article has not received an adequate rewrite in a decade, I am planning to do it myself. I will organize the article as a history-of-interpretation summary that is chronologically organized, rather than organized in a sectarian way. I will attempt to address each of the deficiencies listed above, giving a neutral-as-possible bird's eye overview of Jewish and Christian interpretations on the chapter. Bcrawford92 (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Indisputable evidence

There is no indisputable evidence that any part of Isaiah was written after the prophets lifetime—I mean: how would such evidence conceivably look like? There can be no such empirical text disclosing it for a fact. It is all a matter of epistemology, not one of finding a magical manuscript which would prove the claim.

Mainstream historians do not accept real predictive prophecy, so the view I have reverted is WP:PROFRINGE. The historical method razes predictive prophecies with Occam's razor. The existence of predictive prophecies is a matter of metaphysics or theology, not one of epistemology (there are no such things as supernatural prophecies in epistemology).

There is no proof that the book of Daniel was re-written to align with times of the Maccabees—quite correct: in ancient history and archaeology there are no proofs like in mathematics and physics. But the unanimous verdict of historians and Bible scholars from the Ivy League is that the Book of Daniel was written in the 160s BCE.

Stated otherwise: proof is for math and whisky.

Wikipedia is not "neutral" between history and pseudohistory.

There are some data whereupon all mainstream Bible scholars toe the same line. They choose for the historical method over fideism. Don't get me wrong: it is okay to choose for fideism if you're doing theology, but that is wrong if you're doing history.

Pastorfish makes the mistake of thinking that for us there is in this matter any other authority than mainstream, present-day historians. They judge the arguments, they evaluate the evidence, not us (Wikipedians).

While there is a credible minority view that Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah are the same person (which simply got wiser a decade later), the existence of Deutero-Isaiah is as Dumuzid stated, pretty much uncontested in the mainstream academia. And I won't split hairs if Deutero-Isaiah is one or more persons. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

"that the Book of Daniel was written in the 160s BCE." True, but irrelevant. What does the Book of Daniel have to do with the Book of Isaiah? Dimadick (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It was a point about allowing for supernatural prophecies vs. dating according to the historical method.

Not concerned with what the truth is and even less concerned with what Wikipedia editors think the truth is. There is no need to go deeper into this matter than that, since anything claimed to be truth on Wikipedia pages is, first and foremost, a Wikipedian's opinion about what the truth is. If that Wikipedian can justify it by citing reliable sources, we are back to the original modus operandi: citing reliable sources. Can we stop this philosophical excursion please? The deliberations of philosophers about absolute truth, or the deliberations of Wikipedians on those deliberations, are pretty irrelevant to the question of what to write about Bryant G. Wood. Which is the purpose of this page. Just this: we describe the current scientific consensus and not any future scientific consensus because we do not know what that one will be. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

And if you don't want your editing to be limited by the Wikipedia community's particular goals and methods and decisions, the good news is that there's plenty of other outlets for your work, like perhaps Conservapedia, or getting a personal blog. At the end of the day, Wikipedia really is the private project of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is, roughly, a service that provides summaries of the contents of mainstream scholarship, in the specific sense that "mainstream scholarship" has here at Wikipedia. It's really not an experiment in treating all views equally, and if you think it is, you're likely to wind up frustrated. Alephb (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)