My source is a book on the shroud of Turin written in French by a French historian named Jean-Christian Petit-fils. Roy has offered an interesting link that corroborates Petitfils point that the shroud was woven in ancient rather than medieval times.
Isaiah 53 is about the new Israel. We don’t know who wrote Daniel or for that matter any of the other books in the Bible. Pseudepigrapha” is the literary category of Daniel. We know the book was written during the time of Antiochus, around 167 BC and completed before 164 BC. However, Daniel is crafted as if it had been written centuries earlier. We have to understand that Daniel was written for a Jewish audience who correctly interpreted it as an apocalypse concerning the destruction of Jerusalem. But to Christians Daniel had accurately predicted the rise of Antiochus centuries earlier so his prophecy about the Son of Man was sure to be fulfilled soon. This misunderstanding led to and to this day still leads to false expectations.
That’s not necessary. Isa 53 being about the Hebrew people wouldn’t stop ‘Matthew’ from using it as a ‘prophesy’.
Hi Roy
Since Isaiah the author is Hebrew who do you think “he” is in these passages of Isaiah 53?
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.
It’s clearly not about Jesus, since it’s past tense and was written before Jesus was born. Though additional context might change that.
But my opinion is irrelevant. ‘Matthew’ could have treated it as a ‘prophecy’ regardless of what it actually meant.
1 Like
Here is some additional context from Isaiah 11 about a coming Messiah and his nature. Rabbi Singer agrees this passage is Messianic. A person similar to Isaiah 53 yet written in the present tense.
A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;
from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
2 The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him—
the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and of might,
the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the Lord—
3 and he will delight in the fear of the Lord.
Some relevant context:
3 He was despised and rejected by others;
a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity,
and as one from whom others hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him of no account.
Jesus supposedly was a very popular preacher - I find that hard to reconcile with the above verse (immediately preceding the quoted material)
Actually that prophecy is in the perfect tense, and the Isaiah 53 prophecy is in the imperfect tense. IIRC those are the only two tenses of biblical Hebrew, it doesn’t have a future tense (correct me if I’m wrong @AllenWitmerMiller). Even the perfect tense was used in prophecies of the future (Prophetic perfect tense - Wikipedia), so the tense of either Isa. 11 or 53 shouldn’t matter.
1 Like
I don’t recall the studies off the top of my head. I’ll see if I can go dig one up I remember coming across a few years ago, but as far as I know the result is actually pretty solid. I don’t know whether it holds for religiosity more generally, but for example in the Danish population people who self-describe as being Christians have shown lower incidences of stress-related illnesses, suicide and depression, etc.
The results seem to hold even when factors already known to reduce such incidences are controlled for, such as being active in the community, having a spouse and have friends and a healthy social life, job, do sports, yadda-yadda. In other words, there are presumably protective effects simply from the belief itself that “does something” to relieve stressors in the lives of believers.
I honestly see no reason to doubt the result. Why shouldn’t genuine belief that some cosmic being is looking out for you, is on your side, and has some ultimate plan for you, and possibly even give you some hope that things will get better after you die, even if you’re presently met with adversity, illness, or whatever, have some comforting effect on your mental health, that reduces overall incidences of stress-related illnesses etc?
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
Well…as I often frustrate my Q&A audiences: “The answer is complicated.”
Considering that I’m coming up on a half century since grad school, I’m less and less qualified to answer such questions. But here’s some general help on the two-tenses-in-Hebrew question.
(1) I posed the question “Does biblical hebrew have only two tenses?” to Google’s “AI overviews” and it summarized my thoughts fairly well:
Biblical Hebrew has two tenses: past and future. However, not all Biblical scholars agree that Biblical Hebrew has a tense category.
The Hebrew verb system uses patterns to help conjugate verbs. These patterns are generally followed strictly, with few exceptions.
“Vav + prefix conjugation” has the meaning of a past, particularly in a narrative context. “Vav + suffix conjugation” has the meaning of a non-past, opposite from normal (non-vav) usage.
(2) There’s a helpful article on Researchgate.net by Piotr Wojcik:
… where the abstract says:
The study will explain and describe the tense category of verbs in Biblical Hebrew, a category whose existence is not confirmed by all Biblical scholars, yet its presence cannot be underestimated. Taking into account that Biblical Hebrew had only two tenses: past and future, the process of translation of these tenses is an interpretation, because it is not possible to apprehend the original notion of the inspired writers and exhibit it in contemporary languages. The research will be conducted on the Book of Psalms taken from the Hebrew Old Testament with Interlinear Latin published in 1609 in Antwerp. It is one of the oldest Hebrew Bibles available, therefore its Hebrew text is allegedly the most reliable. The purpose of the research will be to compare tense categories of Hebrew verbs to the ways in which they were presented and “interpreted” in four most common English translations of the Psalter based on the original Biblical language. What is more the research will try to find a solution to the problem of understanding the Biblical language and text.
You can download the entire article as a PDF.
(3) I studied under a prominent Hebrew scholar who was also a rabbi. That experience together with my experiences working with linguistics graduate students and with SIL/Wycliffe staff left me leaning towards the “Biblical Hebrew doesn’t really have verbal tenses in the conventional sense” camp. I like this summary from Hebrew Tenses | Biblical Hebrew
The name ‘tenses’ as applied to Hebrew verbs is misleading. The so-called Hebrew ‘tenses’ do not express the time but merely the state of an action. Indeed were it not for the confusion that would arise through the application of the term ‘state’ to both nouns and verbs,’states’ would be a far better designation than ‘tenses.’ It must always be borne in mind that it is impossible to translate a Hebrew verb into English without employing a limitation (viz. of time) which is entirely absent in the Hebrew. The ancient Hebrews never thought of an action as past, present, or future, but simply as perfect , i.e. complete, or imperfect , i.e. as in course of development. When we say that a certain Hebrew tense corresponds to a Perfect, Pluperfect, or Future in English, we do not mean that the Hebrews thought of it as Perfect, Pluperfect, or Future, but merely that it must be so translated in English. The time of an action the Hebrews did not attempt to express by any verbal form.
If you find this topic difficult, don’t feel bad. I still find it challenging the longer it has been since I was immersed in Hebrew. (When immersed in it, one starts thinking more in a “Hebrew mindset” and it becomes more obvious. But the moment one has to do translation into English, it basically forces one to impose on the Hebrew text what wasn’t really in the Hebrew mind of the original author(s). They just weren’t “temporally oriented” in the same ways we are as westerners.)
[Yes, this thread was closed automatically after 7 days of inactivity but I superseded that restriction just so @misterme987’s question wouldn’t be left hanging. It’s a good question.]
1 Like
Hi @AllenWitmerMiller, thanks for the answer! Are the oracles in Isaiah 11 and (Deutero-)Isaiah 53 in the perfect or imperfect ‘tense’ (to use an apparently inexact term, sorry, I don’t know how better to ask this)? And what are the implications for whether these oracles were seen as fulfilled, or yet to be fulfilled, by the prophet?
Here’s a tool you will enjoy. [I was actually heavily involved in the grammatical tagging of the Hebrew Masoretic Text database upon which these types of tools are derived.]
https://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/11-1.htm
Noticed that both for Isaiah 11 and Isaiah 53 there are both perfect and imperfect verbs involved! (Because most people call it “tense”, I’m not bothered by the term. However, I do like the suggested term “state” as an alternative.)
I am far (very far) from being an expert on this question but my inclination is that our hermeneutics should not necessarily be distracted by the consideration of perfect-vs.-imperfect in determining fulfilment. (It’s a very good question to consider—but I’m just not so sure the answer is determinative of much. That’s just my non-expert opinion on this.)
Of course, depending on one’s school of thought in terms of scripture inspiration, there is ALSO the possibility that the author was unaware of the full implications of his words. Thus, under that point of view, a prophet may have had his mind focused entirely on imminent fulfillment and everything contextualized to his own time period—but the prophetic words would eventually have a second meaning and fulfilment in some future context. (Isaiah 7:14 is one of the examples typically cited.)
My career was focused on “exegetical precision”, so to speak, but because of how language works (and seeing far too bad examples of “squeezing” every diatom of language elements to the maximum degree), I am always cautious about “over-exegeting.” Indeed, we could carefully dissect a text from another culture and language and then ask a bilingual native speaker if we got it right with Interpretation X—and they will far too often answer, “Nah. It doesn’t mean X at all. You misunderstood that it is an idiom/hyperbole/play-on-words/simple-simile/whatever!” Of course, we can’t easily do that with an ancient language (i.e., ask a native speaker) so we must use extra caution. Indeed, sometimes the answer from the native speaker might have been, “Oh, that’s just a more poetic way to state Y” or “The author alternated the synonym choice or the verb tense or the type of possessive-form simply for stylistic reasons of avoiding boring repetition.” (An example of the latter might be the “Do you love me?”/“Feed my sheep” dialogue between Jesus and Peter. I’ve heard entire sermons on it but when I got to grad school various Bible scholars said "It may just be ‘elegant variation’, avoiding overuse of the same word while emphasizing a concept.)
These are very worthwhile topics, especially for first year seminary students getting acclimated to exegesis of ancient languages. Wish we had a bigger readership for topics like this. I know I wish I could have known more about these topics as an undergrad.
1 Like
Hi @AllenWitmerMiller @Rumraket @misterme987 @Paul_King @colewd and @Roy,
In my post, I quoted from the works of three scholars (Rabbi Tovia Singer, Dr. Dan McClellan and Professor Bart Ehrman). I’ve invited them to join the discussion if they wish to do so.
Some readers have attempted to justify the argument from prophecy on the grounds that even if the human authors of Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 did not have the Messiah in mind while composing those passages, God (Who inspired them) might have intended that meaning. I have to say that this is an argument from mere possibility, rather than an argument based on probability. Moreover, the argument proves too much: it would render any Biblical text potentially Messianic.
I’d like to ask: what positive reasons do we have for supposing that Psalm 22 or Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus? And what do readers make of Isaiah 53:3, which appears to depict the servant as a leper?
Hi @vjtorley, thanks for bringing this up!
I actually just undertook my own study of the Isaianic servant songs over the past couple of weeks, and although I went into it thinking that the servant was most likely Israel, I now think these oracles are probably Messianic. The author draws a number of important distinctions between Israel as “servant” and the “servant” of the songs. Most notably, the guilt of Israel and the justice of her punishment is repeatedly established throughout Isa 40-55, whereas the Servant is righteous and his punishment is unjust. The Servant is not called “messiah,” but he’s equated with the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant and presented as a ‘second Moses’ figure, which accords with contemporary Messianic expectation.
Deutero-Isaiah is an Exilic or early post-Exilic collection of oracles written to the exiled people of Israel, exhorting them to return home. At this time, one of the main theological questions was how and when the Davidic covenant would be restored (cf. Psalm 89:34-51). Thus it makes a lot of sense that he would address this concern specifically.
My attempt at exegesis of the servant songs is attached below. Ignore the “later interpretation” sections as they deal with how the songs were interpreted by the authors of the NT, rather than exegesis of the actual servant songs.
Isaiah’s servant songs exegesis.pdf (167.8 KB)
That being said, I don’t think this is a good argument for the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. Isa 53 was only fulfilled by Jesus if he was resurrected, so it’s a circular argument to use it as evidence for the resurrection.
I don’t know about Psalm 22.
1 Like
I don’t find Psalm 22 at all convincing. It’s not obviously predictive, and it seems far more likely to me that the similarities with the Gospels are due to the Gospel stories being derived from the Psalm rather than any predictive power.
Isaiah 53 is not as bad, but still falls short of being convincing. I think that there may well be the same issue of deriving the stories from older scripture with that, too (I do wonder if the Empty Tomb story started there). It doesn’t help that the meaning is less than clear.
WRT the title, conclusions tend to be supported by evidence, not by arguments.
1 Like
Bart Ehrman rightly notes that Isaiah chapter 53 doesn’t explicitly identify the ‘suffering servant’ as the Messiah. Ehrman uses Isaiah 49:3 as evidence to support his argument that the servant referred to in the passage is Israel. However, he overlooks a significant point: in the same chapter, there is another entity referred to as “my servant,” distinct from ‘Jacob/Israel.’ See verses 5 and 6 of chapter 49. How do we discern that this servant in verses 5 and 6 is different from ‘Jacob/Israel’? It’s because Yahweh entrusts this servant with the task of bringing ‘Jacob/Israel’ back to God.
However, the identity of this servant is also not explicitly mentioned. I’m not going to argue that the ‘servant’ mentioned in verses 5 & 6 is the Messiah. What’s important to note is that the title “my servant” is applied to multiple entities, not exclusively to ‘Jacob/Israel.’
Now, let’s examine Isaiah chapter 53. The ‘suffering servant’ in that chapter is portrayed as an innocent and righteous individual who willingly accepts punishment and suffering for sins he did not commit. His sufferings are not in vain but serve to heal others. Therefore, both the servant and God Yahweh allow this suffering to occur, leading to the servant being “cut off from the land of the living.”
(Compare this with Daniel 9:26,27, where it stated that “the Messiah will be cut off”)
The above depictions cannot be attributed to the nation of Israel because whenever God permitted Israel to suffer, it was due to the Israel’s sinful ways. In addition to that, Israel’s “wounds” wouldn’t “heal” others.
1 Like
Hi @misterme987 , @Midhun ,
Thank you for your comments. I’d like to make a couple of general observations:
-
It’s unwise to comment on a passage in the Hebrew Bible without first looking at the Jewish translation (e.g. JPS). It’s also a good idea to check what Jewish commentaries have to say on the passage (e.g. Rashi’s commentary).
-
Be especially careful of pronouns, as different translations often have different pronouns.
Who is speaking (“we”) in this part of the song? It isn’t Yahweh or the Servant, so it
must be the prophet himself speaking on behalf of a group of people.
There’s another possibility, as Rabbi Tovia Singer points out: the kings of the nations mentioned at the end of Isaiah 52.
Ehrman uses Isaiah 49:3 as evidence to support his argument that the servant referred to in the passage is Israel. However, he overlooks a significant point: in the same chapter, there is another entity referred to as “my servant,” distinct from ‘Jacob/Israel.’ See verses 5 and 6 of chapter 49. How do we discern that this servant in verses 5 and 6 is different from ‘Jacob/Israel’? It’s because Yahweh entrusts this servant with the task of bringing ‘Jacob/Israel’ back to God.
If you look at Rashi’s commentary on Isaiah 49, you’ll see that he interprets this individual as the prophet himself - i.e. Isaiah, who is entrusted with the task of bringing Israel back to God. That makes sense, as the passage says nothing about a Messiah.
Finally, I would urge you both to watch this 22-minute video of a talk by Rabbi Tovia Singer, in which he discusses Isaiah 53 line by line and makes a very powerful case for the non-Messianic interpretation which he proposes. The video is worth watching from start to finish, as in the latter half (especially from 15:00 onwards), he gets down into the weeds and discusses pronouns and how they differ between translations. Enjoy!
Finally, I recognize that there have been Rabbinic commentators who have proposed a Messianic interpretation for some of these passages in Deutero-Isaiah. As far as I’m aware, however, theirs is a minority view which has not won general acceptance, either within the Jewish community or among Biblical scholars today. Cheers.
1 Like