(24 votes, average: 4.67 out of 5)
Loading...I would like to get back into the practice of devoting one post a week to answering questions raised by blog members. I have a fairly long list of good questions I haven’t been able to get to, so why not just go through them week by week? If you have any pressing questions that are particularly intriguing or perplexing for you about the NT or early Christianity or any related topic, let me know as a comment on a post (any post will do, whether relevant or not). If it’s not something I can address or that I can answer in a line or two, I’ll let you know. Otherwise, I can add it to the list!
At the top of my current list is the following.
QUESTION:
I wonder if you could talk about Isaiah 53 which I think is also a later insert by the scribes trying to justify what they had done to Jesus.
RESPONSE:
Ah, now *this* is a passage that students bring up every time I teach a class on the New Testament. Hundreds of years before Jesus, the prophet Isaiah predicted in detail his crucifixion for the sins of the world, to be followed by his resurrection. It’s right there in black and white, in Isaiah 53. Why don’t Jews SEE that?? It’s in their own Bible! Are they blind? Can’t they READ????
As it turns out, my students as a rule don’t understand the issues with Isaiah 53; that’s not particularly strange – most people don’t! The problem is not that the passage was a later insertion into the text of Isaiah; it instead involves what Isaiah was talking about. I’ve discussed the issue before several times, but it’s one that regularly comes up; here is how I explain it all in my most recent book, Heaven and Hell.
******************************
Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is a passage that has long been cited by Christian interpreters as a virtually infallible prophecy of the death and resurrection of the messiah – i.e., Jesus. But that is almost certainly a misreading of the passage, at least as the author of Isaiah originally intended it. The passage deals with the “suffering servant” of the LORD. But in its original context the servant does not appear to be the future messiah.
Of course Jesus is not named in the passage. But even more surprising to many Christian readers who learn this for the first time, the word “messiah” never occurs in it either. There is a good reason for the surprise: it is hard indeed for Christians to read the chapter and not think that it is speaking specifically about Jesus.
He was despised and rejected by others;
A man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity…
He was despised, and we held him of no account
Surely he has borne our infirmities
and carried our diseases…
He was wounded for our transgressions,
crushed for our iniquities.
Upon him was the punishment that made us whole,
and by his bruises we are healed. (Isaiah 53:3-5)
Not only did this unnamed servant of the LORD suffer because of others, he also is vindicated by God. Doesn’t this refer to the resurrection of Jesus?
Out of his anguish he shall see light;
He shall find satisfaction through his knowledge.
The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong
because he poured out himself to death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
Yet he bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:11-12)
The main reason it is so difficult for Christian readers to see these words and not think “Jesus” is because for many centuries theologians have indeed argued that the passage is a messianic prophecy looking forward to the Christian savior. Anyone who is first shown this passage and told it is about Jesus will naturally always read it that way. Of course it’s about Jesus! Who else could it be about? This is surely a prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection made centuries before the fact.
Still, it is important to stress not only that the passage never…
If you’re a member of the blog, you can keep reading this post. If not, SORRY!! But the good news is that it is incredibly easy to join: we have a two-month free membership off just now. Anyone can join for no fee, from Warren Buffet to that guy next door. Just register! But if you are willing to pay the small membership fee, know that every penny of it goes directly to charities helping the hungry and homeless during this time of crisis. So either way, JOIN!
Fantastic. In depth and highly informative. Happy to see a return to the mailbag!
Explain again how the example of the burning of a tree from the sermon on the mount or John the Baptist’s description of sinners being thrown into a furnace doesn’t necessarily describe eternal torment. Even if the fires last for a long time (or even eternity), the people in them don’t.
When trees are burned, they turn to ashes. They no longer exist as living things. So too with humans. They turn to ash. I.e. they are destroyed.
If the suffering servant is Israel, then who is the “we,” “us,” and “our”?
Don’t the uses of “root” and “shoot” in verse 2 hint that it’s a messianic passage?
Since there were four distinct servant songs, are we really justified in assuming that all four of them are talking about the *same* servant?
Why does it call this servant the “righteous one” if the whole reason Israel was in exile was because they were *not* righteous?
The problem is that metaphorical language is never ever literally “logical” in a straighforward sense. If it could be written as literal fact, there would be no need to use metaphor. The servant is “Israel” that has suffered and “we” are the ones who observe it, also members of Israel. Just as Ezekiel thirty-seven refers to all the nation in the valley of the dry bones, but Ezekiel, who is part of that nation, watches it come back to life.
Hi. Isaiah 53 is the 4th servant song. Each servant song refers again and again to israel my servant. In hebrew the servant can be in the singular and the word in hebrew lamo means to them. Kjv mistranslates this as to him. Also if christians believe that jesus is part of a triune god then reread isaiah 53 and every time it says servant replace it with the word god and ask does this make any sense? Why would god oppress god? How can god die? How can god acknowledge guilt? Makes no sense.
It’s incredible how many people have misread this text.
The writers of the synoptic gospels have Jesus predicting for his disciples his death and resurrection. Luke adds that he told them this had been written about him by the prophets. Then again, in the story about the encounter on the road to Emmaus, Luke has Jesus referring to “all that the prophets (plural) have declared.” Where did Luke get the idea that these events had been predicted? Are there any OT scriptures other than Isaiah that he could have been thinking about?
Isaiah 53 would certainly be one of the options. Also Daniel 9:26, or Zech 12:10, or Psalm 22:1, etc etc.
Was this passage to some degree written into Jesus’ death in the NT gospels?
ABsolutely. E.g., his “silence” etc.
The man foretold by Isaiah 53 comes out of prison, lives to see his children & lives to an old age. None of these Events describe Jesus.
Isaiah 11 says that Messiah appears and gathers the dispersed Jews back to himself. The Jews have only recently returned. In Jesus’ day they hadn’t been dispersed yet.
Isaiah 65 says that “Achor (the city of Akka, Israel) a resting place for herds, for my people who seek me.“ Akka was a prison city. Isaiah said that Messiah will come out of prison.
I agree that Jesus was a Messiah. These passages in Isaiah don’t fit him.
Rabbi tovia singer does an excellent job with the subject in numerous videos and writings. Here is one of many.
https://outreachjudaism.org/gods-suffering-servant-isaiah-53/
Rabbi Michael Skobac does an excellent job too. See ‘A Rabbi cross-examines the New Testament’ on YouTube.
I have read this similar description, as you have pointed out clearly, by Orthodox Rabbi, Tovia Singer. Like yourself, he mentions of the suffering servant being Israel and not Jesus as Christians commonly/mistakenly say. Singer also cites, Numbers 23:19, “God is not a man, so he does not lie.
He is not human, so he does not change his mind.
Has he ever spoken and failed to act?
Has he ever promised and not carried it through” ? as a reason for God not being Jesus in the flesh. Bart , why haven’t Jews or Judaism refuted, adamantly, the interpretation of Isaiah as speaking of Jesus ? Or have they? thanks.
Ah, they have. All the time!
I’d heard a couple of objections to your line of thinking about this being an event in the past.
1. There is no past tense in Hebrew
2. There is a form of prophetic writing in which the writer is so certain something is going to happen, they write it in the past tense because they are so sure it is going to happen.
These obviously are contradictory. I don’t know enough about ancient Hebrew to even try to respond, which is why I turn to you.
thank you
1. That’s right, no past tense. Their two tenses are “perfect” for actions that are completed and “imperfect” for actions that are not completed. The suffering in this passage has been completed; the vindication not.
2. Sometimes, yes. One knows by the literary *context*. Here the context speaks of the Servant and indicates that it is Israel at the time.
Bart, this is a bit off topic but would Jesus have known about with Judas of Galilee or Simon of Paraea? I don’t know when Judas died but could Jesus have had contact with him before he began teaching? Could he have seen these guys die in the attempt to do what the prototype messiah was supposed to do (lead Israel in an overthrow of the Romans) and conclude that messiahs actually die in the process and that if he was the messiah, he needed to die?
There’s nothing to suggest that he knew anyone like this personally; as an inhabitant of a small hamlet in rural nowhere, he wouldn’t have had the opportunity. He may have heard stories though. He certainly would not have thought either one was the “messiah”; so far as I recall, we know nothing about Judas’s death and no indication that either was called the messiah hfter his death.
I started having issues with the Bible back in my Christian days after reading Calvinist verses and position, thinking either God is evil or the Bible contradicts itself. When I was told that fulfilled prophecy was the ultimate evidence of the Bible’s credibility, I read many of the supposed prophecies in the OT for the first time but was surprised to find that many of them were not written as prophecies at all.
Thank you, Bart. This is the clearest explanation I’ve read to date of the historical referent of the Suffering Servant.
Bart
Many thanks for extending membership of the forum .
Would you discuss in detail your assertion that Paul (contrary to his several assertions) did not remain an observant Jew? As you will know, Paula Frederiksen has recently maintained the view that Paul remained Torah-observant even after becoming Christian. Earlier you have speculated that Paul “did not keep kosher or sabbath” when associating with Gentiles. But Paul never mentions the sabbath; and (‘the weak’, as in Romans 14, always being self-referential) it is most likely he ate only vegetables. Is it that Gentile wine might have been non-Kosher? Do we have any evidence for Jewish synagogues in the diaspora forbidding Jews from sharing Gentile wine in private meals?
In support of Frederiksen, is 2 Corinthians 11:24, where Paul recalls that – for the sake of Christ – he has accepted the synagogue punishment of 39 lashes on five occasions. In diaspora Judaism, this option of ‘lesser’ punishment could only ever be offered to a person who asserted that they were an observant Jew, and was recognised in the synagogue as such. Mishnah; Makkoth 3:15 “when he is scourged, then he is your brother”.
Paul never claims he continued to keep the Torah faithfully after coming to believe in Jesus. Which assertions are you thinking of? 1 Corinthians 9:21 he explicitly states that he lived as a gentile when working among gentiles. I don’t think that he *willlingly* submitted to the synagogue punishment of 39 lashes. We actually have zero evidence of what that punishment was all about; but it almost certainly was not reserved for those who were “willing” to receive it. If a Jew in a synagogue violated the rules, they were punished, probably dragged out and beaten on the spot. The other point to stress though is that Paul *CERTAINLY* continued to think he was a faithful Jew. But the whole point is that he thought that did not require the constant adherence to speciics of Jewish law. Other jews disagreed, of course!
But didn’t Paul have a choice – he could accept the 39 strokes or he could renounce Judaism? If the latter, he would have been barred from the synagogue, where he wanted to continue preaching.
It could be argued that a Jew was not allowed (by other Jews) to renounce his faith, but I have to ask if that was the case in Paul’s day.
No, we don’t have any idea if that was an option or not. If you get caught burning an American flag and a crowd takes you out and beats you up, you don’t have the option of saying, “Hey, I’m not really an American.” But the real point is that, so far as I know, we have zero ancient evidence about what the punishment was, why it was inflicted, how it was regulated, who enforced it, on what grounds, etc. In fact, outside of a few Christian sources, I’m not sure — are there *any* Jewish sources from around the time that even mention it?
There is a book of the Talmud, Makkot (“punishments”); it includes the kind of lash to be used, and whether it should be 40, 40 minus 1, more than 40, etc. That’s gemara, of course, though it is based on mishneh, suggesting that this form of punishment had been around for a while. (See m. Makkot 3:10.) So Paul’s “forty lashes minus one” probably was a standard legal formula.
As for voluntary acceptance of the punishment, especially in the Diaspora, Fredriksen cites Anthony Harvey: “Forty Strokes Save One: Social Aspects of Judaizing and Apostasy” in support of her argument, which is that Paul was given lashes because his preaching threatened to bring the wrath of the Roman authorities down on the synagogue if they allowed him to encourage gentiles to abandon the civic gods. What I’m suggesting is that Paul could have chosen to refuse the lashes, but then he would have forfeited his right to preach or even come into the synagogue, because he would have rejected the synagogue authorities. So it’s not like the crowd beating someone up. (I shouldn’t have said “renounce Judaism”; my mistake.)
Yes, of course the Mishnah is 150 years later, so it’s hard to know whether it has any application or not, but Paul’s formula does sound “standard” (that is, he assumes his readers know what he’s talking about). I don’t think there is any evidence for Harvey’s position, but if you know of any do let me/us know! It’s a nice speculation, but that’s not the same as evidence….
We know at least one contemporary instance of renunciation by a very prominent Alexandrian Jew and nephew of Philo, Tiberius Julius Alexander (Josephus again; Antiquities 20:100).
Are you saying there were Jews who decided no longer to be Jews? Yes indeed, lots of them. I don’t think that’s what we’re asking. We’re asking whether someone who is condemned to Synagogue punishment of lashing can get off the hook by saying he is not really fully Jewish. I’m saying, definitely not, any more than I can get out of a criminal trial be denouncing my American citizenship (I’m using that as an analogy: I’m NOT saying it is exactly the same thing; people who violate a crime within a jurisdiction cannot get off by denying that they are bound to the jurisdiction)
No question of the offender “getting off the hook”; as he would be expelled from the synagogue community. So, as in the Community Rule at Qumran, expulsion and excommunication is the punishment for the gravest violations of the Torah. Lesser offences are punished by periods of ‘penance’ (the Qumran sectaries don’t seem to have gone in for corporal punishments). If you won’t serve the penance, you will be expelled.
The choice – scourging or excommunication – is explicit in the Mishnah Makkoth 3:15; anyone liable to excommunication, may accept scourging instead. One who has been scourged cannot be excommunicated, one who has been excommunicated cannot be scourged.
Retroverting from the Mishnah to the 1st century diaspora is problematic; but Josephus emphasizes the point that synagogue scourging is explicitly servile and degrading – terming the synagogue functionary responsible, ‘the public executioner’. Properly, these were slaves maintained by the magistrates as a public service to slaveowners for disciplining slaves. For a diaspora synagogue authorities to go through with scourging someone who did not ‘acccept’ synagogue discipline would potentially open them to grave charges. Perhaps Paul was a Roman citizen; would they take the risk?
I don’t think inflicting the punishment would open a synagogue up to grave charges. there was no one to charge them. There was not a kind of Jewish headquarters of a denomination that oversaw the workings of the individual communities; they weren’t responsible to anyone else. We are too accustomed to religions that have hierarchies and trans-community rules and requirements, rather than simply shared customs.
Apologies Bart; I did not make myself clear.
We are talking hear about discipline administered in diaspora synagogues – assuming that as the context for Paul’s five scourgings. Jewish synagogues were permitted by the civic authorities to exercise discipline over Jewish members of their own congregations; and indeed were expected to do so, e.g. where Jewish congregants disturbed the peace. But regular synagogue congregations commonly also included non-Jewish ‘godfearers’ (some of whom may then also have been followers of Christ).
Scourging a free person was a serious punishment ordinarily reserved to the civil authorities; there would be grave charges before the magistrate if scourging was administered in a synagogue on a non-Jew, whatever their offence or circumstances. If done to a Roman Citizen the charges would be heard before the Governor and death penalties would likely follow.
Effectively, there was no system of criminal prosecution. Any free person who alleged that they had been assaulted by scourging, could initiate a civil case before the magistrates. It would then be for the synagogue authorities to prove that the complainant was acknowledged within the scope of their jurisdiction, and that due process had been followed.
No one would ever say Paul was a non-Jew. He certainly argued just the opposite. Whether others thought he was a *good* Jew is a different questin.
The Jews that disagreed did so because Paul said that he lived as a gentile when working among gentiles, right? Other Jews would not see Paul as a faithful Jew, correct?
Depends how they defined “faithful Jew,” I suppose. Jews were no monolith at the time. But strictly observant Jews would certainly not think that someone who “lived like a gentile” when he chose to be a faithful Jew.
We agree that Paul always considered himself to be a Torah-observant Jew; some other Jews contested this point, others accepted it. Not untypical amongst Jews; then as now.
Firm contemporary evidence for the punishment of 39 lashes is found in Josephus; not extensive, but on matters like the number of strokes, agreeing with Paul’s reference in 2 Corinthians 11. The only other formal synagogue punishment for which we have evidence is extirpation; and – in cities of the the diaspora – those two were all the civil authorities would allow. Synagogue congregations could not beat up unwelcome vistors without formal process; or they would have been in big trouble themselves. Scourging was the lesser punishment, and hence always voluntary; an accused with no commitment to the Torah could walk away unscathed, both from observance and synagogue authority.
One key text is Galatians 2: 14, where Paul asserts outright that Peter in Antioch had been ‘living as a Gentile’ while still remaining an observant Jew – no one in Antioch having seen such practice as problematic for nearly twenty years. Those Jews who eventually did object to Peter’s behaviour, were outsiders from Jerusalem.
Thanks. Remind me: where is that in Josephus?
Antiquities 4:238
“But for him that acts contrary to this law, let him be beaten with forty stripes save one by the public executioner; let him undergo this punishment, which is a most ignominious one for a free-man, and this because he was such a slave to gain as to lay a blot upon his dignity; for it is proper for you who have had the experience of the afflictions in Egypt, and of those in the wilderness, to make provision for those that are in the like circumstances.”
Josephus agrees with 2 Corinthians, and against Deuteronomy 25, on the number of strokes, their wording, and on the punishment being servile and degrading. For Josephus scourging is the proper penalty for disregarding the Torah injunctions on charity to the poor and foreigners (as that is the context in Deuteronomy); but I doubt whether that was also the reason for Paul being scourged.
Frederiksen speculates that Paul is more llikely to have fallen foul of Exodus 22:28 LXX: “Revile not the gods (of the Gentiles)”; both because Paul does seem not to have paid much respect to this particular Torah, and also if Gentile pagan authorities demanded it.
Great, thanks. That’s helpful (I talked with an expert in Judaism a few months ago who said they had nve herd avbout the forty lashes minus one, except from 2 Corinthians; I think they must have forgotten about Josephus!). Of course, the passage says nothing about teh person receiving the lashes having to agree to the punishment!
I sometimes hear people say that such passages can have a dual meaning: sure, it may apply to suffering Israel, but it was also a foreshadowing of Jesus. The same with Matthew taking out-of-context passages as prophecies of Jesus. I think that’s wishful and creative thinking, but do you have a specific response to such claims?
Yes, I’d say that this would be a claim that a passage doesn’t always mean what an author meant it to mean. for later Christians Isa 53 certainly did “mean” that.
Excellent exegesis
Sir, you assume that Christians looked for scriptures to justify the fact that their messiah had died but isn’t it also possible that the holy spirit revealed it to them?
Sure. Anything, strictly speaking, is possible. But the claim that the Holy Spirit revealed it is a theolgoical view, not a historical interpretation. It’s also possible, strictly speaking that Moses or Isaiah came back from the dead and told them. Or that a voice from Sky did. Of that the Spirit of Error did. Etc. etc. These aer *possible*. But none is subject to historical inquiry.
Is there any indication that the stories told about Jesus were influenced by this passage in such a way as to make his tale match it more closely?
Yes indeed. He is silent. He is crucified between two wicked men. He is buried by a rich man. Etc. etc….
An interesting tidbit, the Qumran community possibly expected a rejected and humiliated messiah because of Isaiah 53. See these lines from 4Q471b (Geza Vermes’ translation):
“Who is counted as me to be despised and who is despised as me?
And who is like me, forsaken [by men, and is there] a companion who resembles me?
And no instruction resembles my instruction
[For] I sit …
Who is like me among the ‘gods’?”
Vermes interprets this as narrated by the priestly messiah, and sees an allusion to Isaiah 53:3
Where is this person called a messiah?
I don’t see Vermes connecting 4Q471b to the messiah, only to the suffering servant. Vermes says the “eschatological high priest” may be one who speaks these lines, citing to Esther Eshel. I found in JSTOR her article on 4Q471b, “A Self-Glorification Hymn.” Nowhere in that article does she suggest that this high priest is the messiah (though it may be possible he will herald the coming of the messiah).
There is no evidence the Qumran community saw the messiah as suffering; to the contrary, “the heavens and the earth will listen to His Messiah, and none therein will stray from the commandments of the holy ones.” 4Q521 Fr.2.
Daniel said the “people of the prince” would destroy Jerusalem and the temple and would also destroy “he to whom all things belong.” The prince? Emperor Titus’ son Vespasian and “he”? The Messianic prince – one who dies “not for himself” but for his people.
Jesus spoke of Jerusalem being “trampled under the feet of the Gentiles until the Gentiles time is fulfilled.” What? I suggest it’s when the Gentiles see Jesus as Jews do. Today people entering the clergy or “learn” about the bible in university are taught the exact doctrinal contortions the Jews developed during their bitter exile (ie Isaiah 53.) The Christian outlook becomes the Jewish one. Jerusalem was back in Jewish hands in 1967, at the height of the cultural and moral ferment of the West.
There are TWO Messiahs in the OT – coming King, and he who Job called the “Redeemer” who is alive now and “will stand upon the earth in the latter days.” Redeem means “pay the price” and Jesus paid the price as David, Isaiah, Zechariah and others foresaw. Jacob said His coming would be for the whole world, and the Jewish nation would end with his coming. Jews who saw this became Christians.
I was going to ask if you could recommend a book on the Hebrew Bible similar to your Introduction to the New Testament book. I see your recommendation for Collins above, which I have ordered. But is there something else you might also recommend? Another book? A good blog site? Thx
Depends what you’re mainly interested in. Collins is a fine textbook. If you want a regular old book try Richard Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible, and Silverman and Finkelstein, Unearthing the Bible.
Hi Bart, I have read that some Jews believe that there will be two messiahs one that is going to be killed on battle, that is the suffering Messiah knowing as ben Yoseph and the Messiah King that is ben Juda. They said that the Messiah King will resurect the Messiah ben Yoseph. Althougt I don’t know when this theroy was developed if it was before or after Jesus. Regards!
That’s not quite right. You’re referring to the view of two messiahs that was held by the Essenes who produced the Dead Sea Scrolls (or at least some of them). One is a priest and the other appears to be a rule. Neither resurrects the other.
mgamez777: “… some Jews believe that there will be two messiahs one that is going to be killed on battle, that is the suffering Messiah knowing as ben Yoseph and the Messiah King that is ben Juda. They said that the Messiah King will resurect the Messiah ben Yoseph.”
Bart: “That’s not quite right. You’re referring to the view of two messiahs that was held by the Essenes who produced the Dead Sea Scrolls …”
No, he’s referring to an obviously post-Christian view found in the Talmud and other rabbinic literature, especially in Sukka 55 (Neusner):
C.1. II:3: [“With regard to “And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart” (Zec. 12:12),] What was the reason for the mourning? It is on account of the Messiah, the son of Joseph, who was killed …
3. II:5: To the Messiah, son of David, the Holy One, blessed be he, will say, “Ask something from me, and I shall give it to you.” When the Messiah, son of David sees the Messiah, son of Joseph, killed, he will say before [God], “Lord of the Age, I ask of you only life.”
Ah, thanks. Yes, those views come into being, so far as we know, centuries later. Sorry — I thought the issue involved Jews at the time of Jesus.
Why are there long genealogies in the Gospels tracing Joseph back to Abraham or Adam? Joseph was not Jesus’ father, the Holy Ghost was. No human DNA there.
It’s to show that Jesus comes from the line of David. But the very big problem is the one you mention: he is not actually part of that genealogical line!
Acts 8. The Ethiopian nobleman. He asked Philip, “does the writer refer to himself, or someone else?”
Makes me feel like by mid 1st C car that the original meaning of the servant had been forgotten by many readers.
What are the other possibilities? Who was on the Ethiopians short list of who the passage could have been about?
Ps. To use Ehrmanesque language, I don’t see this passage say anything explicitly about death, certainly not crucifixion, nor resurrection.
You need to remember that the Ethiopian is in a story told by a *Christian*. There is nothign that indicates that either this man or his question is historical.
Oops… you can’t edit your own posts. Vespasian was Emperor, not Titus. He was “crowned” during the Jewish Revolt period if I recall. Titus became the “prince” in Daniel’s prophecy. The “people of the prince” would be the Romans and their auxiliaries.
Yes, Vespasian was in charge of the Roman assault during the Revolt, but became emperor at the end of teh “Year of the Four Emperors,” and Titus then took over the attack. I’m not sure what you’re referring to in my post. But Daniel was not referring to future history but events of his own day.
Dr. Ehrman,
One question I have always wanted to raise concerns why Jesus is credited with founding Christianity. I hear it said all the time that Jesus was the founder of Christianity or Jesus began this new religion. I guess I just can’t wrap my head around that claim because I don’t see any evidence of Jesus starting anything. He was an itinerant preacher or teacher of an apocalyptic worldview. One thing I’ve learned from this blog is the apocalyptic worldview was not unique to Jesus but a common thought process. I would understand people saying that Jesus inspired a new religion or Jesus is the center of a new religion, but why do people say he founded a new religion?
Thanks, Jay
I don’t think he had any idea of starting a new religion either. But he is obviously at the “foundation” of the religion, so that’s why people talk about him as the “founder.” He and his teachings are what led to the new religion, and in *that* sense he “founded” it. (People often talk of Paul being “the” founder or the “co-founder” — but that ignores the fact that hte religion *about* Jesus was around long before Paul joined the movement.
One could compare with Muhammad, who doesn’t seem to have had any notion of starting a ‘new’ religion, but rather reviving the traditional monotheist religion practiced by others before him, including Abraham, Moses and Jesus.
Is Paul the one who made the changes from the Jewish Jesus Movement to the Gentile Christ Movement or did he also inherit the Christ Movement from others?
I don’t think I would set those out as strict alternatives. Paul believed that Jews *should* follow Jesus, and probably thought they should, as a rule, still remain Jews; he also thought gentiles should follow Jesus and should not *become* Jews. But he didn’t deny Jews the right to be Jews, or gentiles to be gentiles. He inherited his views that Jesus was the only way of salvation from those who came before him.
Even though Paul bragged that he received his gospel from the Christ and that he did not talk to anyone including the leaders of the Jewish Jesus Movement, as you say, Paul inherited his views from those who came before him. If he was truly sincere about his beliefs, why didn’t he own up to who initially taught him and if he had the ability to go see them, why would he not want to go talk to the leaders who were actually with Jesus on earth?
We don’t know of if he “owned up” to his converts earlier, before he wrote, so that there was no need to do so again. As to why he didn’t spend a lot more time with Jesus’ own disciples, I wish I knew!
My point to him not owning up to who taught him is based on that he specifically says that no man taught him. He received his message only from Christ. My guess would be if he said anything to his converts before he wrote, it would be the same thing that he wrote…that no man taught him. We know that the Jesus Movement message was being taught before him and he had to have heard it from those saying it.
My other thought is that he did not meet with the Jewish Jesus Movement leaders because they had lived and heard Jesus teach which Paul did not, his message was different than their message and he wanted to spread his message to the gentiles even if the leaders did not agree with his message.
He says that no one taught him his gospel message — but his gospel message is that gentiles could be followrs of Jesus without becoming Jews. No one taught him THAT. He certainly knew that he was teaching the same thing as the others when it came to the message of Jesus’ death and resurrection (thus 1 Cor. 15:1-5)
So Paul himself created the message of Gentiles becoming Jesus Followers without becoming Jews?
It’s not absolutely certain he created it, but he seems to suggest he was the one who first proclaimed it. He’s certainly the one who pushed for it harder than anyone else.
I think Christians would argue that the perspective of Isaiah 53 is the sufferings of Jesus near the time of the cross (past tense), and then the results in vv. 10ff are the results. Is that legitimate?
Only if you are a Christian who believes this!
In the above blog you state: “There is a good reason for that: before the birth of Christianity, no one thought the messiah would be someone who would die and be raised from the dead..”
I agree with the “raised from the dead” part. But as far as Jews from the BCE period thinking of a Messiah who would die (or be “cut off from the land of the living” is the terminology that I recall seeing elsewhere) what about the passage in Daniel:
9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. (KJV)
Re your general point, is it possible that a single passage can have several correct interpretations?
He’s talking about events in his own day, but it would take about ten pages to explain! I’d suggest you look at a good commentary on Daniel, e.g., the one written by John Collins.
I’ve noticed that certain key verses are translated variously. For example, the NLT seems to purposely make this passage sound like Jesus. Is this passage difficult to translate?
Not especially, no.
Other than the past tense, are there any parts of this passage that you think CLEARLY cannot be applied to Jesus?
I’m not sure quite what you’re asking. I don’t think any of the passage clearly refers to Jesus. Are you asking whether anything in teh passage *contradicts* what hte Gospels say about Jesus? Not really — but you wouldn’t expect it to, since the Gospels are describing Jesus death precisely in light of the passage.
For example, it speaks the Servant’s offspring. Can we look at that verse and say ‘Jesus didn’t have any children that we know of, so it clearly doesn’t refer to him?’
Sure, but the response would be that he had spiritual offspring.
Hi Bart,
While your answer is easy to follow – this question reminds me of an onion with multiple layers. I understand the principle of one interpretation and multiple applications. But, I also see many have argued for multiple interpretations in special circumstances. There are Christians on both sides of the debate. My quick Google search yielded sites that explain the tension and sites that blatantly ignore it, going right to the stereotypical Christian view/interpretation you describe in your reply.
My question is: what would be your educated guess as to why the Isaiah passage so closely describes someone resembling Jesus or do you see less resemblance for any particular reason(s)?
Yes, Christians certainly would argue that about this passage. But only Christians who believe it refers to Jesus — no one else. That should be a clue to something, I think. Why does it sound so much like Jesus to the Christian reader? Because the Gospel writers wrote their accounts of Jesus precisely in light of this passage.
This may not be the best place to raises this question,as it’s not specific to the subject. …. But I would like to know … how to verify Marks Gospel is the first to be written.
Long answer to *that* one! Search for “Markan priority” on the blog and you’ll see discussion of it
I have always wondered about this. My whole family have an overwhelming passion for Isaiah because of these messianic predictions that the Jewish people completely missed.
How do we go about working out which passages/segments of an ancient book like Isaiah are added later, and which segments are original? It seems so complicated to me.
I am aware that Isaiah is very complicated due to multiply authors, so if using another text as an example (say Daniel) would help, then please do.
Cheers,
Sam 🙂
Yup, very complicated. I’m afraid you have to rely on experts (though everyone, in general, hates doing that these days), those who can read the books in their original languages and know the tell-tale signs. But even the Pentateuch is made up of sources composed in different times by different authors that have all been patched together. Here I’m talking about editorial additions made before our copies of the book(s) were put in circulation. For additional after teh books had been in circulation, you typically look for manuscripts with different readings, but also other kinds of inconsistency.
Thanks for your amazing responses to all these peoples comments Bart! 🙂
Thank you for dealing with what for me is the most perplexing chapter in the whole Bible.
I have to take issue with your interpretation that the suffering servant is the Nation of Israel. In verse 8 it says, ‘unjustly condemned, he was laid away’. We know Jesus was unjustly condemned but not the people of Israel. God was fed up with their sinfulness and exiled them in Babylon for a ‘time-out’. He had sent prophet after prophet to try to guide them but they chased some away, stoned others and killed many. God’s action in their case was just.
The key to understanding any passage (in any book, teh Bible or elsewhere) is to read the entire context. The author of Isaiah tells you who the servant is four chapters earlier, and unless there’s some reason to think he didn’t know or that he changed his mind, I think we pretty much have to think that he’s right, and interpret teh passage accordingly.
I don’t think the nation of Israel can be the suffering servant. The individual people of Israel might be suffering for the sins of others but they are not themselves innocent like the suffering servant is supposed to be. “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”.
Yahweh is the king of Israel, they are his people and carry his name. The captivity of Israel is therefore a humiliation to Yahweh. Isaiah 52:5 “For my people have been taken away for nothing and those who rule them mock … my name is constantly blasphemed”
It’s Yahweh who in Isaiah 46:4 says “I will bear you and will carry you and will deliver you”; the suffering servant “has borne our griefs and carried our sufferings”.
It’s Yahweh who is Isaiah 43:24 says “you have burdened me with your sins and wearied me with your iniquities”.
Yahweh is the only redeemer of Israel, the only one who can pay their ransom and set them free from bondage.
OK. But Isaiah says Israel is the servant.
Israel is the servant but individual members can also be the servant too. Isaiah himself is a servant and there’s a servant in 49:6 for whom “It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept”.
Israel is being justly punished for its iniquities. Yahweh chooses not to divorce them when they are in bondage but stand with them and share in their humiliation. Its an abstract righteous member of the nation who suffers and redeems the people who have sinned.
Yahweh as king of Israel is also a member of the nation and chooses to remain so in order to bring about her redemption.
From a birds eye view, reading this could apply to many servents … Jacob, Joseph, Jonah, Mosses, David and others. In context, since Rabbis and other religious authorities mention it the section of the Nevi ‘im just emphasizes that a prophet or prophets were the subject in question.
However, if one wants to claim that the subject was Jesus, then Jesus can arguably and correctly be given the attribute of a Prophet not a God worthy of worship.
Dr Ehrman,
It seems though Peter did not agree with it relating to Jesus when he rebuked it in Matthew 16:21-22
?
Matthew 16 is less about Jesus being a prophet than about his being the Messiah. Peter didn’t think the messiah could be killed by his enemies.
Dr. Ehrman,
Can you make any sense of this passage?
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. Mark 4:11-12
Yes indeed. In Mark’s gospel (and in none of the others) Jesus tells parables precisely so no one outside his inside group of followers will realize what he’s teaching. For Mark (and only for Mark) no one can figure out who Jesus is.
Bart,
If the idea that nobody could figure out who Jesus was not historical, what would be the benefit for Mark in inventing it?
Thanks!
It’s a major issue on New Testament studies, going back over a century; it’s called the “messianic secret.” Look the term up on the blog and you’ll see the posts I devoted to it.
Dr. Ehrman,
So, in short, when scholars say messianic secret, are they saying Mark’s secret was “Jesus is the Christ,” something that the author is reluctant to share early in his narrative? He taught in parables so no one would realize that he was teaching them that he was the Messiah?
Yup, sort of. But the author is not at all reluctant to share the information — he states it in his very first verse. The “secret” is within the narrative. No one but the narrator and readers (and God, Christ, and the demons) know it.
A question that strikes me is this: When did Christians begin to think of Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, etc as referring to Jesus. I am skeptical that the risen Jesus explained it to them as in Lk. 24.27 etc. Bart, do you accept Acts’ reports that priests and Pharisees joined the movement? If so [and even if not I guess], the most likely explanation for me would be that literate supporters of Jesus would naturally see the connection fairly soon after they recovered from the shock [IMO] of their Messiah’s unexpected death. — “We had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel.” [ Lk 24.21]
My guess is that once they came to believe he had been raised, they “realized” that God must have been responsible for his death and that the best explanation was the it was a sacrifice for sins. And that took them to places in Scripture where a righteous person had suffered for the sake of others. Some Pharisees certainly joined the movement. At least Paul did!
Is Paul the only source for saying that Paul was a Pharisee?
It’s also found in our one other source for Paul’s life, the book of Acts. But there’s nothing in the way Paul uses the statement to suggest he was making it up for some reason.
Right. I meant other than Acts since its not always reliable.
One reason for Paul to make up that he is/was a Pharisee would be to beef up his resume. He says I was a Pharisee, I persecuted Christians, now look what God has done with my life.
I agree that Acts is not reliable in the sense that we can’t simply assume that everythign it says is true. But that is the case with ALL historical sources. It is still very much a historical source and has to be treated that way, I would say. In this case it corroborates what Paul says. And it’s not clear that by calling himself a Pharisee Paul would be beefing up his resume. It may seem like that to us because we tend to think of Pharisees as the big shot overly pious leaders of the Jews at the time. But there is little to suggest they were that at the time. They were hotly opposed by the other groups — the Essenes thought their views were milquetoast — and there’s almost nothing to suggest they had a huge influence on the vast majority of Jews at the time (just the opposite). So, my sense is that this is a pretty solid tradition about Paul.
…of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews…
Could Paul have known if he was of the tribe of Benjamin?
What is a Hebrew of Hebrews?
Yeah, probably not really, but it must have been in his family’s tradition. (I”ve known people whose family claimed to descend from Pocahontas) Second phrase: probably means that he was a Jew whose parents were both Jews — i.e, he’s saying he’s as Jewish as it gets.
Is a Hellenistic Jewish man in the diaspora, such as Paul, taught to be a pharisee in the synagogue?
We don’t know what influenced him in that direction, unfortunately….
Could a person just say they were a Pharisee or was there a formal process that had to be followed?
We don’t know of any kind of formal process. Since there was no particular status involved in making the claim, it appears it’s simply a statement of fact.
It would be interesting to know which areas of New Testament scholarship still have unanswered questions. Where is more research needed?
All over the map. But so much of the NT has been so worked and reworked, that some scholars — including me! — have moved on to other ground. Most of my serious research is connected with Christianity of hte 2nd and 3rd centuries, much less worked and really fascinating.
I asked Mike Licona when he did a guest blog if he believed the ascension literally happened and if Jesus went to a physical place above. He said he hadn’t studied it and couldn’t make a comment.
I think the idea of a man floating up into space is maybe as strange as the idea of him coming back from the dead. Is this something apologists interpret as “apocalyptic language” or metaphor like the zombies in Matthew? The ascension account in Acts seems pretty clear and even has the two men/angels show up to say what just happened.
Thanks!
I’m sure Mike has thought a good deal about it and does indeed have an opinion!
Dr Bart erhman you said in your book that the view of Jesus was that in the end god will intervene destroy the forces of evil and raise the dead good people..
How do you reconcile this verse
In the King James Version of the Bible the text reads:
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca,
shall be in danger of the council:but whosoever shall
say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Please explain.
I think you will enjoy my book on Heaven adn Hell, since I deal with this kind of verse fully there. The term “hell” here is not what modern people imagine as a place of eternal torment. The Greek word is Gehenna, which is the desecrated God-forsaken valley outside of Jerusalem (I devote an entire discussion to it in my book). Jesus is saying that anyone who does this will be refused proper burial rights and their remains will be dumped in the most horrible place imaginable on earth.
Also these verse
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out,
and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for
thee that one of thy members should perish, and
not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall
enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth
the will of my Father which is in heaven.
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness
shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and
Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
See my previous response. The big problem is that this is a mistranslation of the passage from the Greek. (That’s not just a weird idea of mine; it’s the standard view among critical scholars)
Your debunking is as labored as the fundamentalist explanation. As for Jesus ending up on the wrong side of the law, his more famous quotes are to the contrary. “Render unto Caesar”, “love your enemy”, and “go the extra mile” to name a few, but he is also quoted as saying, “my kingdom is not of this world.” In a sense, Jesus advocated for the separation of church and state long before anyone else. Even the Jews in ancient Egypt sought their own theocracy. Jesus of Nazareth simply said there was another realm where the Romans and the high priests did not rule.
You may want to read some of my fuller expositions in my writings. As you probably know, there was no concept of what we would call the separation of church and state until the 18th century CE.
Seems Jesus of Nazareth got close to the modern idea of church and state separation with “render unto Caesar” and “my kingdom is not of this world.” And that was 2000 years ago. I guess you don’t consider the Model T Ford a car either because it’s not a Tesla.
You’re referring to me? Uh, I certainly do consider a Model T a car. Though I do know people who question whether a Tesla is one.
Even so Rendering under Caesar is precisely *not* the separation of church and state. The divine emperor has every right to demand taxes and you can’t resist on the grounds that you don’t accept his divine claims.
Who else would I be speaking to here, Bart? The Romans didn’t enforce tax collections through the divinity of their Emperor. They collected taxes by force, as governments do to this day. Jesus clearly says his followers must pay their Roman tributes (and then pay him too some too, depending upon your interpretation of what what is).
Yes indeed. That’s the point. Paying taxes has no bearing on the question of whether there was a separateion of church and state. Societies that believe in the separation require taxes to be paid and those that don’t do as well. You need to do it whether church and state are separated or not.
I took your advice and read the gospels horizontally. If one does that with the resurrection stories one can see the discrepancies. Some evangelicals have argued the Habermas has responded to your arguments. How does he deal with the discrepancies?
The other issue is the accounts of the thieves on the cross and their response to Jesus. All with the exception of Luke just say that they berated him. How did Luke’s account get recorded? There was no one at the bottom of the cross who knew Pitman’s shorthand.
Another is the account of the meeting between Jesus and Satan. No one else was there. Do we expect Jesus to give an account in such detail to his disciples?
I imagine he simply tries to reconcile them all. And the problem you point out about Luke is the same problem with all the Gospels. The reality is that we simply have no idea what Jesus did or did not say, if anything, at the time.
Hi Bart,
If the servant of Isaiah 49 is Israel, how should we understand the following lines from verse 6 later on in the same chapter?
He says, “It is too [d]small a thing that You should be My Servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
I will also make You a light [e]of the nations
So that My salvation may [f]reach to the end of the earth.”
This indicates the Servant has a mission concerning Jacob/Israel, which makes it difficult to see how he can literally *be* Israel.
Thanks!
God is going to use the survivors to restore the fate of tne nation and then to be a beacon to the other nations. But why do you say “If” the servant is Israel in Isaiah 49? God calls the servant Israel.
To call the Servant “Israel” is a way of saying: you represent what Israel was always supposed to be.
The Servant seems to be a specific individual, rather than the people Israel, since he begins by talking about how God called him by name from his mother’s womb (something similar is said about Jeremiah in that book), and how God hid him in the shadow of his hand (the people Israel, by contrast, was a very public entity, and never hidden.)
The Servant has the task of raising up “the tribes of Jacob” and restoring “the preserved ones of Israel”; this is naturally read as saying that the Servant is an individual who has a mission directed to these “tribes” and “preserved ones”, which means he can’t be identified with the same tribes and preserved ones.
This is a pretty random question not relating to this subject but do you know if Ignatius of Antioch held a high or low Christology? And if you know if Clement of Rome held a high or low Christology? Possible any resources you have written regarding very early church fathers Christology.
In some ways the terms are not really applicable to these early authors; Ignatius’s christological comments are almost entirely directed against those who denied that Christ was a full flesh-and-blood human, i.e., in these modern terms, he was arguing against a view that was SO “high” that it denied Christ’s humanity; but at the same time Ignatius does call Christ God. He would not have worked out the implications of his views in any theological length or depth. 1 Clement doesn’t deal much with Christology in terms of Christ’s “nature.”
Hi Dr. Bart,
Thanks for your reply. Do you think Ignatius saw Christ as subordinate to the Father when he calls Him God? Or perhaps a more equal view? Also on his christology do you think it’s highly based on the the apostle John since he was presumably his disciple? I would’ve assumed the Apostle John had significant influence in the early church *since* he was the last one to die possibly on the growing high christology movement. I would think he would have Had a large influence(besides gospel of John) on Christ’s nature. I’m not sure if you think Gospel Of John is a forgery but if you do…do you think John would’ve condemned a high christology movement if he didn’t believe in it around this time since he was the last apostle? If you don’t think it’s a forgery I heard the idea bishops asks John to write thie Gospel to promote a divine Christ do you have any thoughts on that? A time machine would be greatly appreciated! Lol
Realizing your pervious comment by high schristology not being applicable terms I mean seeing Jesus as a divine being(possibly God) or just a mere man
My guess is that he woudl have seen Christ as subordinate, but that is a *later* issue that had not come up yet in his day, so in a way my even saying that is anachronistic, kind of like if I asked whether the Pilgrims would have believed in the sovereignty of the states….
Is it accurate to say though he was a disciple of John? If he is would I would assume his theology would be accurate of what the Apostle John believed? I think he also quotes the Gospel of John(?) in his Epistles that are considered actually written by him why would a disciple quote a forgery?
No, nothing suggests he was. And no, Ignatius never quotes the Gospel of John.
Sorry, also what do you think the apostles excluding paul defined the Son Of God as? Did they see the Son Of God as a divine being or just a regular man that could possibly be a prophet? After the resurrection of Christ did the apostles possible regard him as divine?
(interested in these questions as I often see your work used by religious(Muslims, Christians) apologists in a sense to score “religious points,” to convert someone of their beliefs/disprove them rather than to think critically about their beliefs)
If you’re really interested in this you should probably read my book How Jesus Became God, where I deal with such issues at length. For the apostles — do you mean Jesus’ earthly disciples? During Jesus’ lifetime they woudl have thought he was the Son of God in the sense that he was a human with a special relationship with God and understood his will; after they believed in the resurrection they came to think he had actually been made a divine being.
I have heard rabbinical exegetes make a really compelling case that the person described in the passage is the Prophet Jeremiah. What do you think of this view Professor?
It’s a logical move, since Jeremiah was thought of as the suffering prophet; but it doesn’t really make sense because Jeremiah would have been dead already at the time, and there’s no explicit indication that Isaiah was intimately familiar with Jeremiah or his writing.
I find it compelling because the same descriptions given of the Proverbial Servant are given of Jeremiah and I didn’t know this before. Jeremiah 11:19 says he was “like a lamb to the slaughter” and was “cut from the land of the living” just as in Isaiah.
As far as Jeremiah being dead there are many logical ways of explaining that.
And it strikes me as significantly more puissant because our Christian friends always appeal to “well Jesus said X and the old testament says X too so Jesus must be that person in question”
The problem here is that Jeremiah was never told that he would be used “to make salvation reach the ends of the earth” in response to the failure of his mission.
Isaiah 49 has a two-stage structure: the servant expresses disappointment at the failure of his current mission (presumably to Israel); he is then given a global salvific mission by God, over and beyond his mission to Israel.
No known historical figure had a revelatory experience matching this two-stage structure.
When I see passages like this now, Isaiah 53, I realize that when I was a born again Christian, we were kind of reverse engineering Bible verses to fit together. One of the big verses was Isaiah 7:14 which sounds like a home run: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” In subsequent years I’ve read that “virgin” is an inaccurate translation. Is that right, is this verse similarly misapplied like Isiah 53?
Yes, I’ve talked about it on the blog. Just search for “virgin” and you’ll see some of the posts.
From a literary perspective, I agree. If you take the entire fourth song of Isaiah, line by line,,,carefully,,, you will have trouble, like (shocking nations and kings for his exaltation ??? ,,, really ,, even today ?? ,,,, “despised and rejected ” ,,, really ??, he seems to be popular ,,,, the fifth verse is different from the Hebrew original text “they” or “him” as some examples
However, it is no spurprise at all that both Christinan and Jewish esoteric systems uses it as a source in their spiritual/esoteric understanding, where the entire book is an allegory of a spiritual story (refering to different spiritual worlds, 7 heavens, and many more.)
The first part, about the former situation, Jerusalem and the fall and judgment of the nations, which still contains the holy seed of “Israel” (Chapter 6)
Then, the last situation, (the last part) is the restoration of the nation / Israel ((soul/humanity?)) which ends up in a new Jerusalem.
Perhaps this is believed to be a messianic idea, a divine Redeemer, God’s servant, is the theological idea that seems so rooted in Judaism and Christianity (and also in both esoteric traditions).
Do you think they could be talking about 2 servants (the old and the new)?
No, I don’t see anything in the text to suggest so; I should think if the author now menat some *other* servant he would have given some indication.
I might have a handicap since I can’t anymore comprehend many of those biblical stories literaly, in particular those stories in the Torah /Genisis, and prophets like Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel.
For me, they have to talk about a more spiritual meaning (perhaps an esotoric interpretation). They hardly meet any standards if they were historical stories.
Anyway, when I think about my question, about a renewed/second “servant”, who comes out of the last section of Isaiah, after the exile or in my term “exile”. I see the text describes Israel /”Israel” (servant)as both blind and deaf, and then changes to a more exhaulted “servant”. These ideas seems also held by Ezekiel, another who talks about Gods judgement/ destruction and than restoration of “Israel” in “a New Jerusalem”. In the beginning of his “restoration” section (Chapter 34) he starts with God’s promise of a new Messianic king, a new David, a new leader with a new people. Do you think it might be possible that this “new “messianic” king” in Ezekiel 34 could correlated to a changing view on Israel/servant in Isaiah ?
(I might have misunderstood it ! )
It’s hard for me to answer because I don’t think Isaiah embodies an evolving view of the Servant from earlier to later passages.
Prof Ehrman,
Given the discrepancy between the day Jesus dies in the Gospels, did this present any challenge to the early church on when Easter is to be celebrated? If it did, when and how was it resolved?
There was a huge debate about this, but not because of the discrepancy of the day Jesus’ died, since in all accounts he died on a Friday and rose on a Sunday. The debate was whether or not it had to be celebrated on the 14th day of the month of Nisan, no matter which day of the week it was (kind of like Christmas: can be any day), or the Sunday that followed it. It was called the Quartodeciman controversy, if you want to look it up.
Prof Ehrman,
Please, did Tertullian subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity and is it factual that Constantin at the point of death renounced the orthodox view of Christianity in acceptance of the Arius view?
Tertullian used the term Trinity and absolutely believed in it, and came up with an impressive formulation about it, though by later standard his views were unnuanced. No Constantine did not renounce orthodox Christianity. On his death bed he was baptized by an Arian bishop, but that’s only because he was on a journey and fell sick in Nicomedia, and that bishop there happened to be Arian.
Prof Ehrman,
Then it goes to say that Tertullian’s view of Trinity was different from what later became the ‘orthodox definition of the term since he held that the Son was subordinate to the Father (hence not co-eternal & co-powerful). So their point of agreement would then hinge on three distinct persons and co-substantial.
Is this a right position, please?
Reference
Prof Ehrman,
Please, did Tertullian subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity and is it factual that Constantin at the point of death renounced the orthodox view of Christianity in acceptance of the Arius view?
reply
Bart May 13, 2020
Tertullian used the term Trinity and absolutely believed in it, and came up with an impressive formulation about it, though by later standard his views were unnuanced.
A few thoughts: First, the idea that the “suffering servant” must be singular is contradicted by Second Isaiah’s use of “My servant Jacob” (Isa. 44:1, 44:2, and 45:4).
Second, Christians continued to this day to think that this passage will help them convert Jews. I found a 2012 manual instructing evangelists how to do this: The Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology.
Third, just to add to your list of qualifications to being the messiah: he was also expected to make life better for the Jews, and – in Pss. Sol. in particular – to drive out the Romans. Jesus didn’t do any of that. (Nor did Bar Kochba, whom R. Akiba actually hailed as the messiah.)
Dr. Ehrman-
What are your thoughts on the KJV version of Isaiah 53 being put on the lips of the prophet Abinadi in Mosiah 14 from the Book of Mormon? This was supposed to have happened in 148 BCE. This is part of a large sermon by Abinadi which includes many references to the son gaining victory over death and the power to make intercession for the children of men. Would a prophet in 148 BCE have been connecting those two dots and what does that say about the historicity of the Book of Mormon?
I don’t think there is much that is historical about the Book of Mormon.
Dr. Ehrman:
Changing the subject somewhat — I only recently learned of an ancient Hebrew tablet dating to before the time of Jesus, now called, I believe, the Gabriel Revelation. It apparently suggests that there was, within Judaism and prior to Jesus’ time, the belief in a messiah who would rise from the dead 3 days after his death. I see there is a book by Daniel Boyarin on the topic, and I tried to see if this is discussed on your blog but was unable to find anything.
Can you comment on this? Thanks!
I only touch on it in comments. It is highly problematic. Precisely the words that provide the idea of a dying and rising messiah are not actually on the tablet; they are missing becuae of damage, and interpreters have *restored* them. uh, that’s a rather significant problem.
Thanks very much!
Hi Dr. Erham,
When worshiped or Lord is attributed to Jesus are these Divine attributes or just something out of respect(or a mix of both)?
I’d say respect that is normally limited to superior divine beings.
Of course Professor Ehrman knows that when excerpts are presented the translation should always be identified and since he is fluent in Hebrew he knows that 53 contains plural descriptions of the Servant:
53:8 The wound is plural (them).
53:9 Tomb is plural (tombs).
As the connected verses mix singular and plural it could only refer to a collective such as Israel.
Less important is “light” (he shall see light) which looks like a Christian addition.
Sadly/pathetically we have a current example of Christianity continuing its oldest tradition by the Danish Bible Society changing Isaiah 49:3 from:
Thou art my servant; Israel, in whom I will be glorified.
To
Thou art my servant; my chosen, in whom I will be glorified.
On point as trying to lessen the evidence for Israel as The Servant. See my related Thread where the Danish Bible Society is concurrently trying to revise Hamlet:
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7006
Hey Bart, I am a 23 year old from Jamaica and was a student studying Theology at a conservative bible school. I too was a dedicated Evangelical Christian ready to take on the duty of spreading the gospel of Jesus with rationality and passion but today I’m rather agnostic about the existence of god or a god. In about 2 years plus ago I stumbled across some of your work and have been reading them from ever since to this day (Love your recent book by the way; Heaven and Hell). I have watched many of your debates on youtube from the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection to if we can trust the new testament. By now you can tell I am a huge fan lol. I just want to thank you for your dedication throughout the years in sharing your knowledge. I wanted to also let you know that your awesome works are even impacting as far as the caribbean so be encouraged to keep up the great work!
Hey Bart thanks for keeping me occupied during lockdown, I’ve read your newest and a couple other books. If this is the main old testament scripture that Christians point to for showing Jesus as the future messiah… what’s a good source for the other passages they point to that have a breakdown such as the one you just did here? (Showing original author intent etc.)
Also in your book HJBG you mentioned that the gospel of John added a verse later about the trinity that wasn’t in the original manuscript. Is there a good source (or any of your books?) that lists all the verses that are currently in the bible that were not in the first manuscripts? Along with an unbiased analysis about why later Christians or later scribes added them?
It’s tough searching for these questions on the internet for a newbie because I don’t know which authors are massively biased or straight uneducated in the scholarly field lol. Thanks
I’d suggest looking at a solid introduction to the books of the Bible to provide you with a sense of what each book was about; mine is called The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction.
The verse is actually in 1 John 5:7-8. I disucuss it and a number of other such instances (though only some of teh most important ones) in my book Misquoting Jesus.
Hey Bart, great explanation thanks. The one thing I often hear sited as proof that Jesus was the Messiah is the fact that Jews “will reject” Him before later realizing Jesus as the true Messiah. Where does this idea come from?
Isaiah 53 in part!
Dr. Michael Brown covered Isaiah 53 in his book Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus. Bart makes a lot of the arguments that most counter-missionary Jewish men make, like Rabbi Tovia Singer.
I don’t know much about counter-missionary Jewish men (nothing, really); but the views I was putting out are standard fare among Hebrew Bible scholars, nothing weird or polemical per se.
Dear Bart, You say “we have no evidence that any Jew prior to Christianity ever thought it was about the messiah”. Actually, if we can accept the testomony of John’s Gospel, then there is of course at least one Jew who did think Isaiah 53 was about Jesus at least (and probably about the Messiah): John the Baptist: Behold, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). There was another jew as well who thought Isaiah 53 was about Jesus before the crucifixon occured. That would be Jesus himself – the Markian Mesianic Secret ‘motifs’ passages. Very soon afterwards (and almost certainly before), there was Peter (Acts 2: 29-31; Acts 3:18) who eqauated both Jesus and the Messiah with the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. Then there was Phillip and the Ethiopian Eunuch. Then there was Paul (his letters are packed full of the Suffering Servant ‘motif’). Then there there was the writer to the Hebrews (Heb 1:3; Heb 2:9, 2:17). Then there was John the Revelator (Rev 1:5) etc etc. Are you not swimming against the tide of contempraneous opnion?.
Oh yes, Jewish followers of Jesus certainly though it was about the messiah. I meant Jews prior to Christianity. John’s Gospel was not “prior to Christianity” — the author was a Christian.
I am sure you would agree that saying that no pre-Christian manuscript identifying the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 as the Messiah has been discovered, is not the same as saying (as you did) that “we have no evidence that any Jew prior to Christianity ever thought it was about the messiah”. The difference is a subtle one, but with enormous implications, as I am sure you would agree. The next question I have is: do we have a sufficient pleuroma of manuscripts from the pre-Christian 2nd temple period to make your orignal statement more probable than not. If so, then are you saying that no Jew whatsover, prior to Jesus, ever thought that the Suffering Servant of Chapter 53, despite it’s very personal nature, might apply to a one special Jew, as well as to the Nation of Israel? Do you not even think that Jesus, with his knowledge of Isaiah, even applied it to himself? Are you in fact saying that you think the “Messianic” interpretation of the Suffering Servant only began as a retrospective interpretation, after the ‘inconvenient’ death of Jesus of Nazareth?
Well, I don’t know of any evidence, no. I certainly don’t think Jesus thought of himself in those terms. And yes, I do think it was a backward reading of the Xns on the death of Jesus.
Dear Bart, I suppose what I was getting at is whether we know enough about the second temple period jewish thought prior to Jesus, to be able to be confident that no Jew had ever come up with the idea that Isaiah 53 might be about a single Jew, as well as the Nation Israel; and indeed whether we know enough about Jesus himself to be able to be confident that he never thought it might apply to himself. Whether such a single individual suffering servant was ever equated with the idea of the anointed King (ie messianic) is a separate, but related question. I did a little amateur research and note that there was a book about some passages in the dead sea scrolls (especially 4Q541, fragments 9 & 24) that might suggest a connection between the the S.Servant and the Messiah: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Messiah-before-Jesus-Suffering-Foundation/dp/0520234006 . I’ve also dug up an interesting PhD Thesis on the ‘Akedah-Servant Complex’ suggesting that there were a number of pre-christian manuscripts linking the sacrifice of Issac with the Suffering Servant: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3390/1/DEANDRADO_FINAL_SUBMISSION.pdf?DDD32+.
No we don’t know whether there was any single jew who ever thought such a thing, since we don’t have records of what every Jew thought. We do know what Jews who said about the matter said about it, and there are no texts that make the identification. Until we have any that do, we can say that we have no record of anyone taking that view, which is what I try to stress. The texts you’re talking about do not appear to say that their authors claim; that’s why they are writing their books, because they are advocating a view that others don’t agree on. If you really want to pursue it, I’d suggest looking at argument on both sides and drawing your conclusion. But if you go in wanting one of the views to be right — you will probably come out that way as well. (!)
However, that’s not to say that the Suffering Servant wasn’t also about Israel suffering for the nations. Why should it not have been a ‘Messianic Secret’ that Messiah would embody an analagous role and pattern to the Servant Israel, his nation? Also 53:8 effectively says as much: “for the transgression of my people was he stricken”. Anyway, the text in Isaiah 53 switches to a much more personal description than the prior Suffering Servant passages; and if chapter 53 really is still just talking about the nation of Israel as the Suffering Servant, then it takes the servant metaphor to one hell of an extreme: despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, we hid ..our faces from him; he was despised, with his stripes we are healed. He was afflicted, opened not his mouth: was taken from prison and from judgment; made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. … he hath poured out his *soul* unto death,; numbered with the transgressors; he made intercession etc. It’s black and white to me.
Dear Bart, of course, I accept your authoritative opinion that there are no texts that unequivocally identify Isaiah 53 with an individual jew and I have read through the meat of the thesis I referenced above; and indeed your view is not contradicted. It is certainly interesting that the 5 pre-Christian texts all contain some of the motifs of the ‘Akedah-Servant’ complex, including a righteous individual who suffers unjustly, the suffering permitted by a supernatural being, the sufferer not protesting, framed as a demonstration of obedience, the receipt reward and exaltation, the universal and international consequences, the relationship between sufferer and permitter being familial terms, associations made with ideas of sacrifice and atonement. Taken together with the NT evidence, I think there is sufficient data to cause even the most hardened sceptic pause for thought. The very personal description the man of sorrows, the beautiful story of the revelation of the ‘messianic secret’ to the disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke, the ‘messianic secret’ motifs in Mark, the timing of Jesus’s death at passover, the Petrine, Pauline, Johanine and Hebrews-author ‘passover lamb’ and ‘suffering servant’ motifs.
Dear Bart, I think it’s fair to say that we both see Jesus as a beautiful and enigmatic person who mesemerized those he came into contact with and who is endlessly fascinating from a historical persepective. Of course, I want Isaiah 53 to be about Jesus, because deep down, I do beleive that Jesus was the suffering servant / lamb of God and that his mission was predestined by God. However, I don’t find a lot of the OT quotes in Matthew’s gospel convincing, including the “behold a virgin shall conceive” and Immanuel verses. Also, I don’t accept the pre-existence of Jesus passages in Ephesians, Colosians and John 1 (unless ‘Christ’ and not Jesus of Nazareth per se, is some universal pre-carnal spirit). Furthermore, I could equally argue that, deep down, you believe that Jesus, though admirable, was a failed apocalyptic doomsdsay prophet, that he was mistaken about his destiny and mistakenly got himself killed, because you believe that there is no God and therefore that there are no pre-ordained purposes, no predictive revelations, no penal subsitutinary atonement, no life beyond the grave, no messianic Kingdom of God and so you were bound to conclude what you have!
I’ve started a new topic on the forum which is relevent to this discussion: https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-historical-jesus/gospel-the-meaning-of-the-word/?#p15683
Bart ehrman please answer me which scholar taht completely agree with you about Jesus is not god and is that a widely known view or not?
I believe I already answered you. Every scholar who is not a Christian agrees.
Mr ehrman are you part of conspiracy theory ?
Sorry, I don’t know what you’re asking or suggesting. Do you think non-Christians are conspiracists? OK then….
What do you think about quran , quran really preserved like it’s should be, why you don’t consider Islam and have religion , consider Pascals wager
Since Jesus exist and Muhammad also exist all those prophecy and science miracle particularly Muhammad prophecy about future can’t come for nothing , they must be a prophet from one same god, I think you need to consider religion and Islam
I’d suggest you do some serious reading about Christainity. You might start with a book like Jesus Interrupted.
I think it’s one of the great books of religious history. Look up Pascal’s wager on the blog (do a word search) and you’ll see what I think of it.
Mr Bart , actually quran itself challange people to find contradiction in one of their verse , but no one make it , while bible have a lot of clear cut contradiction,
In holy book if agnostic do good works , but not believe in God or the right god they wouldn’t go to heaven, since you say you need to follow the truth wherever it takes you, I think you need to consider outside Christianity or islam
Bible and Vedas have contradiction
Dear Bart
I come back to your contention of no evidence that any Jew before Jesus thought that the suffering servant applied to the Messiah, but only to the Nation of Israel. I confess it is difficult to disprove this contention, except that just reading it in any version of the Bible, strikes me as obviously referring one person and I just can’t believe that none of the scribes, essenes, pharisees etc didn’t consider that it might apply to one person and consider that this might be a ‘paradoxical suffering messiah’ – an annointed King that would represent the nation of Israel and take the suffering upon himself, but I grant you that is not irrefutable evidence. What about Isaiah 61 and DS Scroll fragment 4Q521 https://pages.uncc.edu/james-tabor/archaeology-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls/the-signs-of-the-messiah-4q521/ . The word mashach is only used in one other place by isaiah (21:5) and Isaiah ony uses mashiyach (messiah) once, referring to Cyrus (45:1). Mashiyach seems to be used most in the Psalms and also in Lev, 1&2 Sam, and Daniel https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H4899&t=NIV. Jesus clearly applied Isaiah 61 and the DSS fragment to himself – isn’t that enough to convince you that at least Jesus thought he was the Messiah?
I’m not sure if you’ve followed my discussions, but I think Jesus did think he was the messiah. By that, though, he did not have in mind a future execution. He believed God would bring in a good kingdom here on earth (the Kingdom of God) and that he himself would be made its ruler. And no, I do not think that he clearly applied Isaiah 61 to himself, and certainly not a DSS fragment.
Apologies Bart and thanks for your patience. I am now re-reading in ‘How Jesus became God’- great book! OK, how about Daniel 9:26 for associating the messiah with the suffering servant? Also, here’s why I think Jesus applied Isaiah 61 to himself: I’ve noticed that each of the beatidudes Matthew 5: 3-12 maps on to each phrase in Isaiah 61:1. He also applied it to himself: Luke 4:21. Furthemore, the Kindom of Heaven features in the beatitudes and seems to be referring to an after-life, either in heaven or on earth after a general ressurection of the dead, which Jesus subscribed to. He also says the Kingdom is ‘within you’ Luke 17:21 and not of this world John 18:36. Yes, he says the Kingdom will come on earth Matthew 6:10, but even he admits to not knowing the dates of future apocalypse and is it not possible that the Gospel writers in the ‘apocalypse of Jesus’ of Mat 24; Mark 13 & Luke 21 conflated 2 events that Jesus may have talked about separately – namely the destruction of the Temple & Jerusalem and final Kingdom coming after a worldwide tribulation?
Yes, the biblical authors certainly portray Jesus that way, and apply Isaiah 61 to him, and claim he did the same. But when talking about the *historical* Jesus it is much more complicated than accepting what the Gospels say as what he actually did and said.
One more thing, Jesus’s own brothers (or half-brothers ????) rejected him (or at least his message and messianic identity) until after the resurrection! Which, if you think about, it is pretty strong evidence crucifixion without a ressurection would have convinced them all the more that their famous brother was deluded about his mesianic identity and mistaken in his message! Mar 3:21
When his family[fn] heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”
Jhn 7:3
His brothers therefore said to Him, “Depart from here and go into Judea, that Your disciples also may see the works that You are doing.
Jhn 7:4
“For no one does anything in secret while he himself seeks to be known openly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.”
Jhn 7:5
For even His brothers did not believe in Him.
Yes, as I’ve repeatedly said, his brother James converted because he came to believe in the resurrection. It is not so clear about the other brothers.
Do the Jordan Lead Codices lend any credence to the substantiation to the historical Jesus as a living historical person? Thank you.
No.
Dear Bart, even trying to put myself in the shoes of the sceptic, I still don’t believe you have made a strong enough case that Isaiah 53 was not about one person (mainly because of the wording in the passage itself). I do however have to admit that your case for Jesus being a failed apocalyptic prophet is very strong. Jesus didn’t become King, the Son-of-Man didn’t come in Glory to bring the Kingdom of God on earth, he was betrayed, denied and deserted by; and a disspointment to, the other disciples and then mocked, tortured and killed in the most humilaiting and ignominious way possibe. The Crown of Thorns, the Purple Robe and the “King of the Jews” titulus pictorially capture the apparent failure and the shame of this apparent failure. Jesus appeared to have been wrong about the Kingdom of God being ‘at hand’ and deluded in his messianic pretensions. It appears he really didn’t know the plan (at least perhaps right up to the last supper) – a bit like Isaac maybe?. But maybe that’s precisely what makes it work!! To be continued……
OK! But if Isaiah himself says that the servant is Israel, I find that to be evidence hard to counter.
Continued……. If Jesus really knew that he was going to be crucified, I would argue that this would have detracted from him being fully human. If he did not have doubts about his destiny and calling, he would not have expereinced the fullness of being human. Maybe if he had not have thought wrongly about the timing of future events, he could not have been fully human. If he had not expereinced some sense of failure himself, then he could not have been fully human; and if he had not sensed the shame of an apparently failed minsitry (from a human perspective), he would not have been able to fullfill the role of Isaiah 53: 3-4. The Hebrew word used for ‘sticken’ (Naga) can also mean ‘defeated’. The introduction of the passage in Isaiah 52:13 , when combined with Isaiah 53: 9-11 , fits well with an exaltation Christology. So the Markian Messianic Secret may have been revealed later than Mark suggests, but for me at least, it was all there in Isaiah 53. Over to you 🙂
My sense is that a lot of people know they’re going to get in trouble with the law and that it will not end well. That is not to say Jesus did, ut if he did it wouldn’t necessarily be because he was divine.
Re: Jesus knowing he was going to ‘get into trouble with the law’. I am not arguing for his divinity here, I am only arguing that at least toward the end of his life, he not only knew he was in big trouble (last supper & Gesthemene), but that at least at this point in his life, he had a sense it was part of the plan of YHVH to bruise him & put him to grief Isaiah 53:10 , even though everyone else ‘esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted’ ie defeated – a failure, and disgrace from a human perspective and Jewish perspective, to the extent that would make us turn our backs on him in disapointment (as Judas did), reject him, despise him Isaiah 53: 3-4 and even curse him Galatians 3:13 , as indeed the Jewish rabbis latter did in the yimakh shemo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yimakh_shemo. Incidentally, this curse, in the form of the acronym ‘Yeshu’, together with the Galilean Aramaic dialect pronunciation tendency to miss off the last vowel and the the transliteration of the name into Greek as the two-syallable Iēsous, makes me think his name was Yeshu not Yeshua 🙂
Dear Bart, my reading of your views, particularly in “How Jesus became God” which I have now nearly finished for the second time through (and which I found profoundly illuminating & very readable) has carried me a long way down the path of doubt to the extent that I feel I have been able to identify with the disappointment Judas and the other disciples felt with Jesus at the end of his life Luke 24:21. I have also been swayed by you to adopt (pardon the pun) an exaltation Christology. However, i think that the vicarious messianic intepretation of Isaiah 53 means that Jesus had to be fully man to experience failure, to be unaware of his own destiny from the beginning of his minsitry and to not know when the Kingdom of God would come, as he admitted Mark 13:32 – otherwise he would not have experienced full humanity. So yes, he may indeed have been a ‘failed apocalyptic prophet’ from a human perspective, but I beleive it was in God’s plan and his ‘righteous servant’ Acts 3:13-14 is now highly exalted Isaiah 52:13; Philippians 2:8-10.
Dear Bart, you say in your article that the author is referring to someone (as a metaphor for a group of people). Metaphor is one possibility, but don’t you agree that Jesus himself believed that he was more than a metaphor for Judah, but that he was a ‘type’ or a real-life personification of the people of Zion see Mark 14:36 for example compared with Isaiah 51:17. The metaphor or type can of course work both ways. For example, would you not agree that the King of Judah (not Israel) can often be a personification of the people of Judah (the Jews)? If so, why not the ultimate King of Judah, the Messiah? Representation in this way might require complete identification in the sufferings of Judah and its people – the Jews. Surely this is what Isaiah 53 is all about! It is certainly interesting that the titulus above the cross read Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews! Also, if Isaiah was referring to Judah alone as the suffering servant, then who exactly is the ‘us’ and the ‘we’ in ‘our transgressions’; ‘our iniquities’; ‘brought us peace’; and ‘we are healed’?
I’m afraid I’m not sure what you’re asking. My view is that Jesus did not at all think of himself as the suffering servant of Isaiah, but did see himself as the future king of the coming kingdom. It was only after he was crucified that anyone identified him with the servant.
Dear Bart, what I am asking you, is for you to re-consider:
1. That before Christianity, servant of Isaiah 53 is likely to have been interpreted, at least by some Jews, as applying to an individual and even to a messiah figure (either as well or instead of) the nation of Israel, because:
a) as I have pointed out, there is uncertainty in chapters 49-53 of Isaiah about who ‘the servant’ is referring to
b) that at least some messianic pre-Christian Jewish teachers, especially Pharisees, Essenes, John the Baptist and Jesus himself, could not have failed to see the messianic references In Isaiah 53: Isaiah 52:13 ; Isaiah 53:2 ; Isaiah 53:8 (seen alongside to Daniel 9:26) and Isaiah 53:11
2. That Jesus would have realized, at least as far back as the last supper and Gethsemane, that the Kingdom was not coming in his lifetime and that indeed he was going to be killed. Therefore, at least at this late stage in his ministry, he was likely to have seen himself as the suffering servant. Mark 14:8-9 ; Mark 14:18-21 ; Mark 14:24 ; Mark 14:27 ; Mark 14:30 ; Mark 14:36 (in the context of Isaiah 51:17)
I’ve considered it for many years. If there were any Jews who *did* see it this way, they have left us no trace of it. The people you name, based on our surviving evidence, themselves never make the connection that you are saying they must have made.
Dear Bart, it can only be said to be the case that John the Baptist and Jesus left us no trace of having a messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53, if you deny that John the Baptist said ‘Behold the lamb of God …’ and if you deny that Jesus actually uttered the messianic secret ‘motif’s’ in Mark and the other passages where he foretold his sufferings. I will ask you about Mark 8:31-33, because calling Peter ‘Satan’ strikes me as fulfilling the criterion of embarrassment which thus lends credence to this exchange.
Is it possible that you may, be using circular reasoning: ie because you believe that Jesus had mistaken Kingdom & personal expectations, you don’t believe either that he thought he was the suffering servant, or that he thought he was going to be killed. Thus, you may be biased in favour of attributing any statement of Jesus in the gospels to this effect, to retrospective placement on his lips.
As to the pharisees, after they disappeared, the Rabbis who replaced them, tried to expunge any trace of ‘Yeshu’ (eg with the Yimack Shemo?) and ban any scriptural interpretations that might point to him.
No, my reason is much more straightforward. I really do not try to begin an investigation with my conclusions. I don’t think Jesus understood himself as the suffering servant of Isaiah for two major reasons. The first is that we have no evidence of any Jew in his day thinking that the passages in Isaiah about the Suffering Servant referred to the messiah. The second is that I do not at all think Jesus anticipated being crucified. Those, btw, are not the views I had going *in* to my studies. I thought just the opposite. It was the evidence that made me change my mind. My view is that it would be nice if more scholars would be willing to examine the evidence while being open to chaning their mind.
As for the suffering servant being Israel, this is far from clear in the earlier passages. In Isaiah 49:1-3, it seems to be Isaiah!, in Isaiah 49: 5-6, it seems to be a future King of Israel who will gather the tribes of Israel (Jacob). In Isaiah 49:7 it seems to ‘the holy one’ belonging to the ‘Redeemer of Israel’; ‘whom man despiseth’. As for the ‘righteous servant’ identified in Isaiah 53:11, I think there is just too much ‘one-person’ detail to fully metaphorize to Israel: ‘his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being and his form marred beyond human likeness’; ‘a man of suffering, and familiar with pain’ ‘he was pierced’, ‘he did not open his mouth’, ‘yet who of his generation protested?’ ‘he was cut off from the land of the living’; ‘he was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death’, ‘though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth’, ‘he will see his offspring and prolong his days’, ‘he poured out his life unto death’, ‘he was numbered with the transgressors’. All that can’t just refer to Israel!
Dear Bart, I know that my many longish posts on this topic are likely to be tiresome to you, but I would also ask you not to moderate out my last few comments from your blog because, I think they are all thoughtful and reasonably argued contributions to the Isaiah 53 debate, which I am sure that you would agree, is crucial (pardon the pun) and pivotal to Christianity. Best Angus
(by all means moderate this comment out! 🙂 )
I only delete comments that are not relevant to the concerns of the blog or uncivil. In private I make lots of comments of both sorts, myself. (Especially in connection, say, with politics…)
🙂
Thank you
Dear Bart,
Israel Knohl’s ‘The Messiah Before Jesus’ is a fascinating read with much speculation about various topics which I want to being up later. I will start the discussion from on evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls that the ‘Suffering Servant’ was associated with the ‘Son of Man’ and the Messiah before Christianity and is likely to have influenced Jesus. The evidence, as you know, comes from 2 hymns, each with 2 versions and all of which can only be gleaned from several fragments, so it gets a bit complicated. Furthermore, the hymns were found together and appear to have been deliberately torn up into fragments at the time of their storage. Hymn 1 is known as the self-glorification hymn and, for ease of reference, I will refer to hymn 2 as the thanksgiving hymn.
I will kick off the discussion by simply quoting Eshel’s authoritative translation and composite reconstruction of the Self-Glorification Hymn from the following fragments: 4Q471b, 4Q491, 4Q427, and 1QHa XXV-XXVI
1. [ I am ]recko[ned with the angels, my dwelling is in] the holy
2. [council.] Wh[o has been accounted despicable like me? And who] has been despised like m[e? And who]
3. has been shunned [by men] like me? [And who] compares to [me in enduring ]evil? [No teaching]
4. compares to my teaching.
[For ]I sit [ in heaven]
Continued………..
I’m not sure if this is an authoritative translation; you may know that the fragments are highly debated. The main problem is that the letters/ words in brackets are not in the manuscript: that’s where holes are and he has suggested what the letters/words might have been there. I would suggest you look around at other restorations among other experts, especially since, as I understand it, most Qumran experts do not accept these views, even though some of them would certainly like to!
….continued
5. Who is like me among the angels? [Who would cut me off when I open my mouth? And] who
6. could measure [the flow] of my lips? Who[ can associate with me in speech, and thus compare with my judgement? For I]
7. am the beloved of the King, a companion of the ho[ly ones, and no one can accompany me. And to my glory]
8. no one can compare, for I [have my station with the angels, and my glory with the sons of the King. Neither]
9. with gold will (I) cro[wn myself, nor with refined gold ]
10. [ ] Sing,[ O beloved ones
You’ll note this person does not identify himself as the king/messiah. A good comparandum would by the Enochic traditions, e.g., in 2 Enoch 22.
Dear Bart, I’ve just competed my homework and read 2 Enoch. What a fascinating read! My version didn’t have numbered verses so I wasn’t sure what 2 Enoch 22 referred to, but the 10 heavens (including a place of apparent eternal torment, caught my attention with the respect to your latest book) as well as the exaltation of both Enoch and Melchizadek.
As for the Self Glorification Hymn and the thanksgiving hymn, I didn’t expect you to lie down on this one! ???? It looks as if I am gong to have to make my arguments fragment by fragment ????.
Setting aside Israel Knohl’s fascinating speculations (especially about Menachem), I simply want to argue from the 2 versions of the two hymns, that *before Jesus*, the dead sea scrolls community had an understanding:
1. that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 was a single human being
2. that after his earthly rejection he had been (or would be) exalted to be with the angels
3. that the suffering servant was the same dude as the Bar Enash of Daniel and 1 Enoch
4. that the suffering servant was an annointed king (Mashyiach) who was expected to suffer
And therefore, that Jesus, may well have been aware of these suffering-servant-messiah-son-of-man interpretations and, in view of the NT evidence, is likely to have believed himself to be the man to fulfil them hence Mark 8:31. I will see if I can make these points without the need to rely on any debatable intpretations of the DS scroll fragments.
Just an interesting note… A few years ago, two LDS missionaries stopped by to talk. During our conversation, we talked about religion, LDS doctrine, Christianity, etc… At some point, Isaiah 53 came up, and I was surprised to hear one of the missionaries claim the chapter was a prophecy of Joseph Smith. That threw me off because I hadn’t ever heard that anyone say that before. I always meant to look up if that was a normal LDS teaching, or if that was just his opinion.
Ha! hey, why not?
How many reasons for ‘why not?’ would you consider a satifactory refutation of this crazy rhetorical Joseph Smith comment? (I’ll subsume your ‘why not?’ question under rhetorical licence and leave it there 🙂 ). Anyway, it reminds me that I need to get on with developing my arguments on the self-glorification hymn – I’ve been away.
Dear Bart, I’ve just selected the relevant parts and without any interpolation or extrapolation of the text. All segments are from Eshel’s translation and taken from Knohl’s book “The Messiah before Jesus”. Argument for conclusions 1 & 2.
Hymn 1 (Self Glorification Hymn) – version 1. Source: 4QHe (also subsumed under 4Q471b)
Fragment 1. Line 2. Has been rejected [..] like me
Fragment 2. […] Line 1. has been despised like [..]
Hymn 1 (Self Glorification Hymn) – version 2. Source 4Q491 frag 11, column 1
Line 6: none can compare [..] my glory and none has been exalted save myself……
Line 7-9 I shall be reckoned with the angels my dwelling is in the holy council. [..] desi[..] is not of the flesh [..] …everything precious to me is in the glory of the holy habitation. [.]ho has been accounted despicable like me. Yet who is like me in my glory? Who is [….] who has born[. …] afflictions like me, yet who compares to me [.. …….]ing evil
Right. So from that, what would lead you to think that it is the Messiah who is talking.
Argument: We know that the Qumran community valued Isaiah and would have been quite familiar with Isaiah 52-53. Isaiah 52:13; Isaiah 53:3-4 Isaiah 53:7 make it clear that Qumran Hymn 1 was referring to the same suffering servant, that he was an individual human being (for this also see the rest of hymn 1) and that after his earthly rejection, he had been (or would be) exalted to be with the angels. I rest my case for points 1 & 2.
Professor have you done any research on the Shroud of Turin? Is it true it has blood stains on it
that have middle eastern DNA? I also heard that with the tools available during the medieval ages
it would be impossible for any one to make such an elaborate hoax?
I haven’t looked at it for years. I don’t know if they’ve traced the DNA, but it wouldn’t be surpriseing if it were from the middle east. THere certainly were enough thousands of peole crucified in the ancient world there. No, it would not hve been impossible to crate, and the scientific evidence is clear that it is a medieval creation.
It’s a curious thing that in many Christian circles it is not hard to find people who will cheerfully explain that, for example, Isaiah did not prophecy a virgin birth and was not in that instance talking about Jesus at all, yet when it comes to the Suffering Servant, make no similar acknowledgement of the original context.
Thus William Barclay wrote, in the first instance, that: “Isaiah was almost certainly speaking of the immediate situation in Judah, and not of the distant coming of the Messiah at all, and Christian devotion has simply annexed a prophecy which originally had no reference to Jesus.” Yet in the second instance he wrote, “It may seem extraordinary, but even with Isaiah 53:1-12 before their eyes, the Jews had never dreamed of a suffering Messiah.” (The implication being that they ought to have done.)