• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Isaiah 53:9.

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
נגע here is a noun, not a verb: 'a strike' (nega'), not 'he was struck' (naga'). Grammar is not flexible, which is what makes it useful in conveying information. There is unity in the text translating as is, because the subject is already a plurality. We are comfortable with switching from singular to plural and back because there is precedent from Ex. 19:2.

. . ."For them [plural], he [singular] received a strike." ----Grammar is almost infinitely malleable. That's one reason the Masoretes added the points to the unpunctuated text: to try to nail the living word down in a manner that could be controlled within the received traditions of the oral Torah (even though that was forbidden). Without the points and addendums used to try to make the received tradition the only tradition, the text of the Tanakh cries out into the wilderness of modern Judaism: "Why have you forsaken me?"


John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
It isn't Isaiah's people, because Isa. 52:15-53:1 establishes the speakers as the rulers of the nations. Each ruler is exclaiming in hindsight about the Jewish people, "for a transgression of my people, a strike [was struck] to them". So no, your "technical reading" is wrong.

. . . One of the oddities of Isaiah is the fact that he constantly claims it's the nations, the goy nations, who first recognize the suffering servant. In chapter 11, verse 10 and 11, Isaiah implies that the Gentiles will first recognize the suffering servant (when he's lifted up as a shrine), and then Israel will accept the same suffering servant, the foundation of their faith, later.

Though it's a thread topic in itself, it's this nuance that undermines the idea that the nation of Israel is the suffering servant spoken of in Deutero-Isaiah. Which is not to deny that the nation too suffers unfairly just like the personage in Deutero-Isaiah. The nation too suffers for righteousness sake.

The nations of Israel is the messianic nation, no doubt. And suffers like the personage in the cross-hairs of Deutero-Isaiah. That can never be denied by a serious student of the word of God.

Nevertheless, it's important to distinguish the singular suffering servant of Deutero-Isaiah from the larger nation. Isaiah 52:15 through 53:1, indeed seems to justify your argument. But in fact it's implying that the nations recognize the singular suffering servant before Israel does. This latter statement is naturally problematic for modern Jews, but Isaiah thoroughly justifies the fact that the nations, not Israel, will first recognize the singular suffering servant who is the true paragon of the entire nation of Israel.


John
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
. . . Then you're not aware that within post-Temple practice, prayers have taken the place of animal sacrifice?
That has nothing to do with what an altar is. You can't replace the meaning of words with theology.

-----The new snipped for too much crap in a single post

Perhaps the temple snipped for no one cares about your conjectures

Why, how, could I suggest such things when a natural born Jew seems oblivious?
Because crazy is not obvious to sane people.

As just a guess, it could well be because I may be the first person snipped for high levels of crap

. . . This could be a key to the most fundamental question of this thread. Of what do you speak when you speak of the "Priestly Blessings"? Because Rabbi Hirsch implies that these blessings are tied to the Presence of God where they (the blessings) exist. . . And since if I recall correctly, you're familiar with the Zohar, you may know it opens with a discussion of the cup of blessing that contains the contents of what follows throughout the rest of the Zohar.

What do you understand as the Priestly Blessings?
You are mistaken if you thought I am here to teach you Jewish theology. I am not here for you. I am here in case someone reads your crap and mistakenly assumes that you are describing actual Jewish theology.

. . . Then you can relax, and give me a serious hearing, since, you at least, know that's not happening. You can read this asininity fearless concerning whether anyone is giving it any attention since you've been around these parts long enough to know that they ain't, and that that's not something that matters to me in the least.
OTOH, you don't matter to me, but the off chance that someone reads your crap does.

My spiritual mentor, Col. snipped for I don't care what your spiritual mentor has to say about you or your crap

Where a true student of the word of God is presenting biblical truths he will always be a voice crying out into a wilderness of apathy and unconcern. Isaiah knew this too well.
Spoken like a True Christian™.

. . ."For them [plural], he [singular] received a strike." ----Grammar is almost infinitely malleable.
Grammar is not malleable no matter how much you repeat the idea. There are sometimes where a sentence can have more than one meaning because it would be grammatically correct in multiple ways, not because grammar is malleable. And this is not one of those cases.

The word is a noun, so it correctly translates to "a strike [was struck] to them".
If you choose to ignore the vowel points, then as a verb it would be going on the word עמי - my nation, and would be read, "for the sins of my nation, [he (ie. my nation)] struck to them".

That's one reason the Masoretes added the points to the unpunctuated text: to try to nail the living word down in a manner that could be controlled within the received traditions of the oral Torah (even though that was forbidden).
The Masoretes standardized vowel points according to the simple meaning of all the verses. It is not uncommon for commentaries to give Midrashic interpretations not according to these vowel points.

Without the points a snipped for putrid crap

. . . One of the oddities of Isaiah is the fact that he constantly claims it's the nations, the goy nations, who first recognize the suffering servant. In chapter 11, verse 10 and 11, Isaiah implies that the Gentiles will first recognize the suffering servant (when he's lifted up as a shrine), and then Israel will accept the same suffering servant, the foundation of their faith, later.
No he does not. All it says is that nations will look to him. That requires prophecy because while it's expected that the Jewish people will recognize their own Messiah, it's unexpected that non-Jewish nations will look to the Messiah.

Though it's a thread topic in itself, it's this nuance that undermines the idea that the nation of Israel is the suffering servant spoken of in Deutero-Isaiah. Which is not to deny that the nation too suffers unfairly just like the personage in Deutero-Isaiah. The nation too suffers for righteousness sake.

The nations of Israel is the messianic nation, no doubt. And suffers like the personage in the cross-hairs of Deutero-Isaiah. That can never be denied by a serious student of the word of God.
No it doesn't and also that wouldn't be true if it did imply that the nations recognize the Messiah first.

Nevertheless, it's important to distinguish the singular suffering servant of Deutero-Isaiah from the larger nation. Isaiah 52:15 through 53:1, indeed seems to justify your argument. But in fact it's implying that the nations recognize the singular suffering servant before Israel does. This latter statement is naturally problematic for modern Jews, but Isaiah thoroughly justifies the fact that the nations, not Israel, will first recognize the singular suffering servant who is the true paragon of the entire nation of Israel.
You're using walls of text to hide your unsubstantiated arguments.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
The Masoretes standardized vowel points according to the simple meaning of all the verses. It is not uncommon for commentaries to give Midrashic interpretations not according to these vowel points..

. . . Then perhaps the meaning isn't as simple as simple people might think. It's never that simple. A Hebrew reader doesn't need the points added to the text if he knows how it's read.

The points are added to the text to make sure it's read only one way. It's a very serious crime whereby Jews took possession of something God gave the entire human race, in order to insinuate that it was their personal possession.


John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Grammar is not malleable no matter how much you repeat the idea. There are sometimes where a sentence can have more than one meaning because it would be grammatically correct in multiple ways, not because grammar is malleable.

I suggest you read chapter 12 of Moshe Idel's Absorbing Perfections.




John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
I suggest you read chapter 12 of Moshe Idel's Absorbing Perfections.




John


My favorite Jewish sages and scholars are seekers of truth. They know that something is missing in Judaism. They strain, with the angels (1 Peter 1:10-12), to understand the things that are hidden from Judaism. And perhaps to intuit why they're hidden?

There are things hidden from Christianity too. And ironically what's hidden from Judaism is found in Christianity, and what's hidden from Christianity is found in Judaism. God made it that way so that only those who can harbor the melding of two contradictions between their bosom can wear Yeshua as all priests must wear Yeshua according to the Prophets.

Salvation comes from the lamb of God. Who is Shaddai. Who is the yid in the shad. The melding of the opposites of life and death, light and dark, man and not man, Jew and Gentile, in the greatest bosom-born ornament the world has, or will, ever know.

As the wildly eccentric and unorthodox Rabbi Hirsch teaches, the menorah image below must be worn between the bosom of a Jewish priest whenever he seeks the Presence of God in his very midst (or mid-section, say between his breast). God's abode is between the shad. He's the yod, or yid, between the shad. That's his shrine per Isaiah 53:9.



John

 
Top