Return to Answer

##Targum Jonathan ben Uziel##

##New Testament usage## Acts 8:26-40 contains the story of how Philip converted an Ethiopian eunuch. In the passage, the eunuch is reading a portion of Isaiah 53 which he doesn't understand and asks Philip to help him interpret it. By itself, this passage only shows that early Christians interpreted the passage as Messianic. This could be the invention of Philip or the author of Acts, and does not necessarily reflect a pre-existent Jewish interpretation. A number of other NT passages also make an explicit comparison.

##Rabbinic writings## ###Talmud### The next source (chronologically) of potential information is the Talmud. Recorded in the 3rd-5th centuries, it often records thoughts that date back further than that. There are five references to Isaiah 53 in the Talmud. Three are unrelated to the suffering servant image.^{[Note A]} The first of the remaining two is Sotah 14a, which reads:

###Midrash Rabbah### The next work of note is the Midrash Rabbah, a collection of Midrash mostly written between the 5th and 8th centuries.

###Jewish objections### In response to the above data, Jewish commentators offer two critiques. First, they say Midrash is a type of story telling and shouldn't be read literally. Second, they note all these examples post-date Jesus.

##Day of Atonement Prayer## The last first-millennium Jewish source that I'm aware of is a prayer attributed to Eleazar ben Qalir and written sometime between the 7th and 10th centuries. Recited on the Day of Atonement, it reads:⁷

##Later writings## Shortly after the year 1000, we begin to find clear interpretations of Isaiah 53 as referring to the nation of Israel in Rabbinic writings (as well as a much greater number of Rabbinic writings in general). The most important of these is Rashi (1040-1115). It is sometimes even suggested he invented this interpretation. (This suggestion is clearly false, as will be shown in the "However" section below.) Yet his importance to modern Jewish thought on all matters, not just this passage, is hard to overstate. Here is what he wrote on Isaiah 53:3:⁸

##However## So far we do not have any direct evidence of Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 supporting a nation of Israel view before the 11th century. At best, we have one example recorded in the 12th century that might record teaching from a earlier period. However, this view does find some support in an unexpected source. In Against Celsus, written around 250, Tertullian writes about debating Isaiah with a group of Jews:¹⁰

##Conclusion## This is an issue on which there is a lot of hyperbole - Christians tend to claim Jews never interpreted Isaiah 53 as referring to the nation of Israel during the first millennium, while Jews tend to claim authoritative Rabbis have always viewed it that way. Neither conclusion is backed by the data.

##Notes## ^A It has been suggested that Berakoth 5a:

##References##

Targum Jonathan ben Uziel

New Testament usage

Acts 8:26-40 contains the story of how Philip converted an Ethiopian eunuch. In the passage, the eunuch is reading a portion of Isaiah 53 which he doesn't understand and asks Philip to help him interpret it. By itself, this passage only shows that early Christians interpreted the passage as Messianic. This could be the invention of Philip or the author of Acts, and does not necessarily reflect a pre-existent Jewish interpretation. A number of other NT passages also make an explicit comparison.

Rabbinic writings

Talmud

The next source (chronologically) of potential information is the Talmud. Recorded in the 3rd-5th centuries, it often records thoughts that date back further than that. There are five references to Isaiah 53 in the Talmud. Three are unrelated to the suffering servant image.^{[Note A]} The first of the remaining two is Sotah 14a, which reads:

Midrash Rabbah

The next work of note is the Midrash Rabbah, a collection of Midrash mostly written between the 5th and 8th centuries.

Jewish objections

In response to the above data, Jewish commentators offer two critiques. First, they say Midrash is a type of story telling and shouldn't be read literally. Second, they note all these examples post-date Jesus.

Day of Atonement Prayer

The last first-millennium Jewish source that I'm aware of is a prayer attributed to Eleazar ben Qalir and written sometime between the 7th and 10th centuries. Recited on the Day of Atonement, it reads:⁷

Later writings

Shortly after the year 1000, we begin to find clear interpretations of Isaiah 53 as referring to the nation of Israel in Rabbinic writings (as well as a much greater number of Rabbinic writings in general). The most important of these is Rashi (1040-1115). It is sometimes even suggested he invented this interpretation. (This suggestion is clearly false, as will be shown in the "However" section below.) Yet his importance to modern Jewish thought on all matters, not just this passage, is hard to overstate. Here is what he wrote on Isaiah 53:3:⁸

However

So far we do not have any direct evidence of Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 supporting a nation of Israel view before the 11th century. At best, we have one example recorded in the 12th century that might record teaching from a earlier period. However, this view does find some support in an unexpected source. In Against Celsus, written around 250, Tertullian writes about debating Isaiah with a group of Jews:¹⁰

Conclusion

This is an issue on which there is a lot of hyperbole - Christians tend to claim Jews never interpreted Isaiah 53 as referring to the nation of Israel during the first millennium, while Jews tend to claim authoritative Rabbis have always viewed it that way. Neither conclusion is backed by the data.

Notes

^A It has been suggested that Berakoth 5a:

References

The Targums are interpretative translation of the original Hebrew into Aramaic. They were authorized for reading within the Synagogue - someone would read the Hebrew original and then someone else would recite the Targum from memory. Since they are not literal translations, they can provide valuable insight into the thinking of orthodox Jews during the period in which they were written

The second possibility is that Jonathan wrote (indirectly) in response to Christian use of the passage. If true, this actually strengthens the Christian's case. The Targum is then implying "Jesus didn't fulfill this passage", but definitely not "this is not a Messianic passage". The fact that the Messianic reading remained despite the Christian use of it would strongly imply that many/most Jews saw it as Messianic before Jesus came. If that wasn't the case, it would be much simpler/effective to leave out Messianic tones than to re-interpret the passage to be a different kind of Messiah than what Christians said Jesus was.

What I find more interesting is a large group of passages which scholars have suggested were influenced by the language of Isaiah 53 without quoting, or even alluding to, it directly. According to Simon Gathercole "There is virtually a scholarly consensus now that Paul's letters were influenced by Isaiah 53".¹ Passages cited include Romans 4:25 (perhaps rising to the level of clear allusion), Romans 8:32, and 1 Corinthians 15. J. Christopher Edwards sees a connection between Isaiah 53 and Mark 10:45/Matthew 20:28.² Craig Evans sees Isaiah's influence in Peter's speeches of Acts 3 and Act 10, as well in several passages of 1 Peter.³ Daniel J. Brendsel examines John's use of Isaiah 53 and concludes that the direct quote in 12:38 is just "the tip of the iceberg" of its influence on John's writing.⁴

The fact that Isaiah 53 is used by NT writers not only in arguments, but also influences numerous passages, written by a diverse set of writers, suggests that the idea was very deeply embedded within Christian thought from a very early date. If the idea was the invention of Christians, one might expect it to be developed over time, but what we actually see is the motif in every strata of the data - it is in the words of Jesus, it is in the Letters of Paul, it is in Mark, in is in the other Synoptics, it is in John, and it is in the catholic letters - all without noticeable development. This suggest the idea either heavily influenced Jesus and thus was a common theme of his teaching, or it was an already developed idea in Jewish thought before the first century (or both).

##Rabbinic writings## ###Talmud### The next source (chronologically) of potential information is the Talmud. Recorded in the 3rd-5th centuries, it often records thoughts that date back further than that. There are five references to Isaiah 53 in the Talmud. Three are unrelated to the suffering servant image.^{[Note A]} The first of the other two is Sotah 14a, which reads:

Here, through a reference to Isaiah 53:12, Rabbi Simlai ties the suffering servant to Moses. In another portion of the Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b, we read

You said to me, ‘You shall not pass over.’ Therefore ‘it is all the same so I said...’" After all this I was ‘cut off out of the land of the living.’ You decreed on me that I should not enter the land.

It is certainly true that caution should be used when interpreting Midrash. It certainly would be a mistake to, for example, say Ruth Rabbah itself is a prophecy. On the other hand, this objection doesn't really take away the force of the Christian's argument either. Sticking with the same example, it is not Jonathan's purpose to explain Isaiah in his "story" about Ruth's decedents. But, the interpretation loses all meaning if we say he picked a random verse to justify his Messianic line. If Isaiah 53 never had any Messianic meaning for any Jew, there would be no reason for him to even consider the verse he uses - it's not like it is an inherently close match to Ruth 2:14. He picks the verse for a reason.

##Later writings## Shortly after the year 1000, we begin to find clear interpretations of Isaiah 53 as referring to the nation of Israel in Rabbinic writings (as well as a much greater number of Rabbinic writings in general). The most important of these is Rashi (1040-1115). It is sometimes even suggested he invented this interpretation; this suggestion is clearly false as will be shown in the "However" section below. However, his importance to modern Jewish thought (on all matters, not just this passage) is hard to overstate. Here is what he wrote on Isaiah 53:3:⁸

Here, Maimonides references two verses from our passage (53:2 & 52:15) as descriptions of the Messiah. It is certainly true his overall Messianic expectation would not describe Jesus (which is the typical the Jewish response to this material). However, that does not change that he saw (at least some of) Isaiah 53 as Messianic.

We can, however, be confident that first century converts to Christianity did not invent the idea that Isaiah 53 has Messianic tones. The idea that the passage refers to Jesus is fully developed in every strata of the New Testament, implying that the association dates back to the teachings of Jesus Himself. Furthermore, the appearance of Messianic interpretations in the near-contemporary Targum and in later Jewish writing is hard to explain if the idea did not predate Christianity. It is unlikely that Jewish commentators would adopt a Messianic interpretation of a passage which previous had none in response to Christian claims that the passage was Messianic. The earliest Christians adopting or modifying existing Messianic claims about the passage is a much more likely explanation for the data.

If we are pushed to make a conclusion about primacy, we must say some sort of Messianic interpretation is more likely. However, that conclusion is not firm and the cautionary note at the start of this post applies in reverse as well - just because a Messianic interpretation might be older does not mean it is better. This post has only attempted to answer the question of whether Isaiah 53 was interpreted Messianicly before Christianity. No attempt has been made to establish what the correct interpretation is.

The Targums are interpretative translations of the original Hebrew into Aramaic. They were authorized for reading within the Synagogue - someone would read the Hebrew original and then someone else would recite the Targum from memory. Since they are not literal translations, they can provide valuable insight into the thinking of orthodox Jews during the period in which they were written

The second possibility is that Jonathan wrote (indirectly) in response to Christian use of the passage. If true, this actually strengthens the Christian's case. The Targum is then implying "Jesus didn't fulfill this passage," but definitely not "this is not a Messianic passage." The fact that the Messianic reading remained despite the Christian use of it would strongly imply that many or even most Jews saw it as Messianic before Jesus came. If that wasn't the case, it would have been much simpler and more effective to leave out the Messianic overtones than to reinterpret the passage to be a different kind of Messiah than what Christians said Jesus was.

What I find more interesting is a large group of passages that scholars have suggested were influenced by the language of Isaiah 53 without quoting or even alluding to it directly. According to Simon Gathercole "There is virtually a scholarly consensus now that Paul's letters were influenced by Isaiah 53."¹ Passages cited include Romans 4:25 (perhaps rising to the level of clear allusion), Romans 8:32, and 1 Corinthians 15. J. Christopher Edwards sees a connection between Isaiah 53 and Mark 10:45; Matthew 20:28.² Craig Evans sees Isaiah's influence in Peter's speeches of Acts 3 and Acts 10, as well in several passages of 1 Peter.³ Daniel J. Brendsel examines John's use of Isaiah 53 and concludes that the direct quote in John 12:38 is just "the tip of the iceberg" of its influence on John's writing.⁴

The fact that Isaiah 53 is used by NT writers not only in arguments, but also influences numerous passages, written by a diverse set of writers, suggests that the idea was very deeply embedded within Christian thought from a very early date. If the idea was the invention of Christians, one might expect it to be developed over time, but what we actually see is the motif in every strata of the data - it is in the words of Jesus, it is in the Letters of Paul, it is in Mark, in is in the other Synoptics, it is in John, and it is in the catholic letters - all without noticeable development. This suggest the idea either heavily influenced Jesus and thus was a common theme of his teaching, or it was an already developed idea in Jewish thought before the first century - or both.

##Rabbinic writings## ###Talmud### The next source (chronologically) of potential information is the Talmud. Recorded in the 3rd-5th centuries, it often records thoughts that date back further than that. There are five references to Isaiah 53 in the Talmud. Three are unrelated to the suffering servant image.^{[Note A]} The first of the remaining two is Sotah 14a, which reads:

Here, through a reference to Isaiah 53:12, Rabbi Simlai ties the suffering servant to Moses. In another portion of the Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b, we read:

You said to me, ‘You shall not pass over.’ Therefore ‘it is all the same so I said...’ After all this I was ‘cut off out of the land of the living.’ You decreed on me that I should not enter the land.

It is certainly true that caution should be used when interpreting Midrash. For example, it certainly would be a mistake to say Ruth Rabbah itself is a prophecy. On the other hand, this objection doesn't really take away the force of the Christian's argument either. Sticking with the same example, it is not Jonathan's purpose to explain Isaiah in his "story" about Ruth's decedents. But, the interpretation loses all meaning if we say he picked a random verse to justify his Messianic line. If Isaiah 53 never had any Messianic meaning for any Jew, there would be no reason for him to even consider the verse he uses - it's not like it is an inherently close match to Ruth 2:14. He picks the verse for a reason.

##Later writings## Shortly after the year 1000, we begin to find clear interpretations of Isaiah 53 as referring to the nation of Israel in Rabbinic writings (as well as a much greater number of Rabbinic writings in general). The most important of these is Rashi (1040-1115). It is sometimes even suggested he invented this interpretation. (This suggestion is clearly false, as will be shown in the "However" section below.) Yet his importance to modern Jewish thought on all matters, not just this passage, is hard to overstate. Here is what he wrote on Isaiah 53:3:⁸

Here, Maimonides references two verses from our passage (53:2 & 52:15) as descriptions of the Messiah. It is certainly true his overall Messianic expectation would not describe Jesus (which is the typical Jewish response to this material). Still, that does not change the fact that he saw at least some of Isaiah 53 as Messianic.

We can, however, be confident that first century converts to Christianity did not invent the idea that Isaiah 53 has Messianic tones. The idea that the passage refers to Jesus is fully developed in every strata of the New Testament, implying that the association dates back to the teachings of Jesus himself. Furthermore, the appearance of Messianic interpretations in the near-contemporary Targum and in later Jewish writing is hard to explain if the idea did not predate Christianity. It is unlikely that Jewish commentators would adopt a Messianic interpretation of a passage which previous had none in response to Christian claims that the passage was Messianic. The earliest Christians adopting or modifying existing Messianic claims about the passage is a much more likely explanation for the data.

If we are pushed to make a conclusion about primacy, we must say some sort of Messianic interpretation is more likely. However, that conclusion is not firm and the cautionary note at the start of this post applies in reverse as well - just because a Messianic interpretation might be older does not mean it is better. This post has only attempted to answer the question of whether Isaiah 53 was interpreted as Messianic before Christianity. No attempt has been made to establish what the correct interpretation is.

What we actually see is that, historically, three interpretations have been suggested within Orthodox Judaism - the passage refers to Moses, the passage refers to the Messiah, and the passage refers to the nation of Israel as a whole. We do not have enough data to decide which view was most common prior to the 11th century - the Messianic view has the most support, but not enough to be conclusive. Nor can we say with any confidence which view is the oldest - We have no data at all on interpretations for the first 500+ years after the passage was written.

What we actually see is that, historically, three interpretations have been suggested within Orthodox Judaism - the passage refers to Moses, the passage refers to the Messiah, and the passage refers to the nation of Israel as a whole. We do not have enough data to decide which view was most common prior to the 11th century - the Messianic view has the most support, but not enough to be conclusive. Nor can we say with any confidence which view is the oldest - We have no data at all on interpretations for the first 500+ years after the passage was written.^{Note B}

^B It has been suggested that certain Dead Sea Scrolls (which definitely do predate Christianity), especially 4Q491, may reflect Messianic interpretations of Isaiah 53. Thus far, I have not been able to properly evaluate such claims and so have left them aside in favor of clearly interpretations of Isaiah 53.

¹¹ "The Effective History of Isaiah 53" by Martin Hengel and Daniel Bailey in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources