People claiming Isaiah 53 "is excluded from Jewish bibles"
TurquoiseTastic
Kerygmania Host
in Purgatory
On the Ecclesiantics "sermon" thread @KarlLB posted:
I remember someone making such a claim when I was at university in the 1990s. Evidently it is still doing the rounds. Where does this idea come from?
Unfortunately our preacher seemed to believe that Isaiah 53 is excluded from some Jewish bibles because it's so obviously about Jesus.
Given this is (a) bollocks and (b) borderline antisemitic it rather obscured whatever his point was.
I remember someone making such a claim when I was at university in the 1990s. Evidently it is still doing the rounds. Where does this idea come from?
Comments
Sadly, from medieval 'blood-libels' to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, there has been a long history of this sort of thing.
A brief google suggests that it is common for synagogues to skip reading that chapter in public worship because (as far as I can make out) the Christian interpretation of the passage is too culturally prevalent. I can see this getting parlayed into it being excised from Jewish scriptures.
E.g. Would a socially liberal church have their throats seize up at the latter part of Romans 1, or would a Trump/Hegseth supporting church gloss over the Beatitudes, or a Roman Catholic church suddenly look at their shoes when Jesus' siblings are mentioned?
Well I think that would often not be the approach. Often preachers grab the bull by the horns and say "you might think this implies such and such but how wrong you would be...."
The Beatitudes are so vague in who they are refering to as the "blessed", I'm sure that church could just interpret it as eg. "America needs a strong army, because she fights on the side of those who thirst for justice". And that's the same logic most liberals would have applied to the US army during World War II.
I think more problematic would be something like Vance's repudiation of universalism on the basis that Jesus taught diminishing circles of obligation, ie. prioritize your family, then your neighbours, then your country, then foreigners; and trying to square that with "Let the dead bury their dead."
(Though I'm pretty sure Vance was just making up his interpretation on the spot, because I've never heard even the most "Christianity = everyday social comventions"-style clergyperson posit precisely what he did as biblical truth.)
Isaiah 40 ff is often viewed as the writing of a follower of Isaiah, writing at the time of the exile in Babylon (a view held by many Christian commentator. so this metaphorical interpretation is quite consistent with the style, substance and timing of the writings.
The writing style and content is distinctively different to the earlier chapters. I believe Jewish scholars see that as well as many Christian scholars. But even if you take a conservative view of the author, it’s still valid to see the writing as a prophecy of the exile.
It remains a vivid picture of an atoning sacrifice. The atonement for sins by another is a theme to be found elsewhere in the OT.
Therefore two things can be true at the same time. Firstly the Christian view that it is a foreshadowing of Christ’s atoning sacrifice. Secondly a Jewish view that it describes the atoning sacrifice of the righteous remnant in exile.
The notion that the passage would not be read in synagogues because it obviously points to Jesus is pure ignorance. Neither Orthodox Jews nor Reformed Jews have any problems with the passage.
Yeah, reading a bit more it looks like you're right - Christians have taken the absence of the chapter (along with many others, they neglect to notice) from traditional patterns of readings and spun it as being because the passage points to Jesus. I'm a bit embarassed to have been taken in by it at first look.
There is an annual cycle of readings for the synagogue, much like the lectionary. The only portion of the Hebrew Scriptures read in their entirety as part of that annual cycle is the Torah. Readings from the Prophets and the Writings were chosen to relate to the Torah readings, and lots from the Prophets and the Writings aren’t part of the annual cycle.
There’s no reason to assume any Christian urban legend for why this one passage isn’t read.
Five books from the writings are read during particular holy times
* Esther at Purim (around March)
* Ruth at Shavuot (May/June)
* Ecclesiastes either during Sukkot or Shemini Atzeret (September/October)
* Song of Songs at Passover
* Lamentations at Tisha B'Av (July/August)
The source of the link is “Jews for Judaism” set up in 1985 as a defensive reaction to “Jews for Jesus”.
I have looked carefully at the link, @Gramps49 and the arguments that an exact translation makes it clear that the suffering servant is reference to a collective and cannot possibly apply to an individual are not entirely fair. The reference to an individual predominates the Hebrew. In order to prove that Christians have stretched a point in their understanding the author stretches a point himself to justify his defensive purpose.
Shame really. The argument that the suffering servant can be properly understood as a collective is fine as it stands without suggesting that the text could not possibly refer to an individual. Both view (individual and collective) are valid from the text.
You always have my permission to do so ... 😉
Whether they included Isaiah 53 I wouldn’t know. But I’m pretty sure early Christians knew about Messianic expectations and texts supporting them. And may have added to what they saw as significant texts. You have a hint of this in Acts and the encounter between Philip and the eunuch.
I think after the emergence and moves into the diaspora of Christianity, , and following the sack of Jerusalem there was a significant Jewish rethink. Some of this is encapsulated in the (probably mythical) deliberations of the hypothetical
Council of Jamnia. However it happened there was a decision to determine what exactly were the Jewish scriptures. I’m inclined to believe one of the intentions was to establish some better control over Messianic expectations.
This is all a bit speculative but I’m pretty sure there is evidence of a significant rethink after the sack of Jerusalem.
But I’d never heard the idea that Isaiah 53 is “omitted” from the Tanakh until @KarlLB mentioned it this past Sunday.
Golly,
I'd forgotten we did a couple of those way back in ? 1974, 1975? We included lamb, red wine and unlevened bread of course. It felt kinda OK back in the day!
The Roman Catholics have had an answer for that question for 2000 years. They're not afraid of the passages.
That's the sorta thing I associate with "Messianic Jews". I'm guessing these Evangelical Anglicans weren't precisely in that camp, but still kinda primitivists who wanted to practice Christianity in the manner they assume it was practiced as a Jewish sect?
I don't think it was anything to do with primitivism, just a particular trend amongst some Evangelicals.
So, they didn't think there was an obligation for everyone to practice the Jewish rituals of the early church, just that it would be a cool thing to do?
Exactly.
Thanks. Yeah, I think I'd still call that primitivism, though maybe "elective primitivism", since they don't think everybody is obligated to do it, unlike, say, the Worldwide Church of God, with their Saturday Sabbath, Feast Of The Tabernacles etc.
Yeah, I think we're more or less on the same page, though it might depend on how heavy a load you think my adjective "elective" was carrying there.
Probably safe to say the imperative was to do something to show atonement for historic attacks upon Jews, with "Hold a seder during Holy Week" a popular option in some circles.
I went to post-V2 Catholic schools, and the confirmation slide-show included an image of a Star Of David with tar all over it, and a guy with that weird religious-film voice telling us to "Reject anti-semitism because etc". I assume the meaning was explained to us at some point, but I don't know if I came away with a clear understanding of how it connected to anything else I knew about.
Fair enough. My evidence is anecdotal. If I've got the chronology right, this vogue for Christian Seders woulda corresponded with the postwar drive among various denominations to re-examine Christian culpability for antisemitism, but that wouldn't neccessarily be a direct cause-and-effect.
Yes, they are aware that many other Jews reject them. I know at least one was rejected by his birth family. They believe that they have the right to follow Jesus and remain Jews, and I think they're correct in that. And I'm definitely not going to argue with them if they wish to hold Jewish Christian seders. I would hope they would not argue with me if my family chooses to celebrate a Christian Tet festival.
I'll get me coat ...
On a serious note, I think it's down to context. I can't see so much of an issue with the fellas @LambChopped knows doing that as there is with Gentile Christians doing this sort of thing because they either think it's cool or they imagine it makes up for antisemitism.
A liberal catholic Anglican parish here used to do a Holy Week 'seder' which brought Christians together from the various churches across town. To that extent it was a 'good thing'. I certainly got to know people from different church backgrounds when I attended.
It gradually fizzled out and I get the impression that those who organised it initially thought rather better of it when they realised it wasn't particularly appropriate.
It was a well-intentioned initiative though but not particularly well thought through.
It tended to attract more liberal and 'mainliners' than evangelicals, though, but some Pentecostals and evangelical Anglicans did attend.
If anything, our local Pentecostals were more eirenic than some of the evangelical Anglicans, truth be told. But that's by the by. Things have changed a bit now.
If they're Jewish by birth and upbringing I don't see an issue.
The thing is, though, that Messianic Jewish congregations include a lotta people who are NOT Jewish by birth and upbringing, but are identifying as Jewish as part of their desire to feel more closely involved with pre-mil eschatology.
IOW if a given congregation has no born-and-raised Jews, the born-and-raised Gentile Hal Lindsey devotees could still hold a seder that would be considered legitimate by the standards of Messianic Judaism. And born-and-raised Jews who join Messianic congregations are effectively endorsing a definition of "Jewish" which allows that to take place.
In my case, I am Jewish by blood, Christian by faith, not “Messianic Jew” (which seems to be its own fundamentalist thing) but Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian with a dash of Shinto, and while I haven’t done it in a while, I’m happy to do a Seder at home, menorah for Hanukkah, Mensch on the Bench (an alternative to the Elf on the Shelf), etc.