It is a misunderstanding & somewhat antisemitic to claim that Jews purposefully don’t read Isaiah 53 because they “know” it’s about “Jesus”. At this time the prophetic Haftarot had not yet been established, but it was possible, nonetheless, to read different texts from Nebi’im that illustrated the Torah text of the Sabbath (see, e.g., Megillah 4:4). There were also some early traditions that certain prophetic texts (e.g., Ezek 1; 10; 16) were not to be used as Haftarah texts (Megillah 4:10). Nevertheless, Isa 53 was never mentioned as a text that could not be read as Haftarah. In the centuries that followed the formation of the Talmud, the Haftarot were established.46 In the light of the Haftarot lists, it becomes clear that many other texts from the book of Isaiah were not read. Because Isa 53 is not among these Haftarot texts, this indicates convincingly that it is impossible to conclude that it was intentionally avoided.
For some reason people believe that Rashi was the first to believe Isaiah 53 is Israel but this is false. The Talmud and Midrashim contain different ways of identifying the Servant: he could be a righteous man (bBer 5a), an ill person (GenR 20:10), Rabbi Akiba (yShek 5:1), the Messiah (bSanh 98b; RuthR 5:6), or Moses (bSot 14a). Saadiah Gaon interpreted the Servant as referring to the prophet Jeremiah (Alobaidi, Messiah, 12–17). Saadiah’s interpretation of Isa 53 is not restricted merely to Jeremiah. He writes that the suffering servant could, in a general way, be seen as reflecting the fates of the prophets, and then argues that the text fit the life of Jeremiah. Saadiah’s interpretation is reminiscent of modern interpretations in which the suffering servant is identified with the prophet. In these interpretations the Servant of Isa 53 is often compared to the picture given of Jeremiah in the Hebrew Bible. It is also impossible to claim that Rashi was the first to interpret Isa 53 as referring to Israel. His interpretation became popular in the Middle Ages and can be seen in many Jewish commentaries on the book of Isaiah; nonetheless, this “collective” interpretation is of ancient origin. In his work Contra Celsum 1.54–55, Origen notes that his Jewish opponent interpreted Isa 53 as “reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations.” This being the case, we have solid evidence that already in the beginning of the third century ce some Jews interpreted Isa 53 as referring to the whole people of Israel. That such collective interpretation received support even from Second Temple texts is clear from Dan 12:3–4. Moreover, that Dan 12:3–4 may be connected with Isa 53 receives support from the Second Maccabean books, which contain Jewish martyr theology according to which the sufferings of the Jewish martyrs are of benefit to the whole people (2 Macc 7:32–38).
Leave a Reply