Posts
1. Many English translations of Isaiah 53:9 say that the Suffering Servant was with the rich in his death. Randall Heskett, in Messianism Within the Scriptural Scrolls of Isaiah (pages 198-199), refers to attempts to apply this verse to Jesus’ burial in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. A.J. Motyer makes a big deal about ashir (“rich”) in this verse being singular. According to Motyer, ashir is collective only when it contrasted with the poor. Because such is not the case in Isaiah 53:9, that verse must be referring to a particular rich man, whom Motyer probably understands to be Joseph of Arimathea.
Randall cites others. Delitzsch says that without “the fulfillment it would be impossible to understand verse 9 at all”, and that reminds Randall of Irenaeus’ statement that “if it had not been for the fulfillments we would not have known the prophecies”. For Delitzsch, Isaiah 53:9′s remark that the Servant will be with the rich in his burial makes no sense, apart from its fulfillment—when Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.
Because ashir is parallel with reshaim (“wicked”) in Isaiah 53:9, Randall goes with another interpretation: “It seems that the analogous terms resha and ashir underscore the wicked traits of the rich against whom the prophets uttered judgment because they exploited and oppressed the poor. This verse appears to be saying that the Servant was given a grave with criminals and oppressors.” According to Keil-Delitzsch, Martin Luther had the same impression: that the Suffering Servant (whom Luther understood to be Jesus) died like a rich man “who sets all his heart upon riches, i.e., a wicked man.”
The Jewish commentator Rashi appears to interpret v 9 to mean that the Servant “subjected himself to be buried according to anything the wicked of the heathens…would decree upon him”, even if the death were humiliating. Regarding the wealthy, Rashi seems to be saying that the Servant subjected himself to the will of the ruler, who is presumably the wealthy person. At the same time, Rashi notes that the Servant obeyed the Torah rather than stealing, so could he be understanding the verse similarly to Randall and Luther: the Servant did not get rich through illicit means, but he was punished as someone who had?
2. I finished Avi Hurvitz’s A Linguistic Study of the Relationship Between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel. Hurvitz’s argument is that P uses language that doesn’t appear much in later sources, and P doesn’t use later Hebrew, and so P must be early. Ezekiel uses aspects of later biblical Hebrew more, and the Book of Ezekiel emerged during the exile. Therefore, for Hurvitz, P is probably pre-exilic. Hurvitz wrestles with the idea that P could have been a later scribe who was trained to use archaic language. But, on page 163, Hurvitz says that we can detect archaism when earlier expressions occur alongside later ones, and we don’t see that in P.
