Talk:Isaiah 53

message: I Know you want to delete the text.  But first, we should figure out a way to effectively link to wikisource.  Any ideas? AdamBiswanger1 20:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaiah_53&diff=114320650&oldid=114320576 Do what you can, but be careful. Any contradiction of the Christian missionary lunatics will just get reverted within 2 minutes. Obviously, as Jews online, we must continue to suffer at the hands of Christians when we try to serve as a light unto nations and bring the truth of G_d's word to them. 72.74.110.248 16:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe Dannyza1981 made other edits besides removing the text. If your only objection was the chapter removal, then your revert undid neutral edits. As for the specific issue of the text, wikipedia is not a primary source. We have wikitext for that (where we have various free bible translations). I would support removing the full text on the basis that it is not encyclopedic, and goes against WP:NOT to include such large quotations of primary sources. -Andrew c [talk] 01:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Orphaned thread

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dannyza1981/Sandbox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dannyza1981/Sandbox
Dannyza1981 (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Dannyza1981 made other edits besides removing the text. If your only objection was the chapter removal, then your revert undid neutral edits. As for the specific issue of the text, wikipedia is not a primary source. We have wikitext for that (where we have various free bible translations). I would support removing the full text on the basis that it is not encyclopedic, and goes against WP:NOT to include such large quotations of primary sources. -Andrew c [talk] 01:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: My Answer to the discussion above

message: The Chapter Isaiah 53, needs to be in wikitexts I took it out. Also, technically, the issue begins at Isaiah 52:13 for Christians and for Jews Isaiah 52 and ends at the end of Isaiah 53.  Readers should be referred to wikitexts to form their own conclusions.
Dannyza1981 (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikitexts 

message: I think the citation of Christian Scholars about the earliest reference to their position in the Talmud, needs to go in the section entitled theories against the nation of Israel.
Also I added in a reference to Psalm 44, which adds weight to the Israel theory.
I want to change the reference to the Talmud as being neither against or for....
Dannyza1981 (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved your post to the bottom. Do you have a citation you could add to a scholar who uses Ps. 44 to support the Israel theory?  Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 02:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Changes 

message: *I added the POV tag because this article doesn't seem very objective to me. For instance, there is a lot of Jewish rebuttal of Christian perspectives. Also the Jewish scholars "tell us" while the Christian "argue". It seems more reasonable to have a section titled "Jewish Interpretation" and a section titled "Christian Interpretation". All the rebuttal arguments should be left out as they develop into spiritual tit-for-tat and leads to a lower quality article. Wikipedia is not the place for either Christian or Jewish proselytizing. It also seem unlikely that either the Christian or Jewish interpretations are monolithic and there may be more interpretations available in each of those traditions. Kevin Rector (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wrong, Jews have always identified Isaiah 53 as Israel, just by looking at the fact that Jeremiah, the Psalms, and Isaiah all use the same formula of referring to Israel as the servant, also there are grammatical issues if one identifies Isaiah 53 as the messiah and not Israel. The article is not POV, the articles shows why most Christians think Isaiah 53 isn't Israel and the messiah, and why all Jews think Isaiah can't be the messiah and must be Israel. That is reasonable. An article should show both sides, which it does. --Java7837 (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm not arguing against what Jews teach. There are also Christians who believe this. The point isn't what one group or person says or the other. The article does show both sides but in an imbalanced way that's why it has the POV tag. Kevin Rector (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Also your criticism to rebuttals I think makes no sense, if a Christian, members of religion dating almost 2,000 years after the birth of Judaism, says ... is what a Jewish prophet meant, it makes sense to show why Jews do not accept that interpretation. I think you are not thinking this true, if a Mormon says a certain verse in the NT predicts Joseph Smith, it would be reasonable to show why Christians do not accept the Mormon's interpretation because of say grammatical problems, and the same formula appearing in the NT meaning say the Holy Spirit, or John the Baptist. --Java7837 (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

text: *I agree.  The POV is smothering.  This article needs to be rewritten.  A billion people read it one way, 5M read it the other way, and somehow the billion should be a footnote with a smiley face next to it?! Someone be bold and fix it, rather than 7 more years of talk page...--Mrcolj (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: *WP:DEM. If you believe in the inerrancy of the Christian Bible and critically examine OT prophecies about Jesus, you risk becoming a Christian apostate. If you are a liberal Christian you will say that Jesus is the Messiah is a strictly Christian belief, with no basis in the OT. Isaiah 53 is prima facie a prophecy about Jesus, that is if you don't read more than one chapter. But other so-called prophecies about Jesus fare much worse. tgeorgescu (talk)  15:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Tag 

message: My main problem with this article is that it proposes with scant references to support it to say that one view is Christian and is what "Christians" support while contending that another view is Jewish. It is not a Christian vs. Jewish argument. The only source listed to present the "Christian" argument comes from a single web page of one Fred Klett - whoever that is. There are reputable Christian scholars who view the servant as Israel (for example http://www.crivoice.org/isa53.html which was written by a Christian Ph.D. in OT Dennis Bratcher). This whole thing should be redone as it is currently not very good.Kevin Rector (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's not Christian vs. Jewish 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Isaiah 53's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ReferenceA":
From Dominican Order: Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "St. Dominic"
From Jesus: "John, Gospel of St." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
From Prophet: Isaiah (Commentary), John Goldingay, Hendrickson, 2001
From Book of Isaiah: "Servant Songs." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
From Dead Sea Scrolls: John C. Trever. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Gorgias Press LLC, 2003
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Isaiah 53]] 

message: I removed this paragraph from the Versions section, because it is not sourced, and is contrary to my own observation.
...quote...
The Christian "Man of Sorrows" passage of Isaiah 53 is a selected text that usually omits those characteristics of the human scapegoat for the sins of Israel that are not applicable directly to Jesus, or that can only be applied through allegory, such as "he is as a root in a thirsty land: he has no form nor comeliness; and we saw him, but he had no form nor beauty. But his form was ignoble, and inferior to that of the children of men." (Septuagint version)
...end quote...
The passage copied here is not omitted from the New International Version (c) 1984 by the International Bible Society.
Elliot Svensson mr.svensson@gmail.com 4/23/2011  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.41.48.251 (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect assertion about Christian version 

message: Several edits have been made along the lines of inserting the following into the article:
:While the nature of this song continues to present difficulties in interpretation among theologians, the best explanation for the Christian theologian's view of the Suffering Servant as the Messiah, Jesus Christ, is to place the context of this particular passage within the greater context of the nature of Scripture being a metanarrative. In light of God's overall plan of redemption for His people, the Messiah as God's Suffering Servant is a viable interpretation.
with a reference to "Payne, D.F. 'The Servant of the Lord: Language and Interpretation,' The Evangelical Quarterly 43 (July-September 1971): 143"  There are some issues with this edit that need to be addressed:
* It is not clear that D.F. Payne is an authoritative enough source for this.  I was only able to find Payne cited by one other source.  Please establish that Payne is an authority or find a more authoritative source.
* I read the work by Payne and the suggested edit does not appear to summarize Payne accurately.  The suggested content appears to suffer from WP:OR
Please discuss this edit before attempting to insert it again.  Cheers..   Zad68 20:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit referencing D.F. Payne 

message: Nothing seems to have happened regarding POV for a while, so I've asked for the article to be checked. I agree with what has previously been said about a bias towards the Jewish interpretation of this passage, which is of great significance for both Christians and Jews, not to mention part of both their Holy Books. There is a big imbalance of discussion of the two interpretations, and the Jewish one uses language such as 'proves' which is totally inappropriate (and untrue!) in this context.
Since this has been an ongoing discussion, and since it has been revisited several times since the original POV point was made, most recently in August 2012, I feel justified on adding an additional POV tag to acknowledge this dispute. Aiyda (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Check February 2013 

message: The article simply leads the reader by having the reader believe that the "suffering servant" in Isaiah 53 is synonymous with the nation of Israel. While this is one conclusion the reader could draw, it is nowhere stated in the chapter itself, and in fact some of the wording seems to indicate the text is indeed referring to an individual and NOT to an entire nation.
Isaiah 53:8 - By oppression and judgment he was taken away, and with his generation who did reason? for he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due. 
The text appears to indicate that this was an individual who was cut off out of the land of the living, as a SUBSTITUTE for the people of Israel.
Moreover, the reference to the redemption of the people of Israel in the preceding chapter, 52(as opposed to suffering and cutting off of the servant in Chapter 53) appears to directly contradict the prevailing interpretation of the article that Israel is the suffering servant that gets cut off out of the land of the living:
Isaiah 52:9 - Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem; for the LORD hath comforted His people, He hath redeemed Jerusalem.
By contrast, a preceding verse is making a clear reference to an individual, and not to a group:
Isaiah 52:7 - How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger of good tidings, that announceth peace, the harbinger of good tidings, that announceth salvation; that saith unto Zion: 'Thy God reigneth!'  
There are also clear uses of the term "My servant" by Isaiah, which clearly refer to an individual. One such instance refers to himself (Isaiah 20:3), another to Eliakim (Isaiah 22:20), and another to David (Isaiah 37:35).
Another example where "My servant" is clearly being used for an individual in contradistinction to the people Israel is Isaiah 49:5-6 -
5. And now saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be His servant, to bring Jacob back to Him, and that Israel be gathered unto Him--for I am honourable in the eyes of the LORD, and my God is become my strength--  
6. Yea, He saith: 'It is too light a thing that thou shouldest be My servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the offspring of Israel; I will also give thee for a light of the nations, that My salvation may be unto the end of the earth.'
Am I saying that this is indeed the intended interpration of Isaiah 53? By no means. But by the way this article is written at the moment, it stacks the deck in favor of one interpration, and leads the reader into adopting its conclusions through a series of polemics, omissions, and fallacies. 
JD  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.149 (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly written, biased, polemic article 

message: As someone who just came to get some info about this passage, I found this article totally unreadable.  It's confusing, filled with statements and language that presume you have some pre-existing knowledge, and was generally unhelpful in helping me learn more about the topic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.190.116 (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreadable 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Isaiah 53. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080505020728/http://www.tmtestimony.org.uk/library/2000_3.htm to http://www.tmtestimony.org.uk/library/2000_3.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060108184309/http://www.uhcg.org/suffering-servant/The-Servant-vs-jc.html to http://www.uhcg.org/suffering-servant/The-Servant-vs-jc.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If anyone has access to the Introduction by Coogan, I'm curious how much of the material in the second paragraph in the "Fourth servant song" section is actually sourced to it. My suspicion is that the paragraph probably needs to be rewritten to match what the source says. Alephb (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  For anyone who has access to Coogan's ''Introduction'' 

message: As I review this article, I note three key things:
* Since 2008, this article has been criticized as needing a total rewrite
* A major rewrite was made in 2013 by a user who is now banned from Wikipedia
* The 2013 rewrite, which survives in substantial form in 2022, is deficient in many ways.
In my opinion, the article's current deficiencies include:
* The goal of the article, as currently written, is to disprove the Christian position and to portray Jewish unanimity on the chapter (which is an inaccurate portrayal). The article should not prove or disprove a major religious interpretation, but rather describe in neutral POV what the history of interpretation has been: Pre-Christian, Post-Christian, Hellenistic Jewish, Patristic, Talmudic, Medieval Jewish, Medieval Christian, and modern positions
* The article ignores the Parting of the Ways and its influence on the topic. For example, the Talmudic, Mishnaic, and Zohar quotes in the current article were all written in a post-Christian context where Jewish authorities were attempting to distance themselves from the monolithic Christian interpretation. This dynamic needs to be illustrated chronologically.
* Poor use of sources. Non-reputable and non-academic sources should not be cited as authorities. Quotes from rabbinic sources ought to be sourced from Sefaria (if available) and not quoted in full unless necessary. Modern academic journals and published works from reputable sources should be cited.
* The article ignores pre-Talmudic Jewish sources, early patristic sources (such as Justin), and gives substandard sections for the New Testament and medieval Jewish commentators. In contrast, the Talmud, Midrash, and Zohar (especially) are given a lopsided weight.
* No mentions of Jewish interpretations outside of the national interpretation are included. The history of this article's revisions shows that these references have been deleted repeatedly. This is more evidence of POV bias.
* The Jewish-Christian relations section makes an incorrect opening statement (ignores Dialogue with Trypho, for example) and seems to be written only to convince the reader of the passage's use in antisemitism.
In response to these things, I again call for a total rewrite of this article. Because this article has not received an adequate rewrite in a decade, I am planning to do it myself. I will organize the article as a history-of-interpretation summary that is chronologically organized, rather than organized in a sectarian way. I will attempt to address each of the deficiencies listed above, giving a neutral-as-possible bird's eye overview of Jewish and Christian interpretations on the chapter. Bcrawford92 (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  2022 Need for Rewriting