Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dan Wagner <Dan.Wagner AT datastream.net>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liz Fried [mailto:lizfried AT umich.edu]
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 14:16
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: RE: singular and plural for Isaiah's servant
> 
> 
> Dear Dan, et. al.
> I'm working on the thorny problem of trying to understand Isaiah 45:1
> which identifies Cyrus as YHWH's messiah.

Thanks for your imput--i'm glad to have it to think through, although i
don't agree...

> 
> 
> > People of all theologies and backgrounds struggle with the
> > identification of
> > Isaiah's servant, and go back and forth between singular 
> and corporate
> > views. Many or most scholars have now settled into some 
> form of a both/and
> > view, whether they describe their ideas as fluid, 
> synthetic, pyramid,
> > oscillation, corporate solidarity, or concentric circles.
> 
> >
> > 1. Isaiah 49:3 refers to the Servant as clearly a singular 
> individual in
> > this context, but calls Him "Israel" (vocative or apposition?) as
> > if He were
> > in some way equivalent to or representative of the nation.
> I snip "Israel" in opposition to most manuscripts. It makes no sense
> in the context.

Most?? Majority of MT alone is not necessarily impressive. It's in LXX,
1QISAa, and of course some MT MSS, so i would have to make a preliminary
conclusion that you don't have good basis for this. What are the specifics
here on the rest of MT MSS (and DSS)? (I don't have BHS at work.) Also, if
it is difficult to make contextual sense (which i accept, on the surface),
then it would typically be more likely to have been original and been
intentially overlooked by the scribe (althogh it makes wonderful contextual
sense with my theological take on it!). That's a standard rule for
intentional scribal variants, and it's hard to imagine a scribe accidentally
(or intentionally) inserting "Israel" in this context.

> 
> >
> > 2. Isaiah 43:10 is clearly of the nation's individual people, yet is
> > significant in its interchange of the plural in MT, "you 
> [2MS] are my
> > witnesses" (plural in both MT pointing and LXX) with the 
> singular, "My
> > servant whom I have chosen," and back to the indisputable 
> plural "that you
> > may know ... believe ... and understand" (2MP for all 3 
> verbs). Corporate
> > Israel was chosen for the purpose of knowing and believing
> > Yahweh, something
> > foundational to their mission but which many individuals 
> failed to do.
> Israel (plural)
> is witness to the acts of the servant (singular).

But it says "you (singular) are my witnesses (plural)." So your analysis
does not go to the level of the text i'm presenting here. Then this
"you/witnesses" is further defined as "even My servant..." 

> The servant is Cyrus who is bringing Israel and Jacob back to YHWH
> by permitting them to return to Jerusalem.

In this context, the servant refers to the people. This is also consistent
with the many other references identifying the nation/people with the
servant (41:8-9; 43:10; 44:1, 2, 21, 26; 45:4; 48:20).

> Cyrus does this so that Israel (plural) may know and 
> understand and believe

I'd prefer to take the servant as the people and translate "and my servant
whom i have chosen in such a way that [_LM(N_] you [i.e., the
servant-people] might know and believe." 

> that the covenant with them still holds,is unbroken.
> 
> >
> > 3. Isaiah 44:26 shows that the servant (Israel's) ministry
> > obligation was to
> > get out the true prophetic word (in contrast to the false message
> > of v. 25).
> > Again note the interchange between plural "messengers" and singular
> > "servant."
> Messengers are prophets, the servant is Cyrus,

In this context it's parallelism, is it not? So, 
"confirms" = "performs"
"the word of" = "the counsel of"
"His servant" = "His messengers"
right? Thus, it looks to me like an unambiguous example of synonymous
parallelism.

> see the rest of 44:26.
> The word is that Jerusalem will be repopulated, resettled, the temple
> rebuilt.

Yes, but the antecedent to "who" of "who says to Jerusalem, 'You shall be
inhabited...'" is not the servant (i.e., not your "Cyrus") in this verse,
but Yahweh back from v. 24 (as is true for the supplied "who" of the MS
participle throughout vv. 24-26).

Dan Wagner

> 
> >
> > Regardless of one's theology, am i pressing too much on the
> > singular/plural
> > interchange? Any comments?
> No, the singular/plural shows who is being addressed
> the servant or the people.
> 
> liz
> >
> > Dan Wagner
> >