Isaiah 53 commentary?

I wish to participate in a discussion about Is 53 online, and I find the commentary I have inadequate (too Jewish). I was thinking of ordering Believers Church Bible Commentary: Isaiah but do You think it's useful for this particular chapter as it sees too much unity in Isaiah?

I looked at another favourite set, International Critical Commentary, and no volume on Deutero-Isaiah has come out yet.

I'm OK with necessary grammatical discussions, if written in an intelligible manner. I don't know any Hebr. But I don't want an expensive commentary or one that only comes in a set.

Theologically I would not want a Presbyterian, Reformed, conservative Evangelical, Eastern Orthodox or Lutheran commentary. And preferably not one that uncritically uses the NIV84, God's Word, NEB or AV text.

If there is no commentary that suits my needs, just tell me so!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Rosie Perera

Hard to know what you want theologically. You're open to BCBC which is Anabaptist/Mennonite/Brethren in bent, but you don't want Jewish or any of those others you listed, and yet you want something on the more critical side so you probably don't want Baptist either, and certainly not Pentecostal. What's left who are major commentary producers that can be bought on a single volume basis? Catholic / Early Church Fathers? While Hermeneia or Anchor Yale or NICOT might suit your theological tastes, they only come in sets. Perhaps you'd be happy with the ITC volume The New Israel: A Commentary on Isaiah 56-66 (based on RSV) or Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations (based on NLT), but I'm guessing those are too conservative for you.

You can see pages 332-336 of the BCBC Isaiah in Amazon.com's preview if you search for 53 in the "Look Inside" feature, and that's most of the section on Isaiah 53 (it finishes on p. 337), so you can see for yourself if it'll suit your needs.

Also check out BestCommentaries.com's Isaiah page. If you hover over a title, it'll show you whether it's available in Logos or not. They do have icons showing what academic level each book is written for, and some are tagged for whether they are premil or Jewish, but in general there is no indicator of the theological leaning.

Alan

How about http://www.logos.com/product/3405/servant-theology-a-commentary-on-the-book-of-isaiah-40-55

David Paul

[:#]

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/447389#Comment_447389

There's another way to communicate that, which is to not post anything at all.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/447392#Comment_447392

There's another way to communicate that, which is to not post anything at all.

Yeah, but not posting anything at all wasn't what I was trying to communicate... [;)] I know a tar baby when I see one. [^o)]

So, yeah, I've decided to go against my first instinct and offer a suggestion. How about this? It was written by a Logos employee! JB is the editor of Bible Study magazine. I bought it. Haven't read it yet...but I haven't read most of the 6400 things in my Library yet.

Unix

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/447386#Comment_447386

Hermeneia is what I have.

While Hermeneia or Anchor Yale or NICOT might suit your theological tastes, they only come in sets.

Those might be something, I wonder which I should choose:

So, yeah, I've decided to go against my first instinct and offer a suggestion. How about this? It was written by a Logos employee! JB is the editor of Bible Study magazine. I bought it. Haven't read it yet

How about http://www.logos.com/product/3405/servant-theology-a-commentary-on-the-book-of-isaiah-40-55

Thanks! I noticed a strange thing there: there has come ICC volumes (by Goldingay and Payne) but Logos doesn't offer them! It might be the best though, costs $131 including postage to over here where I am: http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=8891146666&searchurl=kn%3Dgoldingay%2Bpayne%2Bisaiah%26sts%3Dt%26x%3D0%26y%3D0
One ***** star review, no helpful votes: "Needless to say, the combined 900 pages (including Isaiah 40-55 Vol 1: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary (International Critical Commentary) (Hardcover) (International Critical Commentary)) will be the benchmark for further studies on these 16 chapters. Reflecting an evangelical-critical perspective, Goldingay suggests the prophet Isaiah as progenitor for the author of 40-55. Not to be missed is the summary exposition of these two volumes, The Message of Isaiah 40-55: A Literary-theological Commentary."
The ICC volume doesn't sell that well though: Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,023,022 in Books

Also check out BestCommentaries.com's Isaiah page. If you hover over a title, it'll show you whether it's available in Logos or not.

Maybe I could also get: http://www.amazon.com/Isaiah-Chapters-40-66-Epworth-Commentary/dp/0716205505/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357132020&sr=1-9&keywords=epworth+isaiah It's based on the REB - which I like. It's cheap. It comes as printed matter.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/447427#Comment_447427

Thanks! I noticed a strange thing there: there has come ICC volumes (by Goldingay and Payne) but Logos doesn't offer them! It might be the best though, costs $99 including postage to over here where I am

Maybe you can find it in a library and borrow it via Inter-Library Loan (do you have that service through libraries in your country?) and scan or photocopy the relevant pages.

http://www.worldcat.org/title/critical-and-exegetical-commentary-on-isaiah-40-55/oclc/62525220

Unix

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/447440#Comment_447440

The university town at the end of the commuter train line (away from the city), MIGHT have it (although I doubt), but I would have to be some kind of student in that city to borrow it, which I'm not yet. Taking photocopies of it would then be possible but would feel dishonest and would actually cost quite a bit.
Maybe I should buy the ICC volume. It has 62 pages on the Messiah prophesy and that's a lot more than any of the other commentaries that were an option, except the one David Paul suggested which is among the more expensive ones anyway. $131 is still about the same price Logos probably offers, they used to charge $110-$120 for all fairly new volumes.
The book would ship from the UK so it would arrive in time.

Maybe you can find it in a library and borrow it

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/447442#Comment_447442

Maybe I should buy the ICC volume. It has 62 pages on the Messiah prophesy and that's a lot more than any of the other commentaries that were an option, except the one David Paul suggested which is among the more expensive ones anyway. $131 is still about the same price Logos probably offers, they used to charge $110-$120 for all fairly new volumes.

Wait...my suggestion is expensive, but you're considering paying $110-130 for something? Is that in Swedish money? [^o)]

Is this not what you are seeing? My abacus and chisanbop say $30 beats $130 any day of the week. [8-|]

Unix

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/447456#Comment_447456

No, not $130. The same copy of the ICC volume is listed on Amazon.com by the same seller as the link to abebooks.co.uk I gave, for less. The copy is in the UK. even though it's Amazon.com. It's $115.63 including postage. It would cover more chapters than the John D. Barry volume by Logos Bible Software 2010, so that would add to the ICC volume's value.
Also, I'm a bit suspicious when it comes to the title: "The resurrected servant in Isaiah" - that gives the notion from start that author has settled his mind what to think about the question and I wonder how critical it may be?
EDIT: the ICC volume is in hardcover. That's appealing!Wait...my suggestion is expensive, but you're considering paying $110-130 for something?

Unix

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/447468#Comment_447468

Printed matter could be nice for a change, I could read it faster & also use my time better when sitting in buses and trains, even though I have a laptop I'm hesitant to use it on battery and it has quite a small monitor. I would have quite a lot to read, and I would like to get down to the point what I want to cite. The question is clearly defined, so being able to search is not that much of a priority, I'm in no big hurry to read the other chapters.

If anyone else wishes to order items from Amazon.com, go here: Enter Amazon through this link &Center study New Testament will be given portion FREE to see important instructions!

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/447468#Comment_447468

Also, I'm a bit suspicious when it comes to the title: "The resurrected servant in Isaiah" - that gives the notion from start that author has settled his mind what to think about the question and I wonder how critical it may be?

You keep-a-using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means... [^o)] [Logos, you're dropping the ball!! Where's the mustachioed swashbuckler emoticon when I need one?!?] [;)]

You wonder, huh? Well...taking a different, less closed-minded perspective...perhaps Barry weighed the evidence that he compiled while researching and writing his book, and then came up with the title when attempting to describe what he in his studies perceived the Scriptures to be picturing? What would you prefer the title be--I'm Not Sure How to Describe This So-Called Servant Who Is Mentioned in Chapter 53 of Isaiah, but I'd Like to Know More So Why Don't You Join Me and We'll Find Out Together?? Would that be critical enough--or just critically lame?

Just a point of observation: the way in which you so openly and easily predetermine what you want to hear (which in some quarters is known as prejudice, i.e.pre-judging), seems to be fundamentally at odds with the meaning of the term ("critical") you keep calling upon when describing your preferred choice of commentary. Honestly...consider what you are saying: I don't want to consider what this guy is saying because...(wait for it...)...I'm not sure that he fully considers all possibilities. That isn't just ironic...it's hypo-"critical".

Dude...you are a walking contradiction. Do you not see that? What's funny to me is that of all the mindset-isms out there with which I disagree, the one that I have the least tolerance for is the so-called "critical school". Why? Because it is the most hypo-"critical" of them all. But understand this...I do not ignore what they say. I have plenty of Logos resources that hold to that un-enlighted school of thought, and though it grinds my nerves and patience to do so, I read what they have to say. Why? Two reasons: first, if I am going to "judge righteous judgment"...get this...I HAVE TO ACTUALLY JUDGE. I can't prejudge and then refuse to hear the matter. Prov. 18:13 How can you "BE critical" when you refuse to allow yourself to have the experience that requires you to judge? Secondly, how can you know you are right when you engage in behavior that doesn't "test" you? The vast majority of non-Scripture reading I do is stuff I disagree with AND stuff that disagrees with me. If I'm not willing to give the opposing view a fair hearing, then I am a wicked judge.

If you want ICC, get ICC. But don't avoid something because you are "suspicious" it might not be something you are unwilling to be yourself.

DAL

The Book of Isaiah by Edward J. Young has been very helpful to me. Also College Press but it uses the NIV ;-)

BKMitchell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/447468#Comment_447468

Also, I'm a bit suspicious when it comes to the title: "The resurrected servant in Isaiah" - that gives the notion from start that author has settled his mind what to think about the question and I wonder how critical it may be?

No, matter what the title is be sure that in general authors have made up their minds and they are sharing with you what they think in book form. It does not matter if they are higher critical or not, they've all made up their minds. But, I like any author that is honest enough to state his/her biases.

Alain Maashe

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/447798#Comment_447798

Also, I'm a bit suspicious when it comes to the title: "The resurrected servant in Isaiah" - that gives the notion from start that author has settled his mind what to think about the question and I wonder how critical it may be?

You keep-a-using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means... [Logos, you're dropping the ball!! Where's the mustachioed swashbuckler emoticon when I need one?!?]

You wonder, huh? Well...taking a different, less closed-minded perspective...perhaps Barry weighed the evidence that he compiled while researching and writing his book, and then came up with the title when attempting to describe what he in his studies perceived the Scriptures to be picturing? What would you prefer the title be--I'm Not Sure How to Describe This So-Called Servant Who Is Mentioned in Chapter 53 of Isaiah, but I'd Like to Know More So Why Don't You Join Me and We'll Find Out Together?? Would that be critical enough--or just critically lame?

Just a point of observation: the way in which you so openly and easily predetermine what you want to hear (which in some quarters is known as prejudice, i.e.pre-judging), seems to be fundamentally at odds with the meaning of the term ("critical") you keep calling upon when describing your preferred choice of commentary. Honestly...consider what you are saying: I don't want to consider what this guy is saying because...(wait for it...)...I'm not sure that he fully considers all possibilities. That isn't just ironic...it's hypo-"critical".

Dude...you are a walking contradiction. Do you not see that? What's funny to me is that of all the mindset-isms out there with which I disagree, the one that I have the least tolerance for is the so-called "critical school". Why? Because it is the most hypo-"critical" of them all. But understand this...I do not ignore what they say. I have plenty of Logos resources that hold to that un-enlighted school of thought, and though it grinds my nerves and patience to do so, I read what they have to say. Why? Two reasons: first, if I am going to "judge righteous judgment"...get this...I HAVE TO ACTUALLY JUDGE. I can't prejudge and then refuse to hear the matter. Prov. 18:13 How can you "BE critical" when you refuse to allow yourself to have the experience that requires you to judge? Secondly, how can you know you are right when you engage in behavior that doesn't "test" you? The vast majority of non-Scripture reading I do is stuff I disagree with AND stuff that disagrees with me. If I'm not willing to give the opposing view a fair hearing, then I am a wicked judge.

If you want ICC, get ICC. But don't avoid something because you are "suspicious" it might not be something you are unwilling to be yourself.

I was about to respond to the OP but you have already conveyed my exact sentiments about what it takes to really be "critical" and how the term is often abused.

Unix

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/447852#Comment_447852

It was night over here so I couldn't reply faster. OK, sorry about the prejudice, but we know no-one who has read the book by Logos so ...
I like that too when authors tell what their biases are, and I like to be honest to myself and others what my own biases are ... but the bias I would like to know is what denominational or theological slant the book has!
Sometimes I'm a bit hesitant when it comes to authors that write very many books during a short period of time. Then it starts to seem to me like they don't have focus on the topic I would like to read about. Also, sometimes when an author writes a book very late in their career it's not as good (that's why I've avoided ordering the commentary on 1 Cor by Pheme Perkins that came out in 2012), but in this case conserning Isaiah 53 I think maturity can be beneficial.

The author of the Logos product wasn't old when the book came out in 2010. From the preface:
"Like those who have come before me, I offer this interpretation for the scrutiny of scholarship and the benefit of those who follow Yahweh. Where I have erred, please be gracious, and where I have spoken truth, please make an effort to apply it to your life. Ultimately, I hope we can find some mutual ground, and furthermore that we can discover who Yahweh is through an examination of the servant's life. May we be inspired by him to live as followers of the living God, and may we discover that he is a way to that God.
-John D. Barry, Bellingham, Washington, August 2009"

Here are links about John Goldingay:
Interview with John Goldingay on Old Testament Theology
Citing from the interview: "I am passionately opposed to conforming the reading of scripture to the church’s creeds and traditions."
Almost no information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Goldingay 64 years old when the ICC vol. 2 on Is 40-55 came out.
There is a review of the ICC volume, but it costs money: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-0922.2007.00224_1.x/full

From: http://duncanandmeg.org/blogs/ex204/lecture/lecture-1-introduction-to-isaiah-composition-authorship-date/
"Canonical perspective (Brevard Childs)

Childs rejected the dissections of source and redaction criticism and proposed instead that the text of Isaiah should be considered in its canonical form and understood as a literary unity produced with varying degrees of editorial work. The canonical approach should not be misunderstood as an argument for the entire book of Isaiah as the product of a single author, however. Instead, this approach is a reaction to the largely subjective approach of source, form, and redaction criticism. Childs “recognizes that some texts were passed on without much editing, while others were selected or omitted, edited with additional explanations or subtractions, or rearranged.”¹⁰ The difference between Childs and the source/redaction critics is that although he accepts the idea that “a multi-layered redaction history lies behind a text,” he argues that this history is inconsequential and irretrievable.¹¹ According to this view, early and late oracles were carefully interwoven into the present literary form through the canonical process.

This sort of approach has uncovered fault lines in liberal exegesis. Some scholars continue to pursue the theories of source, form, or redactional criticism, while others follow a canonical approach similar to Childs. Two scholars who use canonical methods include John Goldingay¹² and David Payne¹³"

From: http://www.academia.edu/1883357/The_Book_of_Isaiah_in_Contemporary_Research
"Isaiah 40–55
Recent commentaries on this section (hereafter DI) include Klaus Baltzer’s Hermeneia volume (2001), which treats these chapters as a ‘festival scroll’ for a cultic drama. This ‘liturgical’ approach, which draws on comparative data and owes much to the Myth and Ritual school, must be distinguished from the approach of Watts (who envisioned a form of literary expression ‘‘[n]ot bound to either cult or king’’ [2005, 1:lxxxv]). Baltzer also departed from the status quo by arguing for a late ﬁfth-century date for DI, and by positing that Moses is the servant referred to in the Servant Songs. However, all of these aspects of his argument have met with resistance, and do not seem to have swayed many of his peers(e.g., Wilks 2003; and the reviews of Sommer 2004 and Kratz 2003). The excellent International Critical Commentary of John Goldingay and David Payne (2006) takes more mainstream stances on these issues, setting the book in Babylon in the 540s, and as thework of a ‘poet-prophet’ rather than a dramatist."

Unix

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/447798#Comment_447798

I edited my above 12:23 AM post and added some text.

Well, I mentioned that I already have Hermeneia, which is sceptical and Jewish. What I suspect is simply that the Logos product by Barry would be a too big leap from what I've read so far.

Honestly...consider what you are saying: I don't want to consider what this guy is saying because...(wait for it...)...I'm not sure that he fully considers all possibilities. That isn't just ironic...it's hypo-"critical".
Dude...you are a walking contradiction. Do you not see that? What's funny to me is that of all the mindset-isms out there with which I disagree, the one that I have the least tolerance for is the so-called "critical school". Why? Because it is the most hypo-"critical" of them all. But understand this...I do not ignore what they say.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/447884#Comment_447884

I've been reading some materials recently on how to follow the line of reasoning of someone else. It includes many of the normal features - how to spot fallacies, how to identify unspoken assumptions, etc. but it offered two pieces of advice that I found noteworthy:

when reconstructing someone else's argument, always strive to make their argument look as good as possible
before worrying about reconstructing an argument, identify the question that they are trying to answer.

Then there is always the old standard:

read what they say not what you expect them to say.

Admittedly Logos has some resources that still are trash no matter how generous your reading, Admittedly most authors are unaware of their biases - they list their presuppositions as their biases and remain blind to the latter. But most any commentary that Morris Proctor places in the Academic/Technical category will have enough useful insights to make it worth your time.

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/448107#Comment_448107

I've been reading some materials recently on how to follow the line of reasoning of someone else. It includes many of the normal features - how to spot fallacies, how to identify unspoken assumptions, etc. but it offered two pieces of advice that I found noteworthy:

when reconstructing someone else's argument, always strive to make their argument look as good as possible

before worrying about reconstructing an argument, identify the question that they are trying to answer.

Then there is always the old standard:

read what they say not what you expect them to say.

Admittedly Logos has some resources that still are trash no matter how generous your reading, Admittedly most authors are unaware of their biases - they list their presuppositions as their biases and remain blind to the latter. But most any commentary that Morris Proctor places in the Academic/Technical category will have enough useful insights to make it worth your time.

[Y][Y]

I am reminded of a book I heard read during meals when visiting a monastery about the difficulties in the Anglican Communion. The author observed that with modern tech we are now able to "misunderstand each other faster than ever before".

When I was in school, I had a class on Luke where the Prof. had us rotate through a half dozen different commentaries and then come to class to discuss various passages, each of us having read different commentaries. I found that the commentaries which prepared me best for class discussions were the ones that brought up all kinds of issues - namely the most "Academic/Technical" ones. It didn't matter if I agreed with them or not. Heck, it didn't even matter if the author even came to a clear conclusion... By bringing up the points that have been at issue in the text, I had the raw material I needed to start to piece together what is going on there.

I commend the OP for his desire to dig deep into the Word. He is showing much more maturity in this than I did at his age.

SDG

Ken McGuire

Doc B

But I don't want an expensive commentary or one that only comes in a set.

Theologically I would not want a Presbyterian, Reformed, conservative Evangelical, Eastern Orthodox or Lutheran commentary. And preferably not one that uncritically uses the NIV84, God's Word, NEB or AV text.

Ah, the way of negation.

Wouldn't it be easier just to say what you are rather than what you are not?

BKMitchell

I'm OK with necessary grammatical discussions, if written in an intelligible manner. I don't know any Hebr. But I don't want an expensive commentary or one that only comes in a set. Theologically I would not want a Presbyterian, Reformed, conservative Evangelical, Eastern Orthodox or Lutheran commentary. And preferably not one that uncritically uses the NIV84, God's Word, NEB or AV text. If there is no commentary that suits my needs, just tell me so!

Okay, Mr.Unix how about Harper's Bible Commentary by Society of Biblical Literature, 1988? Find it in Logos format here (link).

"Harper's Bible Commentary was written by 82 members of the Society of Biblical Literature. This readable commentary introduces each book of the Bible and interprets it section by section. Lively general articles place the Bible in its historical, literary, and interpretive contexts. Entries are also cross referenced to the companion Harper's Bible Dictionary."

Or, The Prophecy of Isaiah by J. Alec Motyer IVP 1996 (link).

"Drawing on a lifetime of study and teaching the book, J. Alec Motyer presents a landmark, single-volume commentary on the prophecy of Isaiah. He emphasizes the grammatical, historical, structural, literary, and theological dimensions of the text, and pays particular attention to three central and recurring themes: the messianic hope, the motif of the city, and the theology of the Holy One of Israel."

David Wilson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/447468#Comment_447468

I'm a bit suspicious when it comes to the title: "The resurrected servant in Isaiah" - that gives the notion from start that author has settled his mind what to think about the question and I wonder how critical it may be?

I agree the title is a little suggestive of conclusions already reached - yet the "book" itself does not take the singularly focussed tack you might expect from the title. From the Prolegomena of "The Resurrected Sevant in Isaiah" (Barry, J.D. 2010)

This depends, in part, on a more basic and equally murky question, whether the servant is an individual (in which case the restoration and vindication occur after his death) or the people of Israel.

The book is tightly focussed around Isa 52:13-53-12 and whether Isa 53:10 is pointing to resurrection.

The Focus of This Book

As was noted above, the past thirty years of biblical scholarship has almost unanimously accepted the interpretations of Isa 52:13–53:12 presented by Harry M. Orlinsky, in his work The So-Called "Servant of the Lord" and "Suffering Servant" in Second Isaiah, and R. N. Whybray, in his volume Thanksgiving for a Liberated Prophet: An Interpretation of Isaiah Chapter 53. Since this book is written primarily in response to these two works, which are the only entire volumes devoted in large part to the notion of resurrection in Isa 53:10–12, the history of interpretation of this passage will primarily be limited to those who specifically discuss the works of Orlinsky and Whybray, or those whose thoughts specifically shed light on the subject at hand. This discussion will primarily take place in the footnotes throughout this work. The argument that will be presented will diverge significantly from the interpretations of Orlinsky and Whybray, proposing that the servant is resurrected in Isa 53:10–12, [5 highlights] and arguing that the servant may indeed have suffered vicariously. In light of this, all of chapter four is devoted to closely reexamining the arguments presented by Orlinsky and Whybray in an effort to point out strengths of their works and places where their arguments should be reevaluated based on the current study.

It must be noted that there are many ambiguities in Isa 52:13–53:12 in language, textual issues, grammar, syntax and meaning. Consequently, we are dealing purely in the realm of probability whenever we approach this most difficult of passages. The discourse analysis method that is adopted in this work of looking closely at the way pronouns are used in Isa 42:1–52:12 will be presented as a probable solution to the puzzle of Isa 52:13–53:12, but it is not a certain solution. This is said in light of David J.A. Clines’s argument that the pronouns in Isa 52:13–53:12 are intentionally ambiguous. Clines may very well be right, but we should nonetheless consider the various ways we can understand Isa 53:10–12 based on participatory reference discourse analysis.

Randall Cue

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/448107#Comment_448107

Then there is always the old standard:

read what they say not what you expect them to say.

Isn't that a good maxim to follow when reading Scripture as well?

Soli Deo Gloria,

Randy

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/449243#Comment_449243

Isn't that a good maxim to follow when reading Scripture as well?

Definitely,