THE SERVANT PERSONA IN ISAIAH 40-55

THE SERVANT PERSONA IN ISAIAH 40-55

A Term Paper

Presented to Professor Phillip McMillion

Harding School of Theology

Memphis, Tennessee

As a Requirement in

Course 5001

Advanced Introduction to the Old Testament

By

Brent A. Moody

November 28, 2011

!

Anyone who embarks on a study of Isaiah’s1 servant will soon

discover the complexity of the subject. The depth of writing on

the fourth Servant Song alone is astounding. In his section on

the servant, and with specific reference to the four Servant

Songs, Longman states, “Already in 1948, C. R. North could list

250 works devoted to these passages.”2 At the center of these

scholarly works is the question of the servant’s identity. The

volume of writing on this subject is overwhelming. Making

matters worse, few areas of discussion on the servant have found

scholarly consensus. Even ideas that once seemed generally

agreed upon have fallen under intense scrutiny. For example,

Eissfeldt claimed in 1933, “Scholars have arrived at a

considerable measure of agreement in regarding the Servant Songs

as a correction of the Cyrus poems.”3 Yet 50 years later

Mettinger took aim at destroying the Servant Song “axiom”

1

1For simplicity authorship will be attributed to Isaiah, except in areas that specifically deal with Second-Isaiah or other possible writers. At the same time, “Second-Isaiah” may be used as a term for chapters 40-55.

2Tremper Longman and Raymond Dillard, “Isaiah.” in An Introduction to the Old Testament. 2nd ed, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 314. Will use “Longman” hereafter.

3Otto Eissfeldt, “The Ebed-Jahwe in Isaiah 40-55 in the Light of the Israelite Conception of the Community and the Individual, the Ideal and the Real,” Expository Times 44 (October 1932- September 1933): 263.

claiming these sections were “original components of ch. 40-55.”4

He is not alone in believing it is dangerous to lift the so-

called Servant Songs from their context. Clines avoids the use

of “Fourth Servant Song” in his work on Isaiah 53 because “it

raises too many extraneous issues.”5 Berges’ 2010 article on

Isaiah 40-55 also denies Duhm’s “strict separation” of the

Songs.6 Disagreement on such foundational issues make it

impossible to find agreement on the servant’s identity.

North appropriately titles his thoughts on the servant’s

identity “The Problem.”7 He explains, “It is not surprising that

many answers to the question, Who was the Servant? have been

2

4Tryggne N. D. Mettinger, A Farewell to the Servant Songs. Trans. Frederick H. Cryer (Lund, Sweden: LiberForlag, 1983), 9. This would argue against the idea that the songs were added later to correct the Cyrus sections; Walter Brueggemann, "Isaiah" in An Introduction to the Old Testament (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 168-169. Brueggemann refers to Mettinger’s work and offers the idea that this is the direction of modern scholarship.

5David J. A. Clines, I, He, We, and They: A Literary Approach to Isaiah 53 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1976), 11.

6Ulrich Berges. "The Literary Construction of the Servant in Isaiah 40-55: A Discussion About Individual and Collective Identities." Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 24 (2010): 35. He still sees a special division between the Song sections and the other servant passages, but believes they are written by one author.

7North, C. R. "Servant of the LORD," in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, ed. George A. Buttrick, Vol. 4 (New York: Abingdon Press, 1962), 293.

proposed.”8 The purpose of this paper is to argue that the

servant is a persona to which many figures identify. The

inability of scholars to pinpoint the servant as one specific

identity suggests that such specificity was never intended by

the author. Isaiah’s focus was on the present situation9--return

from exile-- but his vagueness and cryptic style leave the

possibility open that multiple “servants” throughout history fit

his servant motif. Is it unreasonable to believe that Isaiah,

the nation of Israel, unknown prophets and teachers, Moses,

Ezekiel, Cyrus, Zerubbabel, various Jewish Kings, Job, the wise

men of Daniel 11-12, Nehemiah, and ultimately Jesus all fit

aspects of the servant in Isaiah?10 Sadly, the misguided effort

to locate one servant figure has overshadowed Isaiah’s message--

God always comforts and delivers His people.11

3

8North, 293.

9Arvid S. Kapelrud, “The Main Concern of Second Isaiah.” Vetus Testamentum XXXII, (1982): 50-58. Kapelrud explains the purpose of Second-Isaiah’s message in their context. Also see Isaiah 48:20; 49:5-6. The message is to comfort those in the present day. The language anticipates deliverance from a current problem, not the distant future.

10A. Neubauer and S. R. Driver. The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters. ed. Harry M. Orlinsky, Vol. 2 (New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1969), 413; Mettinger, 45. Both provide a list of people considered by some to be the servant.

11Kapelrud, 51-56.

THE UNITY OF ISAIAH

The debate over the authorship and dating of Isaiah is

central to any study in Isaiah 40-66 and cannot go unmentioned.

The late 18th century works of J. C. Doderlein and J. G.

Eichhorn popularized the idea that the 8th-century Isaiah did

not author the entire book.12 Duhm built upon their work by

offering two revolutionary theories in his 1892 commentary:

First, he proposed “Trito-Isaiah,” forming another break

containing chapters 56-66. Second, Rowley writes, “he also

isolated the Servant Songs from their context and brought them

together as a series of connected poems.”13 The second of these

is especially significant to the study of the servant’s

identity. Some scholars believe the Songs were written by

someone other than Second-Isaiah, and refer to a different

servant than is mentioned in the rest of Second-Isaiah.14

!

4

12Longman, 303. Longman’s footnote 1 addresses comments made by Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra and the misconception that he believed in multiple authors in Isaiah; Marvin A. Sweeney, “On the Road to Duhm: Isaiah in Nineteenth-Century Critical Scholarship,” In ”As Those Who Are Taught”: The Interpretation of Isaiah From the LXX to the SBL, ed. Claire Mathews McGinnis and Patricia K. Tull (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006): 245. Sweeney is helpful for a more detailed look at scholarly developments on this subject; Brevard Childs, Isaiah (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 289.

13H. H. Rowley, The Servant of the Lord, 2nd Ed. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965), 4-5.

14Mettinger, 13-17; Rowley, 5,7. Duhm and Mowinckel are among the scholars who hold, or have held, this position.

Three major reasons are suggested for a second author.15

First, the historical setting is generally different in chapters

40-66 than it is in the first 39 chapters. Second-Isaiah assumes

Babylonian captivity (Isa. 48:20), while First-Isaiah is focused

on Assyria (Isa. 10:24-25). Second, there are major theological

differences. Longman points out the shift from a kingship (Isa.

1-39) to a servant focus (Isa. 40-66).16 Third, language and

style differ between tho two sections.17 The traditional view,

that Isaiah wrote the entire book, has not been disregarded in

scholarship. Solid arguments support this position.18 Rendtorff

points out that many scholars believe chapters 36-39 were the

last sections added to Isaiah. Therefore, chapters 35 and 40

would have been joined. This weakens the argument that chapter

5

15Joseph Blenkinsopp, Opening the Sealed Book: Interpretations of the Book of Isaiah in Late Antiquity. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 29-30. Blenkinsopp offers helpful information on the multiple Isaiahs mentioned in the Scriptures who happen to fall in the post-exilic period. He also points to a few textual matters that lend themselves to post-exilic authorship.

16Longman, 304. If chapters 1-39 were written by Isaiah, kings would have been ruling Israel. On the other hand, if Ch. 40-66 were written during or after exile kings would no longer be ruling. This could explain the shift.

17Longman, 303-06. Longman points out on page 308 that computer based analysis reveals that language and style may not be as different as once thought; Childs, 289-90.

18E. J. Young. The Book of Isaiah, Vol. 3. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 538-49. Appendix 1 presents a good defense of the traditional view of authorship; Longman, 306-308.

40 is an abrupt change of tone from First-Isaiah.19 Bratcher

argues that battles over authorship are used to place

theological burdens on the book that it was not meant to bear.20

For the purposes of this paper it is more reasonable to

recognize that authorship only becomes a significant issue if

the servant is restricted to one figure. The question then

becomes did Isaiah, Second-Isaiah, or someone else write the

Servant Songs?21 Were they referring to themselves or others? On

the other hand, if it can be accepted that the servant texts

were not intended to fit only one figure, the need for finding

the answers to these questions becomes less vital.

THE SERVANT AS AN INDIVIDUAL OR A GROUP

Rowley, who spent the first 60 pages of his book The

Servant of the Lord offering individual and group identity

theories, said “No subject connected with the Old Testament has

6

19Rolf Rendtorff, “The Book of Isaiah: A Complex Unity Synchronic and Diachronic Reading.” Society of Biblical Literature 1991 Seminar Papers, 11-13. In fact chapters 35 and 40 show remarkable affinity; however, no manuscript evidence shows Isaiah was ever separated.

20Dennis Bratcher, "The Unity and Authorship of Isaiah: A Needless Battle," CRI/Voice Institute, http://www.crivoice.org/isaiahunity.html (accessed November 1, 2011). Bratcher points out errors that both sides make by using authorship to argue for or against predictive prophecy.

21Mettinger, 13-14. He lists four general authorship options taken by various scholars.

been more discussed than the question of the identity of the

Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah.”22 The first major debate is

whether the servant is a group or a person. The servant in

Isaiah 40-55 often appears to be Israel, yet the Servant Songs

have a unique, personal quality.23 The use of first person in the

second and third Songs present a challenge to the idea that

Israel is the servant (Isa. 49:1-6; 50:4-9). As a result, many

individuals have surfaced as possible candidates for the servant

in Isaiah.

While there is value in analyzing each of the many

theories, works like Rowley’s The Servant of the Lord24 and

Neabauer and Driver’s collection of Jewish Interpretations of

Isaiah 5325 already provide such detail. It is more beneficial to

see how the servant persona matches closely with multiple

figures and consider what this adds to understanding the servant

texts. Berges explains, “theological problems of the post-exilic

times are encapsulated in a concrete literary figure...the

servant becomes increasingly an ideal figure of a genuine

7

22Rowley, 1.

23Mettinger, 29-30. He provides a table of servant verses outside of the Songs and points out one exception in 44:26.

24Rowley, 1-60.

25Neabauer, table of contents. This is a large collection of Jewish documents and rabbinical texts on Isaiah 53. It provides insight into the Jewish concept of Isaiah 53.

prophet suffering on behalf of YHWH and his word.”26 Is the

servant an individual or a group? Why not both?27 Is the servant

a past, present, or future figure? Why not all of the above?28

Cook asserts that the servant is the “personification of a

conception--the Servant is an abstract conception, a permanent

type, an ideal to be realized--like the relatively modern

conception of 'humanity.'”29 If this is the case, multiple groups

and individuals, from various times and places, could fit the

servant persona portrayed in Isaiah 40-55--including the

prophets and the people alive when Isaiah was written.

SERVANT OF THE LORD

It is important to note that “my servant” is used

throughout the Bible to refer to those God used to accomplish

his will. Abraham (Gen. 26:24), Moses (Num. 12:7), Israel (Lev.

25:42,55), Caleb (Num. 14:24), David (2 Sam. 7:5,8), the

prophets (2 Kings 9:7; 17:13, Jer. 7:25), Job (Job 1:8; 2:3),

8

26Berges, 36. He goes on to suggest Job, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and David as examples of such figures (37).

27Cullen Story, "Another Look at the Fourth Servant Song of Second-Isaiah," Horizons in Biblical Theology 31 (2009):105. Story finds multiple servants within the Songs.

28Clines, 49.

29S.A. Cook, "The Prophet of Israel," in Cambridge Ancient History Vol 3. (Cambridge: University Press, 1925), 492. This is similar to the idea given by Berges 90 years later; Berges, 32, 36.

Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 27:6), Zerubbabel (Hag. 2:23), and Jesus

(Matt 12:18, Luke 4:18-21) are all referred to as “my servant.”

Most of these individuals have been suggested as the servant in

Isaiah.30 What is most notable for the direction of this paper is

the general use of “my servant” and its broad application in

Scripture. Blenkinsopp says it well, "This designation

'servant' ('ebed) indicates an agent chosen for specific tasks.

It may be predicated of any human agent chosen by God for a

mission, whether an individual or a collectivity."31 From this

perspective, various theories will aid in understanding why the

root of the problem may be that scholars often limit their

search to a single servant.

EXAMPLES OF INDIVIDUALS

The author of Second-Isaiah is one individual that fits the

servant mold. The second and third Songs give the impression

that the author is speaking of himself because they are written

in the first person. Mowinckel initially supported the idea that

the prophet was the servant of all the Songs;32 however,

9

30Mettinger, 45. Some examples will be given later.

31Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40-55, The Anchor Bible, Vol. 19A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2002), 299.

32Rowley, 7. This is in contrast to “servant” in the other servant passages, which he did not believe were speaking of the prophet.

Mowinckel serves as a perfect example of the problem of the

traditional search for one servant. His theories were in

constant flux. Rowley spent five pages detailing the many

theories of Mowinckel and highlighting how often his view

changed.33 Mowinckel eventually decided that Second-Isaiah wrote

the two middle songs himself while others idealized him in the

first and fourth songs.34

Cyrus has also been suggested as the servant. Cyrus as the

servant seems odd based on texts like Isaiah 44:28 and 45:4.

Cyrus is called “my shepherd” (Isa. 44:28) just before a section

about the servant and his mission is “for the sake of my servant

Jacob”35 (Isa. 45:4); however, he is mentioned by name in the

text and undeniable connections exist between Cyrus and the

servant in Isaiah. Blenkinsopp believes the servant of Isaiah 49

sees himself as one who must continue the mission originally

given to Cyrus.36 The second half of Isaiah 42:6, often believed

10

33Rowley, 7-12. The constantly changing views of scholars lends more support for the idea that one specific figure was not intended.

34Rowley, 12. It seems his effort was to maintain a single identity for the servant.

35This is similar to the problem which will be discussed later with Isa. 49:6. Cyrus can’t be the servant and have a mission for the servant. Its hard to understand how he would be considered “Jacob” as the servant is often called. This idea only makes sense if “servant” is a generic label, and not a specific individual.

36Blenkinsopp, Anchor, 306.

to refer to Cyrus as the servant, is identical to sections in

Isaiah 49:6,8.37 Both contain the phrase, “I will give you as a

covenant for the people, a light for the nations” (Isa. 42:6).

Mowinckel saw four connections between Cyrus and the servant.

Cyrus and the servant “were called by name, were called in

righteousness, were called to free the prisoners, and were taken

by the hand by Yahweh.”38 Like others who fit the servant

profile, God used Cyrus to accomplish His will.

The similarities between Jeremiah and the anonymous servant

of Isaiah 49 cause some to suggest that he is the servant.39

Story presents six similarities: They both were called before

birth (Isa. 49:1; Jer. 1:5), were equipped with the same tools

(Isa. 49:2; Jer. 1.9, 18), offered the same complaint (Isa.

49:4; Jer. 1:6), received similar exhortation (Isa. 49:708; Jer

1:14-19), and a similar mission (Isa. 49:6; Jer 1:14-20).40

Blenkinsop suggests that the calling (Isa. 49:1) fits a “type-

11

37Blenkinsopp, Anchor, 301-02.

38Rowley, 28-29. Mowinckel believed, “to Cyrus was assigned the political and to the Servant the spiritual side of the mission.”

39Neubauer, 43. Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra discusses Jeremiah’s connection to the text; Childs, 383.

40Story, 105. The list seems fairly common, but Story presents it in a concise way; for example, see Childs similar comments on the issue; Childs, 383.

scene of prophetic commissioning.”41 Not only does Isaiah 44:1-2

use the same terminology for Israel, but the apostle Paul speaks

of being “set apart before I was born” (Gal 1:15).42 Is this text

meant to point us to Jeremiah, or does it merely show that God’s

workers tend to fit the persona of Isaiah’s servant? Paul

directly quotes Isaiah 49:8 and makes general application of

Isaiah 49 to himself in his defense of his apostleship.43 Since

he quotes Isaiah 49 again in Acts 13:47 Paul certainly felt

comfortable applying Isaiah’s servant passages to later

generations.

Ginsberg proposes the wise men of Daniel 11-12 as the

fulfillment of the suffering servant.44 He goes so far as to

claim “there is no doubt about it.”45 There are a few textual

matters that tie the wise men to the servant. First, both are

12

41Blenkinsopp, 300; Childs, 383. Childs points to the idea that it has more to do with the “office of a prophet,” rather than a specific prophet like Jeremiah. Both of these views fit nicely with each other and the focus of this paper.

42Blenkinsopp, 300.

43Story, 106.

44H. L. Ginsberg, "The Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering Servant," Vetus Testamentum 3 (1953):402-403.

45Ginsberg, 402

said to “justify the many.”46 Ginsberg responds to the criticism

that the wise men are never called “servants” by point to Isaiah

52:13 in which he believes the servant could be called “the Wise

One.”47 The wise men of Daniel 11-12 have a strong connection to

Isaiah’s servant.

Cooper drafted an impressive essay detailing Rabbi

Ashkenazi’s theory that Job was the suffering servant.48 He

presents Ashkenazi’s list of 18 similarities between Job and the

servant of the fourth Song.49 The connection between passages

like Job 2:12; 21:5 and Isaiah 52:14 is clear. It has been

suggested, because of the order of Ezekiel’s listing of Noah,

Daniel, and Job (Ezek. 14:14,20), that Job was a post-exilic

figure coming after the time of Daniel.50 This would fit the

historical dimensions of Second-Isaiah discussed earlier. Others

13

46Ginsberg, 402. He suggests that “justifiers of the many” is a good translation of Daniel 12:3. He notes that others have made this connection, but none have gone as far as him to say that Daniel saw the wise men as the fulfillment of Isaiah 53.

47Ginsberg, 403.

48Alan Cooper, “The Suffering Servant and Job: A View From the Sixteenth Century,” in ”As Those Who Are Taught”: The Interpretation of Isaiah From the LXX to the SBL, ed. by Claire Mathews McGinnis and Patricia K. Tull, 189-200. Symposium Series, Vol. 27, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006.

49Cooper, 195-196.

50Cooper, 194. Cooper appears to accept Ashkenazi’s idea about the ordering of the three men in Ezekiel 14:14,20.

have suggested that Job was merely a figure created to fit the

servant role.51

Jesus of Nazareth is traditionally viewed as the

fulfillment of the servant passages. There is no doubt that the

New Testament interprets Jesus as a fulfillment of the servant

(1 Pet 2:21-24). From the Christian perspective it is difficult

not to see Jesus within the text of Isaiah 53. The Messianic

concept was present by the second-temple period. Targum Isaiah

reads “behold, my servant, the Anointed One (or, the Messiah),

shall prosper; he shall be exalted, and increase, and be very

strong" (Tg. Isa. 52:13). Story holds that no one other than

Jesus can be the fulfillment of Isaiah 53. He concludes that the

unparalleled description of suffering and substitutionary death

cannot sufficiently fit any other figure in history.52

GROUP THEORIES

Two basic group theories exist. Either the servant is all

Israel or it is the righteous remnant of Israel.53 The remnant

14

51Cooper, 193

52Story, 107-110. He claims Second-Isaiah realized the need for such a servant and predicted his coming, but did not realize how distant the coming of this servant would be.

53Bryan E. Beyer, Encountering the Book of Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 210. Beyer provides a short section on both theories.

theory would not match well with the blind and deaf servant of

Isaiah 42:18-20. If the first and fourth songs are interpreted

as groups, the whole nation of Israel theory would not fit this

interpretation since part of the servants job was to “open the

eyes that are blind” (Isa. 42:7). It is important to see that

both group theories fit certain aspects of the servant persona.

This further illustrates that seeking a single answer to the

question of identity is misguided.

The Servant Songs have been interpreted by some as

corporate rather than individual. Mettinger attempts to

discredit the position that Isaiah 49 is clearly about an

individual servant. He first argues that “Israel” in verse three

is a clue of the servants corporate nature.54 Next, he argues

that the LORD is the subject of the infinitives in verses five

and six. This is an attempt to undermine the complication of the

servant having a mission unto himself.55

The first and fourth Songs(Isa. 40:1-4; 52:13-53:12) are in

the third person, while the two middle Songs (Isa.49:1-6;

15

54Mettinger, 32-33. He stays away from the discussion of meter. Rowley and Orlinsky take opposing positions on the importance of “Israel” to the meter of the text. Some try to remove “Israel,” but only one manuscript can be found without it.

55Mettinger, 35-36; Eissfeldt, 266. Eissfeldt disagrees with this position. He admits the grammar is possible, but does not think making the Lord the subject is supported by context.

50:4-9) are in the first person. Mettinger encourages that

reading the Servant Songs together will reveal how dissimilar

they actually are.56 He then makes a strong case that the Songs

show great similarity to the other servant passages in Second-

Isaiah, which are often accepted as Israel.57 Mettinger claims

that Duhm’s theory permitted scholars to neglect the full

context of Second-Isaiah when searching for the identity of the

servant. He concludes, “Duhm's theory about the 'Servant Songs'

has crippled the study of Isaiah 40-55 and rendered it a

deplorable casualty of decades of misguided scholarly efforts.”58

Mettinger believes taking the servant texts as a whole, rather

than in arbitrary divisions, will reveal Israel as the servant,

not an individual.59

With obvious sarcasm and disdain, He speaks of individual

theories as an injustice to the context.60 Mettinger’s work is

beneficial in many ways, but in this respect his perspective

seems as misguided as Duhm’s. He quips, “It has quite

appropriately been remarked that while only the truth is simple,

16

56Mettinger, 16.

57Mettinger, 29-46. He shows in detail similarities in vocabulary and phrases throughout all the servant passages in Second-Isaiah; Rowley, 8.

58Mettinger, 46.

59Mettinger, 30, 43-44.

60Mettinger, 45.

‘...error, however, leaves a thousand pathways open.’”61 The

stated principle may be true, but the idea that many figures,

including Israel, fit the servant persona is just as simple as

Mettinger’s position that Israel is the servant.

Cullen Story offers a compelling and contextually pleasing

interpretation of Isaiah 40-55 in which the servant takes new

forms throughout the text. He suggests three servants fulfilling

separate roles. “One servant (Israel) is in need of redemption,

One servant (Second Isaiah) proclaims redemption, One servant

(the Messiah) procures redemption.”62 He proceeds to build his

interpretation around this paradigm.

More could be said of the individual and group theories,

but the intent is not to give every theory in detail, but to

show how most of them are legitimate. Whybray agrees, "the

author described the Servant in such a bewildering assortment of

images that many different interpretations can each find its own

textual support."63

17

61Mettinger, 46.

62Story, 105.

63R. N. Whybray, The Second Isaiah, (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983), 69.

FLUID THEORY

Fluid theories are based upon the ancient concept of

personality. Robinson’s “The Hebrew Conception of Corporate

Personality” discusses "the fluidity of reference, facilitating

rapid and unmarked transitions from the one to the many, and

from the many to the one."64 This is a literary phenomenon that

has little comparison in our day. The idea is that the nation of

Israel and an individual servant could be under discussion in

one text. Prior to Robinson, Cook’s 1925 article stated,

Hence it is reasonable to regard the conception of the Servant as, on the whole, a fluid one; it is neither necessarily limited in its application, nor confined in its reference solely to past events or to ideals for the future.65

Robinson and Cook allow for a great deal of flexibility and do

not demand a specific individual or group identity for the

servant. Robinson’s “corporate personality” is often used, as it

is by Mettinger66, to support the idea that the servant was

corporate despite the first person singular references; however,

there is no reason why Robinson’s concept cannot support the

thesis of this paper. The servant is not limited to one person

!

18

64H. Wheeler Robinson, “The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality.” In Werden Und Wesen Des Alten Testaments (Berlin: A. Töpelmann, 1936): 50.

65Cook, 493.

66Mettinger, 35.

or group. It is not even limited to those in the immediate

sixth-century setting. The servant persona seems designed to

fit multiple figures. Whybray states, "Some scholars (e.g.

Westermann, Clines) consider that the imprecision of the

outlines of the figure is deliberate, and that no simple

identification was ever intended."67

CONCLUSIONS

A work of this length feels entirely insufficient to fully

discuss issues about the servant’s identity, but the goal is to

present a logical understanding of the servant amidst the fog of

scholarly writing on the subject. Berges’ article indicates that

modern scholarship is moving in the general direction presented

in this paper. Berges says, “Certainly then what is at stake is

not a discussion about the collective or individual identity but

about collective and individual identity.”68 There is no reason

why individual and corporate fulfillments of the servant persona

should be a threat to each other. Many of these position show

valid connections to the servant without having to deny the

connections by other individuals or groups. While it is a

19

67Whybray, 69.

68Berges, 37.

reality that many figures fit the servant persona in Isaiah, it

is the search for one specific servant that is flawed.

20

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boadt, Lawrence. “Isaiah.” in Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction. Paulist Press, 1984.

Berges, Ulrich. "The Literary Construction of the Servant in Isaiah 40-55: A Discussion About Individual and Collective Identities." Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 24 (2010): 28-38.

Beyer, Bryan E. Encountering the Book of Isaiah. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 40-55. The Anchor Bible, Vol. 19A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2002.

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Opening the Sealed Book: Interpretations of the Book of Isaiah in Late Antiquity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

Bratcher, Dennis. "The Unity and Authorship of Isaiah: A Needless Battle," CRI/Voice Institute, http:// www.crivoice.org/isaiahunity.html (accessed November 1, 2011).

Brueggemann, Walter. "Isaiah" in An Introduction to the Old Testament. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003.

Childs, Brevard S. Isaiah. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001.

Clines, David J. A. I, He, We, and They: A Literary Approach to Isaiah 53. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1976.

Cook, S. A. "The Prophet of Israel." in Cambridge Ancient History Vol. 3 (Cambrige: University Press, 1925), 458-500.

Cooper, Alan. “The Suffering Servant and Job: A View From the Sixteenth Century.” In ”As Those Who Are Taught”: The Interpretation of Isaiah From the LXX to the SBL, edited by Claire Mathews McGinnis and Patricia K. Tull, 189-200. Symposium Series, Vol. 27. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006.

!

21

Eissfeldt, Otto. “The Ebed-Jahwe in Isaiah 40-55 in the Light of the Israelite Conception of the Community and the Individual, the Ideal and the Real.” Expository Times 44 (October 1932-September 1933): 261-268.

Gertel, Elliot B. “Isaiah Fifty-Three: A Test of Jewish Education.” Conservative Judaism 45 (Summer 1993): 38-49.

Ginsberg, H. L. "The Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering Servant." Vetus Testamentum 3 (1953): 400-404.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001.

The Isaiah Targum. Edited and translated by J. F. Stenning. London: Oxford University Press, 1953.

Kapelrud, Arvid, S. “The Main Concern of Second Isaiah.” Vetus Testamentum XXXII, (1982): 50-58.

Longman, Tremper, and Raymond Dillard. “Isaiah.” in An Introduction to the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.

Mettinger, Tryggne N. D. A Farewell to the Servant Songs. Translated by Frederick H. Cryer. Lund, Sweden: LiberForlag, 1983.

Neubauer, A., and S. R. Driver. The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters. ed. Harry M. Orlinsky, Vol. 2. New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1969.

North, C. R. "Servant of the LORD." in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, edited by George A. Buttrick, Vol. 4 (New York: Abingdon Press, 1962), 292-294.

Orlinsky, H. M. “The So Called ‘Servant of the Lord’ and ‘Suffering Servant’ in Second Isaiah.” in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum. Vol. 14 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967): 1-133.

Rendtorff, Rolf. “The Book of Isaiah: A Complex Unity Synchronic and Diachronic Reading.” Society of Biblical Literature 1991 Seminar Papers, 8-20.

22

!

Robinson, H. Wheeler. Inspiration and Revelation in the Old Testament. London: Oxford University Press, 1946.

Robinson, H. Wheeler. “The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality.” In Werden Und Wesen Des Alten Testaments (Berlin: A. Töpelmann, 1936): 49-62.

Rogerson, J. W. “The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality: A Re-examination.” Journal of Theological Studies 21 (1970): 1-16

Rowley, H. H. The Servant of the Lord. 2nd Ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965.

Seitz, Christopher R. “‘You Are My Servant, You Are the Israel in Whom I will be Glorified:’ The Servant Songs and the Effect of Literary Context in Isaiah.” Calvin Theological Journal 39 (2004): 117-134.

Story, Cullen. "Another Look at the Fourth Servant Song of Second-Isaiah." Horizons in Biblical Theology 31 (2009): 100-110.

Sweeney, Marvin A. “On the Road to Duhm: Isaiah in Nineteenth-Century Critical Scholarship.” In ”As Those Who Are Taught”: The Interpretation of Isaiah From the LXX to the SBL, edited by Claire Mathews McGinnis and Patricia K. Tull, 243-261. Symposium Series, Vol. 27. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006.

Whybray, R. N. The Second Isaiah. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983

Wilcox, Peter, and David Paton-Williams. “The Servant Songs in Deutero-Isaiah.” Journal For the Study of the Old Testament 42 (1988): 79-102.

Young, E. J. The Book of Isaiah, Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.

23

!