Two of today’s readings underscore Jesus’ identity as the Servant Messiah depicted by Isaiah.  The first reading, Isaiah 50:5-9a, and the Gospel reading, Mark 8:27-35 on Peter’s confession of faith, allude to the narratively unified corpus of Isaian passages on the Servant Messiah, and more specifically to the suffering and death of this anointed one depicted in Isaiah 50 and especially 53.  Arguably, these Isaian passages are unified because Isa 61:1-3—a passage about the anointed one upon whom is the Spirit of the Lord YHWH—is a compound of Isa 11:2 (from a specifically Davidic context), 42:1, 49:8-9, and 50:4.  Isa 61:1-3 fulfills the promises made in these passages, as well as other Davidic promises made in Isa 9 and 55.  For this reason, among others, the Isaian narrative intimates that the Servant of YHWH is the Davidic Messiah.

Jesus’ personal identification with the fulfillment of these Isaian prophecies of Davidic messianic kingship highlights a historical trajectory represented in the two readings—that of the Isaian Servant Messiah.  This diverged from and contrasted with the previous dominant trajectory within Second Temple Jewish messianism of diversified expectation which posited two messiahs—one kingly and one priestly.

At least three factors produced the single Davidic messianic expectation during the Roman-Herodian period (75 B.C.-68 A.D.).  The first is the expectation of a Davidic warrior king, found in such documents as the War Rule (4Q285), Psalms of Solomon, the Son of God fragment (4Q246), and the Book of Isaiah.  The second is the expectation of a Davidic Servant Messiah, as portrayed in the Book of Isaiah.  Aspects of this Servant Messiah are reflected in the Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521), 11QMelch (11Q13), the New Testament, and perhaps early traditions in the formation of the Book of the Similitudes.    A third factor are the social/political features of the Hasmonean royalty despoiling the Davidic throne (104-76 B.C.) combined with the Roman conquest of Pompey (63 B.C.) and its desecration of the Holy of Holies.  These factors that produced the single Davidic messianic expectation also overlap and may relate to each other.  They further galvanized and strengthened anticipation of a great Davidic messiah king.

A modern exegetical issue relevant to interpretation of Isaiah is authorship.  Much of good, contemporary scholarship assumes at least deutero- or trito-Isaian authorship.  However, several notable scholars opt for a single Isaian authorship.  Reasons for this, that at least engage serious thought and reflection on the matter, are the following.  First, in the first century A.D., the tradition of belief in single authorship of Isaiah had long been established.  The Book of Sirach, written in the early second century B.C., attests to this belief.  Sirach 48:22-25 consists of contents that reflect a unified continuum throughout the two most distinct movements of the Isaian narrative (Isa 1-39 and Isa 40-66).

Second, the Qumran Scroll of the entire Book of Isaiah, sometimes known as the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll, dates to about 125 B.C.  The Scroll reflects no break or indentation between chapters 39 and 40, and the manuscript is a copy as well.  Taking the evidence of Sirach and the Isaian Scroll together, we may assert that in the third century B.C. a single Isaian authorship tradition was well established, and that the Book of Isaiah existed at that time in the same form as we have today.

Third, the first century presented no other name but Isaiah, son of Amoz, attached to this book.  Moreover, although Isa 40-66—so delineated by modern convention—was one of the most common prophetic pieces appropriated and interpreted in the first century, no “second” or “third” Isaiah was ever identified.

Notwithstanding, apart from various contemporary views on Isaian authorship, first century interpreters, such as the Evangelists, viewed Isaiah as a unified prophetic piece.  They understood key passages throughout it—such as on the Servant and the Davidic Messiah—as related to each other and inspired by the same prophetic Spirit.  This unitive Isaian perspective helps us to clarify the New Testament depiction of Jesus’ messianic identity with greater precision and depth.  (Some of the reflections in this post I also have presented in my dissertation, The Septuagintal Isaian Use of Nomos in the Lukan Presentation Narrative, published by ProQuest.)

Mark Koehne teaches moral theology for Saint Joseph’s College.